Panama Dismantles a Protest Camp Site of Naso People as They Seek Protection of Their Land and Human Rights

By Brenda Lopez Romero

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

PANAMA CITY, Panama – An Indigenous group of Panama, Naso, established a permanent camp site (“street sit-in”) in front of the Cathedral Plaza of San Felipe, until yesterday when it was dismantled by police units under the direction of the Ministry of Government and Justice.

Panama
Naso protesting at their camp site (PHOTO: The Star of Panama)Luis Gamarra, activist for Indigenous rights, gave an interview where he indicated that the Director of the National Police, Gustavo Perez, approached the camp site to request they abandon the camp site, because it gave the place and the city a negative image. Perez stated he had orders from the Ministry of Government and Justice and that in exchange for the abandonment, on Wednesday, there would be a negotiation meeting to hear their grievances. The director of Indigenous Policy also placed pressure on the group to leave the camp site on the condition of a meeting.

However, on Wednesday, the meeting was canceled and postponed to Thursday. The Wednesday timeline to abandon the camp site by the Naso, however, was not postponed, and the National Police started the dismantling of their camp site.

Panama2

Naso marching (PHOTO: The Star of Panama)The Naso people argue that their Indigenous rights are being trampled by the Government. The claim includes disrespect of their ancestral rights, an end to Ganader Bocas activities on their lands, and a suspension of concessions to hydroelectric plants that are encroaching on their land.  The United Nations has stated that Panama has violated the rights of indigenous peoples by allowing concessions to AES Changuinola to build a hydroelectric plant without the consent of the communities living nearby, and for forcibly removing Naso residents from their land.

Furthermore, the Naso want the legislation “Comarca Naso” (demarcation of their lands), that is pending in the Commission of Indigenous Affairs in the National Assembly of Representatives, to be debated openly and inclusive of the Naso people. The Environmental Defender Law Center is bringing a case against the Government for its failure to grant all its Indigenous peoples the right to their traditional lands. Pursuant to the Panama Constituion and the American Convention on Human Rights, which Panama ratified, Indigenous peoples of Panama are entitled to a legal mechanism to be able to hold land title.

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (CIDH) has on two occasions found Panama in violation of human rights. The Court will, again, consider claims regarding violations of twelve articles of the American Convention of Human Rights

The Naso people have being waiting for the legislation “Comarca Naso” since early 2005. Gamarra warned that if the Government continues to turn deaf ears to their demands “this would reach extreme consequences.”

For more information, please see:

La Estrella de Panamá – Pueblo Naso en pie de guerra, 25 Septiembre 2009

AFP – Indígenas panameños caminan 500 km para pedir fin a proyectos energéticos, 17 Septiembre 2009

La Prensa – Denuncian operativos contra los nasos en Bocas, 5 Abril 2009

Iraqi Prisoner Possibly Killed in Revenge by British Soldiers

By Bobby Rajabi
Impunity Watch Reporter, Middle East

LONDON, United Kingdom – Baha Mousa, an Iraqi detainee who died in the custody of British soldiers, may have been killed in an act of revenge. The allegation came from Baha Mousa’s father, a police officer in Basra. Daoud Mousa claims that his negative comments and allegations about British soldiers led to his son being treated more poorly than other prisoners and ultimately dying in the hands of British military forces.

Baha Mousa, a father of two children, was arrested in September 2003 during a raid of hotel in Basra by British soldiers. The soldiers were in search of supporters of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Mousa was arrested along with nine other individuals. Guns were found with them and the men were held for possibly being insurgents. . Daoud Mousa arrived in time to see that his son and the other detainees on the ground and the hotel surrounded by military vehicles.

Daoud Mousa believes that what he saw next led to the violent treatment that his son received. After arriving at the hotel, the elder Mousa alleges that he saw a British soldier stuff bank notes in his pocket from the hotel’s safe. He informed the soldier’s superior of this, hoping that this would procure his son’s release. Daoud Mousa pointed out his son to the soldiers, but believes that this action may have led to the soldiers punishing Baha.

Baha Mousa was taken to the detainment center at the Battle Main Group camp. Two days later he was dead. An examination of Baha’s body after his death showed that he suffered asphyxiation and had at minimum ninety three injuries all around his body. Among those injuries were a broken nose and a number of broken ribs. Witnesses have come forth and said that the soldiers took particular joy in abusing civilians. They told of an incident where the soldiers attempted the coordinate the screams of detainees in order to create music.

An official inquiry was ordered by the British government in order to investigate Mousa’s death. The inquiry was told that British soldiers were using techniques that had been banned by the country in 1972. Four soldiers plead guilty to treating civilians inhumanely. Daoud Mousa is not ready to accept an apology, noting that he “will not accept the apology of a criminal.”

For more information, please see:

Al Jazeera – Iraqi ‘Killed in UK Revenge Attack’ – 24 September 2009

Associated Press – Father: Iraqi Perhaps Slain in UK Revenge Attack– 23 September 2009

BBC – Iraq Detainee Death ‘Was Revenge’ – 23 September 2009

Guardian – Baha Mousa Inquiry:  Father Alleges ‘Revenge’ by UK Troops – 23 September 2009

Telegraph – Baha Mousa Inquiry: Iraqi Civilian Died After ‘Revenge Abuse’ in British Military Custody – 23 September 2009

Polish Parliament Passes Resolution Condemning Soviet Invasion in WWII

By David Sophrin
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

WARSAW, Poland – On Wednesday, the Polish parliament passed a resolution that condemned the invasion of Poland by the Soviet Union in 1939 at the beginning of World War II, labeling it a ‘war crime’ and ‘genocide’.  In response the Duma, the lower house of the Russian parliament, indicated that it felt “deep disappointment at the Polish attempt to compare Nazi Germany with the Soviet Union.”

Recent documents given to the Institute of National Remembrance of Warsaw by the Ukrainian government offer new evidence indicating that Soviet police forces (NVKD) were directly responsible for the killing of 350 Poles the Roviensky oblast from 1939 to 1940.  Those were just a fraction of the approximately 20,000 Poles that would be killed in the Katyn forests.  Those killings, known as the Katyn Massacre, and the subsequent deportations of Polish citizens to Soviet internment camps, were the reasons behind the passage of the Polish resolution.

According to the documents from the Ukrainian government, the NVKD’s purpose in committing the killings was in part to eliminate leading members of Polish society, including landowners, military officers, and intellectuals.  At the center of the NVKD’s actions was a coordinated effort to remove the leading citizens of, thereby undermine, Polish society.

The Soviet Union argued that their invasion of Poland in September 1939, following Germany’s invasion of western Poland, was necessary to protect the Polish, Ukrainian, and Belarusian citizens from the oncoming German forces that were left unprotected by the collapse of the Polish government.  The Russian government has never admitted that the invasion was the result of aggression on the part of the Soviet Union.

For more information, please see:

POLSKIE RADIO – Ukraine exposes Katyn executioners – 25 September 2009

RIA NOVOSTI – Moscow Says Resolution on Soviet ‘aggression’ harms ties – 24 September 2009

EPOCH TIMES – Polish Resolution Names Soviet Invasion as Tyrannical – 23 September 2009

UPI – Poles Accuse Russia of WWII Genocide – 23 September 2009

Turkey’s Refugee Rights Come Under Pressure after Court Ruling

By Brandon Kaufman
Impunity Watch Reporter, Middle East

STRASBOURG, France– The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) announced in a statement on Tuesday that it had ruled against Turkey on charges of trying to deport two Iranian nationals who were recognized as refugees by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR).

The Iranian nationals, Mohsen Abdolkhani and Hamid Karimnia, left Iran and entered a refugee camp in Iraq.  After the camp was closed in Iraq, the two went to Turkey where they were arrested and deported back to Iraq.  Despite the deportation, Abdolkhani and Karimnia immediately returned to Turkey.

Subsequently, they were arrested and convicted of illegal entry into Turkey.  Turkish efforts to have them deported to Iran in June of 2008 were unsuccessful as Iranian authorities refused their admission to the country.  After the Iranian denial of admission, the two refugees requested temporary asylum status but have yet to receive an answer as to their petition.

As part of their domestic law, Turkey imposes limitations on accepting asylum seekers based on their country of origin.  More specifically, Turkish law forbids asylum status to people of non-European origin as refugees.  Despite their domestic law, Turkey is a popular destination for refugee and asylum seekers.

In a publication by the Human Rights Research Association (IHAD), it was reported that over twenty-six hundred refugees were detained last month for violating border regulations and, of that number, 378 were deported.  Many experts believe that these deportations constitute violations of universal human rights principles.  The cases of Abdolkhani and Karimnia are a prime example of these possible violations.  In the statement released Tuesday, the ECHR decided that Turkey would be in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights if they made another attempt at deportation of the two individuals.

The ECHR “was struck by the fact that both administrative and judicial authorities had remained totally passive regarding the applicants’ serious allegations of a risk of ill treatment if returned to Iraq or Iran.”  Furthermore, the Court was troubled by Turkey’s failure to consider the applicant’s requests for temporary asylum, to notify them of the reasons for not taking their asylum requests into consideration and for not authorizing them to have legal assistance.

Even prior to Tuesday’s decision, Turkey has been in the process of drafting new legislation to address the issue of refugees and asylum seekers.

For more information, please see:

Bianet- ECHR Convicted Turkey for Deportation of Iranian Refugees– 24 September 2009

Today’s Zaman- Court Ruling Puts Pressure on Turkey over Refugee Rights– 24 September 2009

Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights- Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey– 22 September 2009

Australia Plans to Deport Two Kenyan Women Facing Genital Mutilation in Kenya

By Cindy Trinh
Impunity Watch Reporter, Oceania

SYDNEY, Australia – Two Kenyan women in Australia are facing deportation after their asylum applications were rejected. The two women, Grace Gichuhi, and Teresia Ndikaru Muturi, face possible genital mutilation if they are deported back to Kenya. Many Australians have expressed outrage, and urge the Immigration Minister to intervene and allow the two Kenyans to stay in Australia.

A refugee’s fear of persecution must be based on “race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.” Because fear of genital mutilation does not fit into one of these categories, the women could be sent home to Kenya.

In parts of Africa, female circumcision is still practiced, and is mainly done for cultural purposes as an initiation into womanhood. In some cases, older women perform the circumcision with a broken glass or a tin lid. In other cases, the female is held down by 10 men, and her clitoris is cut off with a knife.

Both women left Kenya because they feared for the safety of their lives. Grace Gichuhi’s mother was killed for refusing to be circumcised. Grace Gichuhi is 22 years old. Teresia Muturi, only 21 years old, fled from an arranged marriage with a 70-year-old man and angered her family when she refused to be circumcised.

The two women applied for refugee status, but were denied by the immigration department. A spokesman from the immigration department stated that “[u]nder the refugee convention, they weren’t found to engage with Australia’s international obligations.”
An appeal was filed to the Australian Immigration Minister, Chris Evans, but he rejected the appeal. A second appeal was filed, but nothing has yet been determined. Currently, the women have been told by the immigration department to prepare for deportation.

Senator Nick Xenophon urged Chris Evans to grant the women visas to stay in Australia. The Senator expressed opposition to the laws of Australia, stating that “[i]f the laws are changed, these women have a clear case for asylum,” and urged the minister “to exercise discretion to give these two women asylum.”

Senator Nick Xenophon is joined by many political adversaries, lawyers, and refugee groups who also want Chris Evans to intervene.

Senator Sarah Hanson-Young believes the women are “prime candidates” for proposing “complementary protection” laws targeted at expanding on existing refugee criteria.

Spokeswoman for Opposition, Sharman Stone, took a different perspective than Sarah Hanson-Young, stating that the existing intervention powers were sufficient to give the two Kenyan women asylum. Sharman Stone contends that the minister is not obligated to adhere strictly to any convention, and can exercise his “own sense of what is right and just and humane.”

Mary Crock, a professor of public law at the University of Sydney, opposed Sharman’s Stone’s view, stating that proposing new “complementary protection” laws that would more certainly give protection to women, such as Grace Gichuhi and Teresia Muturi, is the better choice.

News of the Kenyan women has also raised debate and controversy amongst citizens of the local community. After an article about the two women was published in The Age, an Australian newspaper, concerned readers contacted the newspaper to express their outrage at the situation.

In the online spectrum, Penny Eager, a blogger, wrote to Chris Evans expressing her belief that the “torturous practi[c]e of genital mutilation is abhorrent, and that to deny these women refugee visas is to take a weak stance on this issue.” She further urged Chris Evans to intervene, to not only help the women, but to also “send a clear message to Kenya that Australia does not condone these practi[c]es.”

A Facebook “Causes” page titled “Help save these Women from Genital Mutilation” was created to support the two Kenyans. The Facebook page was launched by Vanessa Muradian, a citizen of Swinburne, to show support for the women’s efforts to remain in Australia.

For more information, please see:

Facebook – Help save these Women from Genital Mutilation

The Age – Huge support for Kenyan fugitives – 23 September, 2009

Global Voices – Australia: Kenyan women refused refugee status – 23 September, 2009

Pocket Carnival – Grace Gichuhi and Teresia Ndikaru Muturi – 22 September, 2009

Embrace Australia – Refugee Girls Face Deportation and Mutilation – 21 September, 2009