![]() |
![]() |
I. Introduction
|
![]() |
![]() |
I. Introduction
|

UK Magnitsky Asset Freezing Legislation Passed the Second Reading in the House of Lords
16 March 2017 – The UK House of Lords approved in its second reading the Magnitsky asset freezing legislation, which will allow the British government to freeze the assets of human rights abusers. The bill is now slated for a line-by-line examination in the House of Lords on 28 March 2017.
“I welcome the fact that we have taken action, sending a clear statement that we will not allow human rights abusers to launder their criminal assets through the UK,” said Baroness Williams of Trafford, Minister of State at the Home Office, introducing the proposed Magnitsky legislation.
Under this new legislation, assets of those involved in gross human rights violations abroad will be subject to civil recovery by the British government. The initiative was inspired by the case of Sergei Magnitsky:
“We have amended the Bill … to allow for the civil recovery of any proceeds of gross human rights abuse overseas. This amendment was prompted by the horrific treatment of Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian tax lawyer. …Magnitsky’s treatment was truly shocking, and it is only one example of the many atrocious human rights violations committed globally every year,” said Baroness Williams of Trafford.
Baroness Stern said:
“The victims of grand corruption are too many to count… The Magnitsky amendment represents a huge step forward and I was very glad to hear the Minister talk about human rights abuses around the world in this connection. Some argue that grand corruption should be classified as a human rights abuse; I find that argument convincing.”
Lord Rooker said:
“I salute Mr Browder for his dedication and perseverance in trying to bring those guilty of the murder of his lawyer to justice… Chasing them legally around the world, and now in this Bill, is a must.”
Baroness Hamwee said:
“Corruption and the infringement of human rights go hand in hand. I welcome the Magnitsky amendment.”
In closing the debate, Baroness Williams of Trafford talked about the government ensuring that “the Magnitsky power will be used” in cases where there is evidence “to satisfy a court on the balance of probabilities that property in the UK is the proceeds of gross human rights abuses or violations overseas.”
The events of the Magnitsky case are described in the international best-seller “Red Notice” by William Browder and in a series of Magnitsky justice campaign videos on Youtubechannel “Russian Untouchables.”
For more information, please contact:
Justice for Sergei Magnitsky
e-mail: info@lawandorderinrussia.org
By Cintia Garcia
Impunity Watch Reporter, South America
Santiago, Chile—The largest indigenous community in Chile, the Mapuche, took to the streets to protest the brutal use of force by the police. The protest comes after the national prosecutors dropped the charges against police sergeant Cristian Rivera who shot a Mapuche teenager.

The protest was organized by the parents of Brandon Hernandez, the seventeen-year-old Mapuche that was shot by Cristian Rivera. Brandon Hernandez was shot during an anti-government demonstration and was left in critical condition. Sergeant Rivera was initially arrested and earlier this week it was determined that the incident was an accident. Protestors want “the government to stop the injustices, to stop the criminalization of our youth and to stop killing our kids…We want the government to admit their mistakes and correct them.” Furthermore, according to Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, Chile’s Mapuche, are more likely to be killed by police than non-Mapuche people. Both organizations have recommended the authorities to investigate the use of force against the Mapuche.
The Mapuche, who make up ten percent of the population in Chile have been involved in a long ongoing land conflict. The Mapuche have been protesting the encroachment of multinational companies overtaking their lands in the Temuco region. Temuco is an important historical and cultural center for the community. The Mapuche claim that “the capitalist invaders” do not respect their territory and autonomy.
Last week the Mapuche Arauco-Malleco Coordination (CAM), lead an arson attack against the Trans-Cavalieri transport company. The CAM burned nineteen trucks, nine flatbeds, and a warehouse on the route to Temuco. The attack led to a three-million-dollar loss. The CAM stated that, “With this larger action, we pointed out to our oppressed people that there is the will and capacity of the Mapuche to deal decisively with the expressions of the capitalist system and the oppressive colonialist state.”
For more information, please see:
Telesur—Chile’s Indigenous Mapuche Protest Deadly Police Brutality—18 March 2017.
Telesur—Chile’s Indigenous Mapuche Burn Capitalist Invader Trucks—15 March 2017.
By Sarah Lafen
Impunity Watch Desk Reporter, North America
WASHINGTON D.C., United States — On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang heard two hours of arguments challenging and supporting President Trump’s revised executive order banning travel from six Muslim-majority countries. The revised order will suspend the U.S. refugee program for 120 days, prohibit the issuance of visas to those from Yemen, Sudan, Syria, Libya, Somalia and Iran for 90 days, and decrease the number of refugees allowed to enter the U.S. in 2017 from 110,00 to 50,000.

Refugee rights organizations brought suit in federal court in Maryland claiming that the revised travel ban illegally targets a religious group. Among others, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) asked Chuang to halt the order entirely, and argued that it represents a “pretext to discriminate against Muslims.” Justin Cox, lawyer for the National Immigration Law Center, told Chuang that those affected feel the order targets Islam and condemns their religion.
The U.S. government responded to the claims made by refugee groups by saying that all references to religion have been eliminated from the revised order. The government encouraged Chuang to focus on the exact wording of the order, and urged that the words indicate the ban is aimed at preventing terrorism.
The government also argues that people from the countries targeted by the travel ban “warrant additional scrutiny in connection with [the] immigration policies because the conditions in these countries present heightened threats.” However, analysts at the Department of Homeland Security have indicated that citizenship is an “unlikely indicator” of ties to terrorism.
The hearing concluded without a ruling. Chuang told court attendees that he “appreciated[d] everyone’s advocacy” and will issue a ruling as soon as possible. According to ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt, Chuang pressed both the advocacy groups and the government about their respective claims. Chuang asked the government why he should not consider all of President Trump’s comments regarding Muslim immigration, and asked the refugee rights groups whether President Trump is forbidden from limiting immigration from anywhere in the world just because of comments he made during his campaign. Gelernt also said that Chuang asked whether a nationwide ban or a limited halt would be the appropriate remedy.
Hawaii’s challenge to the revised executive order will soon be heard in federal court, and Washington is also requesting a hearing in federal court to challenge the ban.
For more information, please see: