IACHR Rules Guatemala Must Halt Legislative Action on Bills Providing Amnesty to Perpetrators of Human Rights Abuses

By: Jacob Riederer

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

GUATEMALA – The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) issued a ruling on October 23, 2023, requiring Guatemalan authorities to take action to prevent the adoption of two proposed bills that would provide immunity to those alleged to have committed human rights atrocities.

 
Members of the Guatemalan Congress featured above have introduced bill 5920 “Law on Consolidation of Peace and Reconciliation” and Bill 6099 “Law on Strengthening Peace.” | Photo courtesy of Reuters/Luis Echeverria
  

Between, 2002 and 2018 the IACHR ruled on 14 cases alleging forced disappearances, executions, torture, war crimes, genocide and other issues that took place during Guatemala’s civil war. These rulings resulted in investigations, trials, and sentences for those responsible for these heinous actions. 

Bill 5377, introduced in the Guatemalan Legislature in 2019, threatened to invalidate these rulings. If passed, the bill would have halted investigations and provided amnesty to those convicted in the 14 cases. Proponents of the bill and ones like it argue that it would allow the nation to heal divisions from the civil war. Others assert that it’s unfair to hold those accountable since these crimes were not specifically codified into law at the time. 

In 2019, the IACHR issued ruling requiring that Guatemala “guarantee the right to access to justice for the victims” of the 14 cases and to take action to prevent the passage of Bill 5377. The Government of Guatemala complied with the ruling and Bill 5377 was tabled and not passed into law. 

Recently, however, two new Bills, 5920 and 6099, were introduced to the Guatemalan Congress that would give amnesty to the perpetrators of human rights abuses during the Guatemalan Civil War. Notably, these bills not only immediately free those convicted of crimes but punish prosecutors, judges, and courts that attempt to review or dispute this law.

In response, representatives of victims of crimes perpetrated during conflict asked the court to “suspend and correspondingly definitively table” the bills, arguing that that the newly proposed laws violate IACHR’s previous ruling and have the same purpose as the previously invalidated 5377 bill in erasing liability for those convicted of serious human rights atrocities.

The Government of Guatemala maintains that they are in compliance with the court’s previous resolution, asserting that the ruling to table legislation only applied to Bill 5377. It further argues that Guatemala already has legislative and judicial “mechanisms to guarantee constitutionality and compatibility with conventional norms” with respect to these two bills.

The court sided with representatives of victims noting that both bills “seek to declare the extinction of criminal responsibility and absolute amnesty regarding all crimes committed during the internal armed confrontation.” Because of this, they are in violation of the court’s 2019 ruling which forbade Guatemala to put forth claims “excluding responsibility that prevent the investigation of the violations of serious human rights.”

Further, the court rejected the government’s argument that there are already national measures in place to ensure checks on the legal and constitutional validity of the laws, arguing that “there is a high risk that judicial control cannot be carried out internally.” This is because the bills would require the immediate release of those convicted before a review process may be able to take place. 

Additionally, the provisions in the bill mandate criminal punishments for prosecutors, judges and courts officials seeking to review the law and hold the offending parties accountable.   The court also notes the potential for harassment, intimidation, and threats to Guatemalan judicial officials in this situation based on past accounts of this in these cases.  The courts, therefore, see these laws as harmful because of their potential to eliminate judicial independence, review and safety.

In the resolution, the court also required the Guatemalan government to present a report on how it’s complying with the ruling no later than December 4, 2023 and to continue sharing updated compliance reports every three months thereafter.

For further information, please see:

Amnesty International, Guatemala – Bill Could Grant Amnesty For Grave Crimes: Bill 5377 – January 29, 2019

Epicentro – Guatemala, FADS – Iniciativas de ley para «reconciliación» son inconstitucionales – 14 Sept 2022

Epicentro-Guatmala – Iniciativas Legislativas Para Amnistiar Graves Violaciones a Los Derechos Humanos, Reincidencia del Estado de Guatemala – 26 OCT 2023

IACHR, Resolución de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos:  Caso De Los Miembros De La Andrea Chichupac Y Comunidades Vecinas Del Municipio de Rabinal. Caso Molina Theissen Y Otros 12 Casis Contra Guatemala – 20 OCT 2023

IACHR – Resolución de La Corte Interamericana De Derecho Humanos: Caso de Los Miembros De La Aldea Chichupac Y Comunidades Vecinas Del Municipio de Rabinal Caso Molina Theiseen Y Otros 12 Casos Contra Guatemala -12 MAR 2019

International Justice Monitor – In Defiance of Court Rulings, Guatemalan Congressional Leaders Push Amnesty Bill – 5 SEPT 2019

Prensa Libre – Tercer Intento Para Motivar a La Aprobación de Una Ley de Amnistía – 6 AUG 2022

Prensa Libre – Congreso Envía Nueva Consulta a La CC Sobre Iniciativa que Busca Aprobar Una Amnistía Para Los Delitos del Conflicto Armado Interno – 23 OCT 2023

 

 

 

 

Non-Compliance with AfCHPR Threatens Court’s Existence

By: Tiffany Johnson

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (AfCHPR) is facing an existential crisis as countries continue to defy its decisions. This regional institution is dedicated to upholding human rights across the continent, and countries’ defiance undermines the AfCHPR’s existence. The Organization of African Unity (OAU), the forerunner of the African Union (AU), adopted a protocol in Burkina Faso in 1998, which led to the establishment of the AfCHPR. In 2004, the agreement went into effect after being ratified by more than fifteen nations. The Court’s initial judges were chosen in 2006, and its initial decision was rendered in 2009.  

 
         Group photo of court justices | Photo Courtesy of Ghana News Agency
  

The AfCHPR and any other pertinent human rights treaties that have been ratified by the state in question are both circumstances in which the court will consider involving alleged violations of human rights. It was founded with a noble mission – to provide a legal platform for individuals and communities to seek redress for human rights violations. One of its remedies is to provide just recompense or make amends. Its judgments are legally binding, and signatory nations are obligated to comply with its rulings. Yet, the Court’s effectiveness is under threat as several African countries openly disregard its decisions.  

The Court’s authority, and ability to protect fundamental human rights in Africa are at stake due to persistent non-compliance. According to a report released earlier this year on the Court’s activities in 2021, states’ “poor level of compliance” with its rulings was a significant issue. During the Court’s 16-year existence only a small number of judgments and orders were implemented out of more than the 200 that were issued. However, a majority have been disregarded by the respondent nations.  According to the report, “as of July 2021, only 7% of judgments of the Court had been fully complied with, 18% partially complied and 75% non-compliance. Some States have stated clearly before the Executive Council that they will not comply with the Court’s decisions.” 

By end of 2020, the governments of Benin, Côte d’Ivoire, and Tanzania had all revoked the right of individuals and non-governmental organizations to register cases directly with the Court. Rwanda revoked this privilege in 2016, bringing the total number of nations restricting access to this vital path to justice to four. All three governments revoked this right in response to what they perceived to be unfavorable decisions, a rise in intolerance towards human rights defenders, and a general deterioration of national human rights conditions. Tanzania withdrew the privilege, falsely claiming that the Court entertained matters that should have been handled by national courts. Benin disagreed with the Court’s decision to defer the seizure of an applicant’s property in a dispute with a bank, arguing that the decision undermined the country’s economic and political stability. 

Most recently, the AfCHPR concluded its 70th Ordinary Session on September 29, 2023. It issued fifteen rulings on September 5, 2023. Responses to these 15 rulings will be foretelling. Despite the Court’s directive, little progress has been made to rectify this injustice, calling into question Tanzania’s commitment to upholding the Court’s decisions.  

Cases such as these, regrettably, are not isolated instances. The reasons for non-compliance are multifaceted and include political considerations, limited resources, lack of awareness among government officials and the public regarding the Court’s authority, and concerns over external interference. The implications of non-compliance are far-reaching. They erode the trust in the AfCHPR and weaken its power to protect human rights. If countries can choose to disregard the Court’s rulings with impunity, the very purpose of the Court is undermined, and the dream of justice for human rights abuses in Africa remains elusive. 

To ensure the survival and effectiveness of the AfCHPR, a multi-pronged approach is necessary. Primarily, it is essential for member states to honor their obligations and comply with the Court’s decisions. The African Union can play a pivotal role by engaging in diplomatic efforts to encourage compliance and emphasizing the importance of a united commitment to human rights. 

Additionally, public awareness campaigns should be launched to educate citizens and government officials alike about the AfCHPR’s role and authority, underlining how it plays a critical role in promoting justice and accountability on the continent. 

Moreover, international pressure and cooperation can be instrumental in holding non-compliant countries accountable. The international community can work collectively to stress the importance of human rights and the necessity for all nations to adhere to international norms and agreements. 

The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, a beacon of hope for justice and human rights in Africa, stands at a crossroads. The threat of non-compliance with its decisions jeopardizes the very existence of this crucial institution. It is a call to action for African nations, the African Union, and the global community to come together and safeguard the AfCHPR’s authority and its mission of promoting and protecting human rights across the continent. Failure to address this issue may result in the erosion of fundamental human rights in Africa and a setback for justice and accountability. 

For further information, please see:

Amnesty International – Why the African Court should Matter to you – 9 Jun 2023

Fair Planet – African Court on Human and People’s Rights Faces Uncertain Future – 26 Nov 2022

Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights – Is the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights in an Existential Crisis? – 1 Mar 2022

The Conversation – Successes of African Human Rights Court undermined by resistance from states – 31 Aug 2021

University of the Witwatersrand – African Human Rights Court undermined by resistance African Human Rights Court undermined by resistance from states – 29 Aug 2021

Amnesty International – Africa: Regional human rights bodies struggle to uphold rights amid political headwinds – 21 Oct 2020

Brooklyn Journal of International Law – From Commitment to Compliance: From Commitment to Compliance: Enforceability of Remedial Orders of African Human Rights Bodies – 2015

 

 

 

 

ICC Drops 20 Charges of War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity Against Central African Republic Leader

By: Christina Bradic, Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

The Hague, Netherlands – On October 16, 2023, the International Criminal Court (ICC) dropped war crime charges against Maxime Jeoffroy Eli Mokom Gawaka, of the Central African Republic. This is only the third time in the history of the court that an ICC prosecutor has dropped a criminal case.

 
Maxim Mokom in October 2020, when he was Minister of Disarmament, Demobilization, Reintegration and Repatriation (DDRR) in the Central African Republic | Photo courtesy of Justice Info, Minusca
  

On March 14, 2022, Mokom was arrested in Chad. Authorities subsequently surrendered him to the ICC. Prior to dropping his case, Mokom was facing twenty charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity stemming from actions in 2013 and 2014 when Mokom was the National Coordinator of Operations of the Anti-Balaka. Charges included murder, torture, extermination, deportation, and persecution.

In the Central African Republic in 2013, President Francois Bozize was ousted during a coup led by Seleka, an alliance of predominantly Muslim armed rebel groups. In response, Anti-Balaka, an alliance of predominantly Christian militia groups, executed reprisal attacks, including ones targeting Muslim civilians. Violence between the two groups escalated. By mid-May of 2014, it was estimated that thousands of people were killed and more than 750,000 people, majority Muslim, were forcibly displaced. During this time, Mokom, as a leader of Anti-Balaka, was suspected of the war crimes of directing attacks on civilian populations, an attack on humanitarian assistance personnel, and enlisting children as fighters.

The Prosecutor of the ICC informed the judge last week that with the available evidence and changed witness and testimonial availability, there is no longer “reasonable prospect of conviction.”

Mokom has continually denied the court’s charges and any involvement in attacks on Muslim civilians. In a statement he said that he is, “dedicated to the search for peace.” He also holds that he was a refugee in the Democratic Republic of Congo for a significant portion of the period during which the charges occurred. The defense team is considering asking for compensation for the 19 months during which Mokom was held in the court’s detention facility in Scheveningen, The Hague, Netherlands.

A lawyer representing the victims expressed disappointment, calling this outcome, “unfair and a betrayal,” and stating that victims were, “sad and immensely disappointed.” The case prosecutor said in a statement, “I am very conscious that this news may be unwelcome to many survivors and their families, [and] I hope many will understand my legal and ethical responsibilities to be guided by the law and the evidence.”

The action to withdraw charges was without prejudice, allowing a new trial if additional witnesses or evidence becomes available in relation to crimes under the court’s jurisdiction.

For further information, please see:

ABC News – ICC drops war crimes charges against former Central African Republic government minister – 19. Oct. 2023 

Africa News – Central African Republic ex-militia leader released by ICC – 20. Oct. 2023

France 24  –  Ex-CAR militia leader freed by ICC after all charges dropped – 20. Oct. 2023

ICC – Prosecutor withdraws charges against Maxime Mokom in the situation in the Central African Republic – 19. Oct. 2023

Radio France International – ICC releases Central Africa militia leader after dropping charges – 20. Oct. 2023

 

 

 

 

 

IACHR and Special Rapporteurship for Freedom and Expression Show Concern Over Continued Repression of Indigenous Communities in Nicaragua

By: Gavin Gretsky

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

NICARAGUA – The Special Rapporteurship for Freedom and Expression (RELE) of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR) recently released a statement expressing concern over the repression of indigenous communities along the Caribbean coast of Nicaragua. RELE and the IACHR expressed concern over violence by settlers against native communities, the shutdown of indigenous radio stations, and the YATAMA party having its status revoked.

 
A woman protests outside of the Organization of the American States against human rights violations committed by the Nicaraguan government | Photo Courtesy of AP
  

Settlers encroaching into indigenous communities has been an ongoing issue for indigenous communities in Nicaragua, however the encroachment and violence has escalated recently. The land inhabited by the Mayanga and Miskito along the Atlantic coast of Nicaragua is traditionally used for small scale farming, hunting, and fishing. According to community leaders, settlers forcibly occupy these lands for the purpose of commercial exploitation of natural resources. This occupation is often combined with violence, resulting in property destruction, kidnappings, and murder. Despite this violence, there has been no action by the government to prevent further conflict.  While the IACHR has directed the Nicaraguan government to protect these communities the government has not responded despite Nicaragua’s acceptance of the IACHR’s jurisdiction.

The closure of indigenous radio stations also concerned the IACHR and RELE. In the coastal Caribbean region, there were two indigenous radio stations that had been in operation for over two decades, run by the YATAMA opposition party, and were primarily used to advocate for and spread indigenous culture, often in indigenous languages. The Nicaraguan telecommunications regulator stated that the radio stations were confiscated by the government due to operating without the proper permits. However, local leaders state that this was done to silence opposition to the government. The IACHR and RELE are concerned with the closure of the radio stations because they served an important role in facilitating public debate and their closure creates “silence areas” where only state run media is available.

Lastly, the IACHR and RELE brought attention to the legal status of the YATAMA party being revoked. YATAMA was a political party in opposition to the governing FSLN party and is rooted in the Miskito people, the largest indigenous community in Nicaragua. The Supreme Electoral Council announced the revocation came because YATAMA “misrepresented reality in the country” in violation of Act 1055. Prior to its revocation, YATAMA was the only political party that could challenge the FSLN in the coastal regions of Nicaragua. The revocation also comes on the eve of regional elections, which advocates state was done to create a single-party system.

Additionally, YATAMA leaders have also come under attack from the government. Former party leaders, Brooklyn Rivera and Elizabeth Henriquez were both arrested with no reason given by the government and their whereabouts are currently unknown according to IACHR. The IACHR stated that this restriction on political opposition would violate many rights and freedoms, including the freedom of expression and association.

In its conclusion, the IACHR and RELE called on the Nicaraguan government to end its repression against indigenous peoples, against YATAMA, and to provide the location and health conditions of those arrested.

For further information, please see:

ABC News – Indigenous people in northeast Nicaragua say armed settlers are pushing them off their land – 10 Aug. 2023

Confidencial – Ortega’s Elimination of the Yatama Party: A mistake of the past and present – 10 Oct. 2023

Havana Times – Police Arrest Indigenous Legislator from Her Home – 2 Oct. 2023

IACHR – IACHR and Its Special Rapporteurship for Freedom of Expression Urge Nicaragua to End Repression Against Indigenous Communities in Its Caribbean Coast – 10 Oct. 2023

UNHR – Oral update by the ASG on the Situation of Human Rights in Nicaragua – 3 Mar. 2023

Reuters – Nicaraguan indigenous party says government has barred it ahead of local elections – 4 Oct. 2023

The Tico Times – Nicaragua Accused of Attacking Miskito People – 8 Oct. 2023

ICC Presides Over Sudanese War Crime Case

By: Rachel Wallisky

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

THE HAGUE, Netherlands — The International Criminal Court (ICC) will review war crime charges out of Sudan in The Prosecutor v. Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman. Ali Muhammad Abd-Al-Rahman, also known as Ali Kushayb, allegedly committed over 30 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity between August 2003 and April 2004 in Darfur, Sudan. The charges stem from his role as Senior Leader of the Militia, also known as Janjaweed in Sudan, where those forces carried out a widespread and systematic attack against civilians living in Wadi Salih, Sudan.

 
Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman, pictured in court | Photo Courtesy of the ICC
  

The ICC confirmed the charges against Abd-Al-Rahman, stating, “[t]his attack was carried out pursuant to, and in furtherance of, a State policy to commit an attack against the civilian population in the Wadi Salih and Mukjar Localities…predominantly against civilian members of the Fur tribe.” The charges include: intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such, as a war crime, murder as a crime against humanity and as a war crime, pillaging as a war crime, destruction of the property of an adversary as a war crime, other inhumane acts as a crime against humanity, outrages upon personal dignity as a war crime.

The trial began back in April 2022, when the prosecution began presenting its case. The prosecution presented fifty-six different witnesses and finished presenting its evidence on June 5, 2023. The defense presented its opening statement on October 18, 2023. The defense team argued that Mr. Abd-Al-Rahman is not the man that the ICC is looking for and plans to challenge the ICC’s jurisdiction over the case.

On September 15, 2023, the defense submitted a request to admit Ms. Fiona Marsh as an expert witness. The motion argues that Ms. Marsh will testify about two questioned signatures on documents presented in the prosecution’s case. The defense argued that the signatures on two documents submitted by the prosecution were not actually written by Mr. Abd-Al-Rahman, and that “[h]er expert evidence will assist the Chamber by providing the necessary material for it to arrive at a reasoned finding on the authorship of the two questioned signatures.” The Court has not, as of yet, issued a decision on the motion.

The fallout from this attack has continued for twenty years until today. When advocates for the victims of this attack spoke on June 5, 2023, they highlighted the similarities between the situation from 2003-2005 and the present-day situation in Sudan. Given the relationship between the current situation in Sudan and the crimes that Mr. Abd-Al-Rahman is alleged to have been part of, as well as the defense’s theory that Mr. Abd-Al-Rahman is not the leader of the Janjaweed, it will be interesting to track the defense’s arguments as the case progresses.  

For more information, please see:

ICC – Case Information Sheet – The Prosecutor v. Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al Rahman, March 2022.

ICC – Corrected version of ‘Decision on the confirmation of charges against Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman (‘Ali Kushayb’)’ – 9 July 2021.

ICC – Defence Request to Admit Ms. Fiona Marsh as an Expert Witness – 15 Sept. 2023.

ICC – “Opening Statement and presentation of evidence by the Defence in the Abd-Al-Rahman case: Practical information” – 9 Oct. 2023.

ICC – Transcript of Proceedings – 5 June 2023.