Decision to Return Child to Father in USA Did Not Violate Mother’s Rights

By: Sallie Moppert 

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer 

STRASBOURG, France – The European Court of Human Rights (“ECHR”) handed down a decision on February 21, 2023 that determined no violation of Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights had occurred in the case of G.K. v Cyprus regarding the right to respect privacy and family life. The ECHR found that the district courts in Cyprus had properly considered the arguments of all the involved parties and ruled out any harm to the child before ordering his return to his father in the United States.

The District Court in Paphos, Cyprus
Photo Courtesy of In-Cyprus.

G.K., a native of Cyprus, married a US citizen (“Father”) in 2016 and the couple had a son born that same year. One year later in October 2017, G.K. filed a domestic violence complaint against the Father and subsequently sought an order of protection before moving to a safe house. She eventually took her son, now one-year-old, from the US back to Cyprus with the assistance of the Cypriot authorities. The son was granted Cypriot nationality and a passport during this time.

The Father hired private detectives to locate G.K. and their son, eventually tracking them down in Cyprus. In 2018, he requested the US authorities to apply to the Cyprus authorities under the Hague Convention for the son’s return to the US. The Cypriot authorities filed an application and affidavit in the Family Court in Paphos, Cyprus requesting the son’s return to the US. G.K. objected, claiming that the son would be in danger due to the Father’s prior record of violence. The Father refuted these allegations and provided an affidavit that he had a stable job and could successfully provide for his child.

After an adjournment and postponement due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Court eventually ruled that the son should be returned to the US. The Father was determined to be a credible witness with consistent and persuasive testimony and evidence, while G.K.’s version of events was general, vague and contradictory. The Court found that she failed to provide evidence to demonstrate why the son should not be returned to the US. G.K. appealed, and the Family Court of Second instance affirmed.

G.K. argued that her right to private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was violated due to the unreasonable length of the proceedings and the Court’s decision to return her son to the US without adequately assessing the situation and risks involved. The Court disagreed, stating that the return of the son to the US was not an immediate decision, instead only being made after G.K. had the opportunity to cross-examine the Father, and the domestic courts had considered all the arguments of the parties before making a decision that was in the best interest of the child. The Court also determined that G.K. had not suffered a disproportionate interference with her right to respect for her family life.

 

For further information, please see:

Child Labor Violations Skyrocket in the U.S. with the Forced Labor of Migrant Children

By: Kendall Hay

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Senior Associate Member

WASHINGTON D.C., United States – New reports have recently surfaced bringing to light issues of forced labor among migrant children in the United States. The government has recently resolved the first of many cases brought against major companies that are at the heart of the exploitation. Packers Sanitation Services Inc. LTD. was prosecuted and fined $1.5 million in civil penalties in what is one of the largest cases in the history of labor violations. As violations have just begun to surface, it is expected that more litigation will ensue.

Child migrant worker. Photo courtesy of NBC news

Those being targeted are children who cross the border into the United States unaccompanied. Because U.S. law forbids unaccompanied minors to be turned away, many cross into the United States alone and are held in a holding facility until the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) is able to locate an American sponsor. In the past, HHS has taken time to ensure that the vetting process is thorough by verifying that the sponsors are who they claim to be (typically relatives) and ensuring their agreement to provide for these children. However, due to the large number of unaccompanied children who have recently been crossing alone, detention facilities are at capacity, and the vetting process has become almost nonexistent, as the current administration has demanded that kids are moved through as quickly as possible.

This kind of quick processing has led to the exploitation of kids, as “sponsors” who have ill intentions for the kids are now able to traffic these kids and demand work in exchange for living expenses. These kids accrue a debt they are never able to repay and are forced to choose low-paying jobs and night shifts in local factories so that they are still able to attend school.

Although child labor laws in the United States allow 14-year-old children to work, there are many restrictions in place. Factory work, construction work, and other dangerous positions are restricted until the age of 16, and because school attendance is mandatory, the work chosen must not interfere with a child’s education.

However, recent reporting has found that children as young as 12 are working full-time jobs with extremely low pay and no experience. They are also often hired for the night shift because of the unpopularity of the hours, so they will still have the option to attend school. Because the work available to them is found in meatpacking plants, factories, food production plants, and construction sites, these children are constantly faced with dangerous and life-threatening conditions. As a result, serious injuries and many deaths of these minors have been reported. Machinery accidents, loss of limbs from assembly line work, and falls in construction jobs have all been documented.

Violations have been reported in all 50 states with major brands such as Target, Ben & Jerry’s, Walmart, Whole Foods, General Motors, Fruit of the Loom, Ford, and J Crew among the 850 companies all guilty of attributing to child labor violations.

While some companies are simply looking the other way when hiring these child workers and are failing to do due diligence when checking identification, others contract with hiring services and are not vigilant in overseeing who these services are actually hiring. Because the maximum penalty for violations is $15,000, there simply isn’t enough of a deterrent to prevent these practices from continuing.

The Biden Administration has vowed to crack down on these violations and the Department of Labor has begun investigations of over 600 violations. Lawmakers are also pushing for stricter laws in order to protect these minors that include larger penalties for violators. But with an unprecedented number of unaccompanied children crossing the border, a systemic change will be necessary.

 

For further information, please see:

NPR – How Child Labor Violations Have Quadrupled Since 2015 – 6 Mar. 2023

The New York Times – Lawmakers Clamor for Action on Child Migrant Labor as Outrage Grows – 3 Mar. 2023

CBS News – U.S. takes action to prevent migrant child labor amid rise in violations – 27 Feb. 2023

Reuters – U.S. to crack down on child labor amid massive uptick – 27 Feb. 2023

Economic Policy Institute – Child labor laws are under attack in states across the country – 14 Mar. 2023

Tunisian Nations Denied Suspension of the Decree-Law and Postponement of Elections

By: Rachel H Sanders

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Senior Associate Member

BANJUL, The Gambia – Tunisian nationals were denied their application seeking provisional measures to suspend the enforcement of potentially anti-democratic election laws as well as the postponement of the Republic of Tunisia parliamentary elections. The Application was filed against the Republic of Tunisia which had recently received a judgment from the Court on September 22, 2022, ordering that the country restore constitutional democracy. The Tunisian nationals, named Ayadi Fathi, Khlifi Oussama, and Makhloufi Sofiane, were fearful that the President of the Republic of Tunisia was extending his extensive and unchecked powers by implementing “illegal and undemocratic acts which truncated constitutional democracy, leading the country into totalitarianism.”

The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Photo Courtesy of ACfHPR

The Tunisian nationals claimed that the President of the Republic of Tunisia was attempting to set up a parliament that is completely under his control by abrogating the 2014 Constitution, initiating the dissolution of the provisional body in charge of reviewing the constitutionality of draft laws by the Decree-Law No. 2021-117 of September 22, 2021, and initiating the dissolution the of parliament by Decree-Law No. 2022-309 of March 30, 2022. The claimants alleged a violation of (A) the right to participate freely in the government of their country, protected by Articles 13(1)(2) and 24 of the Charter, Articles 1(1) and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 1(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), (B) the right to non-discrimination protected by Articles 2 and 18(3) of the Charter, and Article 2 of the ICCPR, and (C) the right to freedom of association, protected by Article 10(1) of the Charter. The petitioners focused upon challenging Decree-Law No. 2022-55 which amended and supplemented Organic Law No. 2014 of May 26, 2014, on elections and referendums.

In addition, the Tunisian nationals applied for a postponement of the legislative elections scheduled for December 17, 2022. The applicants claimed that “the Tunisian people stand to suffer imminent and irreparable harm in view of the fact that these elections may plunge the country into institutional disorder and political unrest for an unlimited period of time.” Conversely, the Court found a lack of urgency as the application was filed on January 6, 2023. Confusingly, the application and the request for provisional measures were initially filed on January 6, 2020. Despite that, it took until February 2, 2023, for the Republic of Tunisia to be notified. The Court provided the Republic of Tunisia a period to respond on the merits and on the provisional measures respectively within ninety (90) and fifteen (15) days of receipt of notification. The Court also requested that the Republic of Tunisia submit the names of its representatives within thirty (30) days. However, the Republic of Tunisia did not respond to the complaint.

In the end, the Court found against the Tunisian nationals stating that the request did not meet the requirements of urgency or extreme gravity and irreparable harm. The Court emphasized that these two facts are cumulative so that if one of them is lacking, the measure requested cannot be ordered. The Court recalled that urgency, which is consubstantial with extreme gravity, means a “real and imminent likelihood that irreparable harm will be caused before it renders its final decision.” The risk in question must be real, which excludes the purely hypothetical risk and explains the need to remedy it immediately. The Court denied the request to suspend the Decree-Law as the applicants never produced neither any evidence of urgency or extreme gravity nor evidence of irreparable harm, which would result from its enforcement. Due to this, as well the delay in the request for postponement of the election, the Court found that the Tunisian nationals’ request was moot.

The Republic of Tunisia became a party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on October 21, 1986, and to the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights on October 5, 2007.  The Court’s order is provisional in nature and in no way prejudges the Court’s findings on its jurisdiction or on the admissibility and the merits of the Application. A dissenting opinion is being drafted by Bensaoula Chafika,

For further information, please see:

‘ICC’ Issues Warrants for Putin’s Arrest Regarding His Role in Russia’s War in Ukraine

By: Beatrice Nkansah

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor

THE HAUGE, Netherlands – The tensions between Ukraine and Russia, formerly known as the Soviet Union, have been brewing for the past 8-9 years. Almost two centuries ago, the Soviet Union gifted Crimea to the Soviet Republic of Ukraine. In 2014, Russia violated General Principles of International Law by unlawfully annexing Crimea – forcing those living in Crimea to flee from Russian force and persecution. As a result of the unlawful annexation of ethnic and religious Crimea and Ukraine individuals are facing widespread discrimination and destruction. As tension between the two sovereign countries began to build, Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 making significant advances until Ukrainian defending forces were able to launch counterattacks.

As a result of the growing tension and actions of Russia for the past decade, on March 17, 2023, the International Criminal Court (ICC)’s Pre-Trial Chamber II issued a warrant for the arrest of Russia’s president – Vladimir Putin and Russia’s Presidential Commissioner for Children’s Rights in Russia.

Vladimir Putin and Presidential Commissioner of Children’s Rights in Russia, Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova . Photo Courtesy of Sky News.

The basis for the arrest warrant is alleged violations of the Rome Statute. The Rome Statute gives the ICC the power to investigate and prosecute international crimes relating to the following: Genocide, Crimes of Aggresion, Crimes against Humanity, and War Crimes. The ICC is using the basis of Articles 25 and 28 of the Rome Statute to assert their jurisdiction in issuing an arrest warrant for Putin on the basis of his individual responsibility and by holding him accountable for being a commanding superior to carry out the unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children as part of their war strategies. The ICC alleges that Putin violated two clauses of Article 8 of the Rome Statute pertaining to what constitutes a war crime including unlawful deportation, unlawful confinement, and taking of hostages.

There was great debate within the ICC as to keeping the warrants a secret or not, but they decided to ultimately go public, hoping that doing so would reduce and prevent further crimes. The ICC also chose to go public with the warrants as a signal that all who violate international law in Ukraine will be held responsible regardless of their political power or status. The expectation following this warrant is that if Putin or the Presidential Commissioner for Children’s rights in Russia leave Russia, they shall be arrested and brought forth to the ICC. It is currently uncertain if the ICC will pursue additional allegations as a multitude of crimes against humanity has been made since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Hopefully, justice will soon be brought to Ukraine.

 

For further information, please see:

Amnesty – Russia: ICC’s arrest warrant against Putin a step towards justice for victims of war crimes in Ukraine – 17 Mar. 2023

Council on Foreign Relations – Ukraine: Conflict at the Crossroads of Europe and Russia – 14 Feb. 2023

ICC – Rome Statute – 17 July 1998

ICC – Situation in Ukraine: ICC judges issue arrest warrants against Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin and Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova – 17 Mar. 2023

The Guardian – ICC judges issue arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin over alleged war crimes – 17 Mar. 2023

UK Government – Speech on Seventh anniversary of Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea: UK statement – 4 Mar. 2021

Human Rights violations alleged against the Republic of Benin

By: Wendy Neeley

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

Benin – On December 20, 2022, Eric Noudehouenou filed an application against the Republic of Benin with the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Noudehouenou alleges several human rights violations against the respondent parties and asserts that many of these violations and actions were prohibited by previous judgments of the court. The allegations include violations of “respect for life and physical and moral integrity”, the “right to a fair trial”, the “right to freedom of opinion and expression”, the “right to freely associate with others”, and the “right to participate freely in the conduct of public affairs of one’s country”.

Noudehouenou filed the application on behalf of himself and other citizens of the Republic of Benin. Notably, the application states that Noudehouenou has been given power of attorney for Reckya Madougou. Madaougou was arrested while protesting the presidential election in 2021 which was prohibited by an earlier judgment of the court.

People gathered outside the court showing support for Reckya Madougou during her trial. Photo Courtesy of BBC News.

Benin is a West African country formerly known as Dahomey. It is underdeveloped and is ranked among the world’s poorest countries, but it has seen significant economic growth over the past few years. Although it is one of Africa’s more stable democracies, there is still some political unrest, as evidenced by the protests that resulted in the arrest of Madougou.


The application filed by Noudehouenou requests that the court enforce the judgments that would have prevented the 2021 Presidential Election and erase all of the effects of the election. He claims that not acting with urgency on the matter will cause irreparable harm. Additionally, the application calls for the suspension of Madougou’s detention. The circumstances around the arrest and trial have some questioning the conviction of acts of terrorism. Additionally, the application claims that Madougou is being held in appalling conditions and has not been allowed to communicate with her lawyers privately.


After reviewing the application, the court found that they can no longer take any measures regarding the 2021 Presidential election since it has already occurred, and the measures sought are not moot. Additionally, the court found no justification for the request for the suspension of the detention warrant for Reckya Madougou. Accordingly, and absent any further proceedings, she will be required to carry out her sentence of twenty years of imprisonment.

For further information, please see:

ACtHPR – Houngue Eric Noudehouenou v. Republic of Benin, 20 Dec. 2022

BBC News – Benin country profile – 16 Jan. 2023


BBC News – Reckya Madougou: Opposition leader jailing damages Benin democracy – laywer – 12 Dec. 2021 


Reuters – Benin opposition leader sentenced to 20 years in prison – 11 Dec. 2021