UN Condemns Gadhafi’s Jihad on Switzerland

By Nykoel Dinardo
Senior Desk Officer, Middle East

Geneva, Switzerland – The United Nations (UN) responded to Libya’s Moammer Gadhafi on Friday, February 26, stating that his call for jihad against Switzerland is “truly absurd.”  Colonel Gadhafi announced the day before that the nation of Libya was in a holy war with Switzerland, after the European country passed a law banning minarets, a tower from which the call to prayer is announced from a mosque.  

Although there are only four minarets in all of Switzerland, the minaret-banning law was passed by the Swiss government in December of 2009.  It has been the subject of

A poster used to advertise the anti-minaret law.
A poster used to advertise the anti-minaret law.

controversy since it was brought before the Swiss Parliament.  The Swiss People’s Party (SPP) proposed the law, claiming that minarets were a sign of Islamisation and publicized the law using posters depicting minarets as missiles, which were considered by many to be inflamatory.  Although the Swiss federal government encouraged the people not to vote for the law, stating that it could violate the concepts of freedom of religion and human rights, the law passed by 57.5 percent.  Since its passage, a claim has been brought before the European Court of Human Rights, and there has been increased fear of retaliation by extremists.   

Gadhafi’s jihad is the latest response to the law.  Gadhafi announced the jihad in a speech on February 25, claiming that Switzerland is an “obscene, infidel state.”  He went on, saying that “those who destroy God’s mosques deserve to be attacked through jihad, and if Switzerland was on [Libya’s] borders, [they] would fight it.”  Gadhafi made this announcement on a holiday marking the birth of the Prophet Muhammad.

A Swiss sociologist, who has written extensively on Gadhafi, has argued that Gadhafi’s claims should be taken seriously – stating that his choice to announce the jihad on the holiday was intended to incite extremists.   Despite these claims, Swiss lawmaker Oskar Freysinger told the Associated Press that “[he] can imagine this won’t be taken very seriously.”  Switzerland has issued no security alerts or taken any actions of heightened vigilence.  Furthermore, there has been speculation that Gadhafi’s jihad is a personal attack.  Gadhafi is known to hold a grudge against Switzerland since July 2008, when his son Hannibal Ghadafi and his son’s wife were arrested by the Swiss on charges on assaulting their maid.

The UN headquarters in Geneva responded to the announcement by condemning Ghadafi’s actions.  Sergei Ordzhonikidze, the UN Chief in Geneva, explained that “such declarations on the part of a head of state are inadmissible in international relations.” 

For more information, please see:

 TIME – Gaddafi vs. Switzerland: The Leader’s Son on What’s Behind the Feud – 27 February 2010

Swiss Info – Swiss Thank Europe for Solidarity in Libya Row – 27 February 2010

Associated Press – Swiss Face “Holy War” with Gadhafi’s Libya – 26 February 2010

BBC – UN Deplores Gaddafi Call for Anti-Swiss ‘Jihad’ – 26 February 2010

The New York Times – Switzerland Unruffled by Qaddafi’s Call for ‘Jihad’ in Wake of Its Ban on New Minarets – 26 February 2010

BBC – Swiss Minaret Appeal Goes to European Court – 16 December 2009

Nauru Votes Against Proposed Amendments to Its Constitution

By Cindy Trinh
Impunity Watch Reporter, Oceania

NAURU, Yaren – The people of Nauru voted against the proposed amendments to the country’s constitution. The proposed changes was called the Constitution of Nauru Referendum Amendments Bill.

The Constitution of Nauru was written before its independence in 1968. In the last 6 years, the Nauru government began the process of constitutional reform.

The process included years of discussion and negotiation. Supporters of reform hoped that it would end the “volatile nature of Nauru politics.”

Advocates for the proposed changes to the Constitution state that the changes were designed to improve the “transparency and accountability of public institutions, and to make the Constitution more relevant to the Nauruan people.”

The Bill sought to strengthen human rights, change the way the President was elected, and clarify the roles of the President and Cabinet to provide stronger mechanisms for ensuring stability and continuity of the government.

In the referendum on Saturday, February 27, 2010, Nauruans were asked to vote for or against the constitutional amendments, including giving themselves the power to vote for the country’s President, removing it from the members of Parliament.

But 2/3 of the votes were opposed to the changes, and the referendum will not be adopted.

The government says nearly 3,000 votes out of the approximate 4,400 casted in the referendum opposed the 34 proposed changes.

As in a general election, polling booths were stationed in all 14 districts around the island.

For more information, please see:
Asia Pacific News – Changes to Nauru’s constitution rejected at referendum – 28 February 2010

Australia Network News – Changes to Nauru’s constitution rejected at referendum – 28 February 2010

Radio New Zealand International – Nauruans vote against proposed Constitutional amendments – 28 February 2010

Venezuela Denies OAS Human Rights Findings

By Sovereign Hager

Impunity Watch Reporter, South America

Venezuela Ombudsman Ramirez, pictured above, accused the OAS of lacking impartiality.
Venezuela Ombudsman Ramirez, pictured above, accused the OAS of lacking impartiality. (Photo Courtesy of AP)

CARACAS, Venezuela- Venezuela is strongly denying the findings of a new report on human rights from the Organization of American States. The report was released earlier this week by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and made findings that the Venezuelan government often intimidates or punishes citizens based on their political affiliation. The Venezuelan government claims that the Commission distorted statistics to construct a pattern of political repression that does not actually exist.

The report was compiled by seventy-five jurists and rights activists from Antigua, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, El Salvador, and the United States. The report specifically finds that democracy is in danger in Venezuela because the state punishes critics, including anti-government television stations, demonstrators, and opposition politicians who advocate an alternative form of government.

The report also states that “the commission considers alarming the number of cases of extra-judicial execution; torture; forced disappearances; death threats; abuse of authority; and cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment meted out by agents of the Venezuelan state.” Human rights workers and journalists were among those most affected by the “pattern of impunity.”

Venezuelan Ombudswoman Gabriela Ramirez told members of the press that the report “attempts once again to discredit and weaken the democratic institutions of the state.” She further criticised the OAS for a lack of impartiality demonstrated by taking statistics out of context and using others selectively. Ramirez maintains that the data actually shows that human rights violations have decreased in Venezuela.

The report acknowledges that the Chavez government has observed citizens’ economic, social, and cultural rights. However, the commission “emphasizes that observance of other fundamental rights cannot be sacrificed for the sake of realizing economic, social, and cultural rights in Venezuela.”

For more information, please see:

AP-Chavez Rejects Report Citing Human Rights Violations-26 February 2010

CNN-Venezuelan Official Disputes Report on Human Rights Abuses-25 February 2010

Washington Post-OAS Report Criticizes Venezuela-25 February 2010

Organization of American States-IACHR Publishes Report on Venezuela– 24 February 2010

Immigration Judge Bribed Refugee for Sex

By William Miller

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

TORONTO, Canada – Steve Ellis an immigration judge in Canada is on trial for offering to approve a refugee claimant’s application if she would have sex with him. Ji Hye Kim, the refugee claimant said Ellis told her he would only approve her application if she would have an intimate relationship with him at a coffee shop where Kim worked.

Ellis was the adjudicator who reviewed Kim’s application when she applied in 2006. She was seeking asylum to escape her abusive father and creditors who had threatened her in South Korea. While Ellis was adjudicating Kim’s case he approached her at the coffee shop where she worked and asked her if he could meet her privately to discuss her case.

Brad Tripp, now Kim’s husband was suspicious when she told him about the judge’s request. At Tripp’s suggestion, Kim agreed to carry a concealed digital recorder to the meeting. Tripp also filmed her encounter with Ellis from a distance. While testifying at Ellis’s trial, Tripp said “I felt that we needed to record this meeting to protect Ji Hye’s rights to a fair hearing.”

At the meeting Ellis told her that he was going to reject her application but would be willing to reconsider if Kim agreed to have a casual intimate relationship with him. He also told her that he was married and did not want any commitment from her.

Speaking through an interpreter Kim said “Mr. Ellis had the power to decide about my application of refugee claim. I had to kind of decide between the status of my refugee claim and the relationship between Mr. Ellis and me.”

Ellis was a Toronto City Councilor before being appointed to the Immigration and Refugee Board in 2000.  He is also a non-practicing attorney. He is currently out on bail and has been suspended from his job at the Immigration and Refugee Board

For more information, please see:

Toronto Star – Boyfriend Devised Plan to Film Refugee Judge – 25 February 2010

AFP – Canadian Judge Accused of Seeking Sex From Refugee – 23 February 2010

Canadian Press – Adjudicator Accused of Sex Bribery Seen on Video Meeting With Refugee Claimant – 23 February 2010

Demonstrators Protest Possible Legislation Protecting Berlusconi from Prosecution

By Elizabeth A. Conger
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe Desk

ROME, Italy – On Saturday, tens of thousands of Italians gathered to demonstrate against Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, and his perceived attempts to evade prosecution. Legislation is currently being discussed in the Italian Parliament which would, in effect, prevent Berlusconi from going to trial. Protesters, accusing the Italian Prime Minister of seeking to undermine the legal system, marched through the streets carrying banners reading: “Enough, the law is the same for everyone.”

Demonstrators at a rally against Berlusconi on February 27, 2010. The sign reads: Berlusconi - small man, big corruptor. [Source: AP]

Berlusconi, on trial in two corruption cases, says that he is the victim of political persecution, and has recently compared the judiciary to the Taliban. On Friday, he said to a crowd in Turin: “If the prosecutors don’t like a law then they challenge it and it gets rejected by the courts…we are in the hands of this band of Taliban.”

The Italian National Association of Magistrates responded by condemning Berlusconi’s speech as “an intolerable escalation of insults and aggression.”

Angelo Bonelli, head of the Italian Green Party, said: “We are starved of legality…today, the real Taliban is Berlusconi who wants to tie the hands of the magistrates.”

Berlusconi, a former media tycoon, is currently on trial for allegedly paying British attorney David Mills $600,000 to provide false testimony during the 1990’s, and for alleged tax fraud. Mills was Berlusconi’s former tax attorney. On Thursday the Supreme Court in Rome ruled that even though Mills was found guilty last year of taking the bribe and sentenced to four and a half years in prison, the case should be dropped because it had timed out under the ten year statute of limitations.

On Saturday, a court in Milan adjourned Berlusconi’s trial until March 26. Berlusconi’s attorneys requested that the trial be suspended further until details on the Mills ruling were published. It is customary for Italian courts to delay publishing such judgements until two or three months after the cases are finished. The judges refused to delay further, saying: “the trial cannot be suspended for an undetermined amount of time.”

Italian law places a ten-year limit for prosecution of judiciary corruption crimes. The terms for Berlusconi’s trial are set to expire in early 2011.

For more information, please see:

AP – Berlusconi trial adjourned for a month – 27 February 2010

BBC – Silvio Berlusconi ‘avoiding justice’, demonstrators say – 27 February 2010

Telegraph – Court Insists Silvio Berlusconi’s bribery trial continue next month – 27 February 2010

BBC – Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi attacks ‘Taliban’ judiciary – 26 February 2010