Proceedings will continue against LRA Leader Vincent Otti for attacks against civilians and the Government of Uganda

By: Wendy Neeley

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

Kampala, UGANDA – The International Criminal Court (ICC) recently made a ruling on the case of Vincent Otti. The prosecution has made a “Renewed Request to Terminate Proceedings against Vincent Otti on Account of His death.”

Two men that survived the massacre and live with bullets still in their bodies. Photo Courtesy of Justice and Reconciliation Project.

A warrant for the arrest of Vincenti Otti was issued in July of 2005. The warrant of arrest cites Otti’s connections with The Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA). The LRA is an armed group that has been involved in attacks against the Government of Uganda and the Ugandan Army for over 30 years. The warrant alleges that the LRA is responsible for violence such as “murder, abduction, sexual enslavement, mutilation, as well as mass burnings of houses and looting of camp settlements; that abducted civilians, including children, are said to have been forcibly ‘recruited’ as fighters, porters and sex slaves.” Otti was included in the highest level of leadership for the LRA and he is charged with being criminally responsible for six attacks including one which is described as “hacking and shooting civilians.” He is also reportedly responsible for the Ataik Massacre of April 1995 during which LRA soldiers opened fire on 300 civilian men and boys while the women and children were required to watch and applaud the LRA.

However, in October of 2008, the prosecutors requested that the warrant for Otti be withdrawn and offered some preliminary information in support of the claim that Otti had died. Additionally, in March of 2022 the prosecution filed a request to terminate the proceedings against Otti based on his death. The prosecution claims that there is persuasive evidence that Otti was killed around October 2, 2007 in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The prosecution supplemented the claim in May 2022 based on information obtained from the Government of Uganda indicating that Otti was deceased. The evidence presented to the Court include witness statements, reports from media, and interviews from some Ugandan authorities.

However, in considering the evidence the court determined that it is not significant enough to prove the death of Otti. They indicate that there has been no body discovered and no official death certificate issued. As such, the Court determined that it would not be appropriate to terminate the proceedings against Otti and the prosecution’s request was rejected.

 

For further information, please see:

International Criminal Court – Decision on the Prosecution’s ‘Renewed Request to Terminate Proceedings against Vincent Otti on Account of His Death’ – 10 Dec. 2022

International Criminal Court – Warrant of Arrest for Vincent Otti – 8 July 2005

Liu Institute for Global Issues and the Gulu District NGO Forum – The Justice and Reconciliation Project: Field Notes, Remembering the Ataik Massacre April 20th 1995 – 04 Apr. 2007

NTV – How Vincent Otti’s son came to terms with his family’s history – 29 May 2021

With the Supreme Court Ruling to Overturn Restrictions on Gun Control, the U.S. Sees the Frequency of School Shootings Continue to Rise

By: Jessica Senzer

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Senior Associate Member

UNITED STATES – On Friday, January 6, 2023, a six-year-old boy shot his teacher at Richneck Elementary School in Newport News, Virginia. Police Chief Steve Drew said that the shooting was not an accidental one and that there was an altercation between the teacher and student that led to the shooting. Following the incident, Newport News Public Schools Superintendent, Dr. George Parker decided to keep the school closed on Monday, January 9, and he stated that “we need to educate our children and we need to keep them safe.” Superintendent Parker further expressed, I’m sounding like a broken record today because I continue to reiterate that… we need to keep the guns out of the hands of our young people.”

People Protesting for Gun Control Outside the Supreme Court. Photo Courtesy of Vox.

Dr. George Parker is not the only American to feel as if inadequate actions have been taken to address the rising concerns regarding gun control in America. Nabeela Syed, a newly elected member of the Illinois state legislature, grew up in Generation Z, a generation that “grew up on active shooter drills.” Syed recently stated that “sometimes it’s frustrating, being a younger person and feeling like we’ve been crying out for this and feeling unheard.” Despite Americans’ consistent pleas for action to be taken to stop the increase in gun violence across the country, the Supreme Court of the United States recently took the opposite actions.

On June 23, 2022, in the now-landmark case New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, the Supreme Court found a New York state concealed carry law to be unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the Second and 14th Amendments. The concealed carry law required a prospective gun owner to prove that “proper cause” existed before they could legally carry a concealed pistol or revolver in public. The Court held that this “proper cause” requirement prevented law-abiding citizens with self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.

In the opinion, Justice Thomas references two major gun rights cases, District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. Both of these historic gun rights cases recognize the right to keep and bear arms inside the home for purposes of self-defense. The Bruen opinion, however, expanded the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, holding that an individual also has the right to carry a gun for self-defense outside of the home. Amidst concerning increases in gun violence nationwide and sweeping pleas for more gun control, the Supreme Court acted contrary to the cries of the American people, and the repercussions are palpable.

For further information, please see:

CNN – 6-year-old in custody after shooting teacher in Virginia, police chief says – Jan. 7, 2023

NYSBA – The Supreme Court’s Bruen Decision and Its Impact: What Comes Next? – Aug. 9, 2022

U.S. News – Growing Into Leadership After Growing Up With Shootings – Nov. 28, 2022

Myanmar’s Former Civilian Leader gets 33 Years Added to Her Prison Sentence

By: Julie Yang 

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor

Nay Pyi Taw, MYANMAR – On December 27, 2022, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, Myanmar’s former leader from the National League for Democracy (NLD), received an additional 33 years to her prison sentence.

Suu Kyi was already serving a 26-year prison sentence since being detained by a coup staged by the military junta in February 2021. The junta formed the State Administrative Council (SAC) which seized power from Suu Kyi’s elected democratic government. This sparked a mass civil disobedience movement where people throughout the country partook in protests.

Protesters demand the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. Photo Courtesy of Reuters.

According to the Assistance Association for Political prisoners, the police and military detained more than 17,250 and killed at least 2,465 because of the junta’s violent efforts to silence those in opposition of the coup. The junta’s use of lethal force and military-grade weapons against peaceful protesters and civilians, extrajudicial killings and torture, and systemic abuses amount to crimes against humanity and war crimes. 

On December 21, 2022, The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) adopted a resolution condemning the junta’s human rights violations and demanding the release of Suu Kyi as well as more than 13,496 political prisoners who remain detained for opposing military rule. The resolution demands the junta to “immediately end all forms of violence”, allow humanitarian access, release all arbitrarily detained prisoners, and respect the “democratic institutions and processes.” It urges “concrete and immediate actions” to implement a peace plan agreed upon by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

The resolution faces criticism for failing to state the consequences in the event the junta does not meet the resolution’s demands. Thomas Andrews, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, asserts that mere “[demands] that certain actions be taken without any use of the Security Council’s Chapter VII authority” is not enough. Andrews stresses that targeted coordinated action by UN Member States is necessary to stop the junta and hold them accountable. Such actions include imposing sanctions, cutting off revenue financing the junta’s military, and an embargo on weapons.

After Suu Kyi’s political party won by an overwhelming majority in November 2021, the junta charged Suu Kyi with election fraud. Then, a series of charges including corruption, incitement of public unrest, and breaching Covid-19 protocols followed. Some pro-democracy activists were executed, and other government leaders stood at trial in recent months. Despite the junta’s efforts to extinguish Suu Kyi’s political influence in Myanmar, she remains a figure that inspires resistance against repression.

It is expected that, without action, not only may Suu Kyi remain in prison for the rest of her life, but also the crisis in Myanmar will worsen.

 

For further information, please see:

AAPP – Assistance Association For Political Prisoners (Burma) – Jan. 13, 2023

Amnesty International – Myanmar – 2021

HRW News – In Post-Coup Myanmar: ‘Death Squads’ and Extrajudicial Killings – Nov. 3, 2022

New York Times – Myanmar’s ousted leader gets 33 years in prison, a likely life sentence – Dec. 29, 2022

OHCR News – Myanmar action needed to stop carnage says un expert after adoption security – Dec. 22, 2022

UN News – Myanmar: Hundred of political prisoners released, but thousands remain in jail – Jan. 6, 2023

Court Clears the Way for Life Support Removal in France Against Wishes of Advanced Directive with Denial of Emergency Stay

By: Penelope Morrison Boettiger

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

FRANCE – On December 1, 2022, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) declined to support a stay of execution under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court directed at the French Government to withdraw life-support treatment being provided to Mr. A. Medmoune. In the case of Medmoune v. France, the family of Mr. Medmoune sought the stay of execution of physicians looking to withdraw life-support treatment against the wishes he had expressed in writing in his Advanced Directive which clearly stated he would like to be kept alive should he be in an irreversible coma. Under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the Court may determine interim measures for urgent issues to any State Party to the European Convention on Human Rights.

A patient on life support, 2013. Photo courtesy of NBCNews.

In France, Advanced Directives came quite late, established by law for the first time in 2005 through law n° 2005-370. To this day they are little known and not widely used, and as such this court request by applicants is one which has not been extensively litigated in France. Advanced Directives in France allow patients to request specific end of life care, including the wishes of patients concerning withdrawing life support. However, unlike in the United States, physicians in France are not required to follow a patient’s Advanced Directives. It is up to the physician to determine whether to respect an advanced directive and whether to discontinue care which results in a very weak position of self-determination.

In the present case, Mr. Medmoune is a 44-year-old man who had a serious accident and has been on life support in an irreversible coma since May 2022. In July 2022 the medical decision to remove Mr. Medmoune was made by a team of his physicians reviewing his case and prognosis. Applicants are his wife and sister, who argue his Advanced Directive to continue receiving life support treatment is clear and should be followed. Specifically, they argued life support removal would breach his right to life (Article 2 of the Convention) as well as his right to respect for private life in determining how his life should end (Article 8 of the Convention), and to his right to freedom of conscience and religion (Article 9 of the Convention).

The French court first put forth a question to the Constitutional Council regarding the constitutionality of Article L. 1111-11 of the Public Health Code, which states where “’the advance directives are manifestly inappropriate or incompatible with the medical situation’ the medical team may, subject to certain conditions, override those directives in the patient’s interest.” On November 10, 2022, the Constitutional Council rule the law in place was not antithetical to human dignity or personal freedom. Shortly thereafter, on November 30, 2022, applicants applied to the ECHR under Rule 39 to stay the withdrawal of life support while the merits of the case were in review. On December 1, 2022, the ECHR decided not to stay the French Court’s decision authorizing the withdrawal of life support treatment clearing the way for Mr. Medmoune’s life support to be imminently removed.

The forthcoming decisions on the merits have serious implications for the future of self-determination in Advanced Directives not only in France, but also in other countries around the world with similar laws. At the same time, the Court’s decision not to stay the withdrawal of life support under Rule 39 appears to close the door on those in France who would rely on this stay in order to stay alive while the merits of Advanced Directive cases continue.

For further information, please see:

ECHR – Medmoune v. France – Feb. 12, 2022

Journal of Palliative Care & Medicine – Advance Directives in Palliative Care: The French Case – Nov. 12, 2014

National Library of Medicine – Advance directives and the family: French and American perspectives – 2007

Health Care Analysis – Advance Directives in English and French Law: Different Concepts, Different Values, Different Societies – March 2014

AfCHPR Reaches Judgment Following Tanzania’s End on its Ban of Pregnant Girls in School.


Alexa Connaughton
Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

TANZANIA – In 2002, Tanzania enacted an amendment to the Education Act which banned pregnant girls from attending school, even after they had given birth. The effects of this policy were disastrous, leading to the expulsion of thousands of girls, making them unable to complete their compulsory education.

Girls on their way to school. Photo courtesy of Center for Reproductive Rights.

According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, Tanzania has one of the highest rates of child marriages in the world. Many schools lack of sex education and students don’t have access to information on how to prevent pregnancy, yet young girls are still subjected to this rule. Teachers and school administrators are left to enforce the policy with many schools choosing to conduct mandatory pregnancy tests, though there is nothing in the amendment to call for that.

Petitions regarding this matter have been brought to many different courts since the amendment’s inception. In 2012 the Legal Human Rights Center and the National Organization for Legal Assistance filed a petition with the High Court of Tanzania, on behalf of schoolgirls in Tanzania. Their petition was against the Minister of Education and Vocational Training, and the Attorney General of Tanzania. The petition alleged that the policy violates the Article 13 of the Constitution of Tanzania, which protects equal rights and non-discrimination. However, this petition was dismissed in 2017 after five years.

In November 2020 a petition on behalf of six Tanzanian girls who were expelled from school was brought before the court, in the case Tike Mwambipile and Equality Now v. United Republic of Tanzania. The petition alleged that the amendment violated the girls’ rights to education and non-discrimination. Seven different organizations also filed amicus curiae briefs, some of which included the Human Rights Watch and UNESCO. The Court recently released its judgment on this matter deciding that the petition was inadmissible due to the fact that another petition was filed with the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child who held a hearing on the matter in November 2021. Following that hearing Tanzania’s Ministry of Education adopted Circular No. 2 which reinstated students and effectively ended Tanzania’s ban on teen mothers in schools. However, Tanzania was one of three countries in the sub-Saharan African region which adhere to an official ban against pregnant students and Tanzania has yet to codify a protection of girls’ right to access education, regardless of pregnancy.

For further information, please see:

AfCHPR – Tike Mwambipile and Equality Now v. United Republic of Tanzania – Dec. 1, 2022

Center for Reproductive Rights – Center for Reproductive Rights and the Legal and Human Rights Centre file a complaint challenging the expulsion and exclusion of pregnant schoolgirls in Tanzania – June 17, 2019

Center for Reproductive Rights – Tanzania’s Policy Change Will Allow Pregnant Schoolgirls to Continue Their Education – Dec. 22, 2021

Equality Now – African Court On Human And Peoples’ Rights To Give Verdict On Case Challenging Tanzania’s Ban On Pregnant Girls And Adolescent Mothers Attending School – Nov. 20, 2022

Human Rights Watch – Tanzania: Pregnant Student Ban Harms Thousands – Oct. 6, 2021