Sudanese Government to Sign Formal Peace Deal with Darfur Rebels

By Jennifer M. Haralambides
Impunity Watch Reporter, Africa

KHARTOUM, Sudan – Sudan government has signed the beginning of a ceasefire agreement with one of the main rebel factions in the volatile Darfur region.

The Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) agreed to sign the deal which includes a framework for further talks and for the cancellation of death sentences for around 100 figures.  When the conflict in Darfur began in 2003  there were two major rebel groups, the JEM and the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA).

This agreement is seen as an important step toward peace even though one of the SLA has not entered into the talks.   The framework agreement will hopefully be formally be signed on Tuesday in Doha, Qatar.  The deadline for signing this final agreement is March 15.

Jem rebels are involved in negotiations with the government

“Today we signed an agreement between the government and JEM in Ndjamena, and in Ndjamena we heal the war in Darfur,” Said President al-Bashir during a speech on aired on state television.

According to JEM spokesman and aid to Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, this agreement starts with an immediate ceasefire, but is not a permanent peace accord.   It includes a framework for further talks where issues such as the sharing of power and wealth, and the return of internally displaced people and refugees will be discussed.

“it is a significant step for peace in Darfur . . . . It is a considerable achievement for both parties,” said JEM spokesman Ahmed Hussein.

The Sudanese official in charge of the Darfur peace process, Ghazi Saleh al-Din, said other groups will hopefully also be included.

“It does not exclude other movements.  I think we can try to emulate the agreement which we signed with JEM and try to speed up the process so that we can try to a final agreement as soon as possible,” he said.

Although the seven-year war between forces loyal to the government and rebels in Darfur has lost steam in recent years, the United Nations estimates over 300,000 deaths throughout the worst years of the conflict.    Roughly 2.5 million people are still displaced.

For more information, please see:

BBC – Key Darfur Rebels Sign Ceasefire Deal – 21 February 2010

CNN – Sudanese Government to Sign Formal Peace Deal with Darfur Rebel – 21 February 2010

Sudan Tribune – Sudan, JEM to Sign Darfur Peace Deal Within Three Weeks – Official – 21 February 2010

The New York Times – Darfur Rebels Agree to Truce With Sudan – 20 February 2010

Chinese Schools Deny Hacking

By Hyo-Jin Paik
Impunity Watch Reporter, Asia

SHANGHAI, China– Recent cyberattacks against American companies, including Google, has been linked to two prominent schools in China, Shanghai Jiaotong University and Lanxiang Vocational School.

Jiaotong is known to have one of China’s top computer science programs where a few weeks ago, Jiaotong students came out first in an international computer programming competition sponsored by I.B.M.

Lanxiang is a school that runs with military support and trains China’s computer scientists for the military.

Google had announced last week that some of its computer codes were stolen and that digital thieves had attempted to break into the accounts of human rights activists who oppose China’s policies.

In response to the cyberattack, Google confronted the Chinese government regarding its censorship policies where the government blocks politically and culturally-sensitive subject matters from search results in the country.

In China, controlling the web world is considered a matter of state security and although Beijing promotes Internet use for commerce, the government heavily censors materials it considers subversive.

However, the Chinese government had released a statement back in January claiming that their anti-hacking policy is transparent and has denied any involvement in the recent online attacks.

Nevertheless, a professor from Jiaotong’s School of Information Security Engineering who wished to remain anonymous said, “I’m not surprised.  Actually students hacking into foreign Web sites is quite normal.”

Conversely, a school official from Lanxiang said, “I think it’s impossible for our students to hack Google or other U.S. companies because they are just high school graduates and not at an advanced level.  Also, because our school adopts close management, outsiders cannot easily come into school.”

Google’s accusations against China regarding the cyberattacks have created a sensitive issue for the U.S. government in dealing with China. 

After Google went public with the accusations, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton challenged China’s Internet censorship, calling Chinese government control over the Internet an “information-age Berlin Wall.”
For more information, please see:

ABC – Schools in China Say They Weren’t Behind Hacking – 20 February 2010

FOX News – Cyberattacks Traced to Computers in Chinese Schools – 19 February 2010

NYT – 2 China Schools Said to Be Tied to Online Attacks – 18 February 2010

Lawyers Exercised Poor Judgment in Torture Memos

By Stephen Kopko

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON D.C., United States – The United States Department of Justice released a report on Friday regarding the conduct of two Bush administration lawyers during the War on Terror.  The lawyers, Jay Bybee and John Yoo, wrote legal memoranda arguing for the use of certain interrogation techniques by U.S. intelligence officials.  While the report questioned their reasoning, it stated that the lawyers should not face any disciplinary action.

Jay Bybee was the head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel and Yoo was his deputy during the beginning of the War on Terror.  They wrote legal memoranda authorizing the use of certain interrogation tactics such as water boarding.  The memos also stated that the President may not follow laws prohibiting torture. They argued that those who used the interrogation tactics be shielded from prosecution. The substance of the memos was discovered in 2004 and caused a stir among many elected officials in Washington D.C. Many investigations began in 2004 examining the legal reasoning used in the memos.

The Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility originally found Bybee and Yoo did not follow past precedents against torture and gave poor legal advice.  It found that the lawyers engaged in “professional misconduct.”  The ethics report also stated that the lawyers were pressured by Bush Administration officials to find legal authority allowing for the use of the interrogation techniques.

Despite the findings of the Office of Professional Responsibility, the Justice Department determined that Bybee and Yoo did not engage in professional misconduct but exercised poor judgment.  The report, written by Associate Deputy Attorney General David Margolis, stated that the lawyers were under pressure at the time they wrote the memos.  The pressure affected their judgment and legal analysis.  However, their actions did not amount to professional misconduct and disciplinary sanctions and proceedings should not be pursued against them for exercising poor judgment.

The report was sent to both the House of Representatives and the Senate.  House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers stated that the report shows that the Bush Administration curtailed domestic and international law in allowing torture.  The same sentiment was echoed by Chairman Patrick Leahy of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Currently, Bybee is a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  Yoo is a professor of law at the University of California, Berkley.

For more information, please see:

Wall Street Journal – Lawyers Cleared Over 9/11 Memos – 20 February 2010

MSNBC – No misconduct by interrogation lawyers – 19 February 2010

NY Times – Justice Department Report Finds John Yoo and Jay Bybee Not Guilty of Misconduct – 19 February 2010

Amnesty Says Australia Must Establish Human Rights Act

By Eileen Gould
Impunity Watch Reporter, Oceania

CANBERRA, Australia – Amnesty International recently expressed disappointment over Australia’s failure to introduce human rights legislation.

Amnesty stated that it is “high time for the Government to clarify its intentions with regard to protecting human rights in this country.”

Last October, Australia’s Attorney General, Robert McClelland commenced a consultation process, whereby the National Human Rights Consultation Committee advised the Government that it should adopt a Human Rights Act.  For months, the federal government has not indicated whether or not it plans to establish a human rights charter.

Amnesty International claims that Australia has breached its international obligations by not providing adequate protection of human rights.  Australia must adopt an act which reflects its international legal obligations.

Claire Mallinson, Amnesty International Australia’ National Director, stated, “It’s not good enough to commit to these international treaties and disregard them inside Australia.”

Furthermore, Amnesty representatives believe that if Australia wants to be a leader in the global community on human rights issues, it must show leadership in such issues domestically.

Those who oppose a human rights charter believe it will give unelected judges too much authority.  Opponents have urged the cabinet not to institute a charter.

29,153 individuals out of a total of 35,014 who participated in the nationwide consultation process believed there should be a Human Rights Act.  In a separate poll conducted in 2009 by Amnesty International, 81 percent of the participants also believed Australia should introduce human rights legislation.

Amnesty International Australia claims it is the Attorney General’s responsibility to ensure that the Government complies with its international law and to protect the human rights of all.

The Attorney General has not responded to Amnesty International’s claims.

To date, Australia is the only western democracy who has yet to establish a charter of human rights.

For more information please see:
Anglican Media Melbourne – Amnesty International: Australian Government must show leadership by introducing a Human Rights Act – 19 February 2010

Amnesty International  Australia – Government must show leadership by introducing a Human Rights Act – 18 February 2010

Sydney Morning Herald – Rudd govt mum on rights charter report – 18 February 2010

Reforms Passed to Tackle Tremendous Backlog at the European Court of Human Rights

By Elizabeth A. Conger
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

The European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg, France [Source: AP]
The European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg, France - Source: AP
INTERLAKEN, Switzerland – The Council of Europe has announced plans to streamline procedures at the European Court of Human Rights. The reforms, designed to alleviate the court’s current backlog of 120,000 cases, were agreed upon by ministers from the Council of Europe’s forty seven member states at a meeting in Interlaken on Friday.

Embodied in Protocol 14, the reforms allow for one judge, rather than three, to decide on a case’s admissibility. Furthermore, cases similar to those previously brought before the court will be decided by a three-judge panel, rather than the original seven-member panel. Judges will be able to strike off the record those cases with similarities to those already decided, and reject those cases where the applicant has suffered no “significant disadvantage.” Protocol 14’s reforms will also allow the Committee of Ministers, charged with supervision of the enforcement of judgments, to work more effectively in ensuring that national governments enforce compliance with court decisions.

Judgments at the Court of Human Rights have taken an average of six years or more. Without reform, it is estimated that the current backlog in cases would remain on the docket until 2056.

More than 27,000 of the pending cases originate in Russia, and deal primarily with alleged abuses by Russian security forces in Chechnya involving extra-judicial killings, torture, disappearances, and dismal prison conditions. Russia had initially resisted the reforms, viewing the court as anti-Russian. However, Russia finally agreed to the reforms in January after the Council of Europe agreed to a provision stating that a Russian judge would participate in any decisions about Russia.

Initially created in 1959 as a court of last resort for Europeans who believed that their fundamental rights had been infringed in their home country, the European Court of Human Rights underwent reform on November 1, 1998.  The reform of the court established it as a full time entity, and allowed for the hiring of full-time judges. Most of cases in recent years have come from Russia, Turkey, Ukraine and Romania. It has delivered more than 10,000 judgments since 1998, and has handled a wide array of issues such as book banning in Turkey, crucifixes in Italian classrooms, the right of homosexuals to serve in the British Army, and the disappearances of Chechen rebels.

Karina Moskalenko, a Russian lawyer who runs a civil justice organization to aid Russians seeking to have their cases heard in Strasbourg, told Deutsche Welle that although it is not ideal having to go to France to get a fair hearing, the unreliability of the current justice system in Russia leaves no other option. She said:

“It would be much better if our citizens were protected by Russian courts or authorities, but as long as that is not the case, it’s good that people know who they can turn to.”

The first measures of Protocol 14 are scheduled for implementation in June of 2011, and a review of the reforms will be made in five years.

For more information, please see:

BBC – Mammoth backlog prompts European rights court reforms – 19 February, 2010

Swissinfo.ch – Ministers agree to reform European rights court – 19 February, 2010

Deutsch Welle – Strasbourg, the great white hope for human rights – 18 February 2010

VOA – European Court Facing Huge Backlog – 18 February 2010