explosive_barrels_never_stop_in_October_2015_en
Papua New Guinea Facing Domestic Violence Crisis
By Samuel Miller
Impunity Watch Desk Reporter, North America and Oceania
PORT MORESBY, Papua New Guinea — In a report released Tuesday, Human Rights Watch released a report, declaring women and girls in Papua New Guinea are enduring brutal attacks from their partners, as government officials neglect survivors’ needs for safety, services, and justice. At the moment, the problem is mainly tackled by NGOs and grassroots activists.
Critical interventions for survivors, including protection measures and access to shelters, are not readily accessible or not available at all as a result of enforcement failures.
In 2013, Papua New Guinea passed the Family Protection Act, which set new penalties for family violence and aims to make it easier for victims to get protection orders and services.
Although some services have been established, the law has not been implemented on the ground. The government says that it will not do so until it has finalized enabling regulations, even though this is not required by law.
The 59 page report — Bashed Up: Family Violence in Papua New Guinea — documents systemic failures in how the government responds to domestic violence. These failures often leave women unprotected and subject to ongoing violence, even when they have gone to great lengths to seek help and justice.
While the exact number of women who experience violence at the hands of a partner is unknown, the last comprehensive survey was carried out in 1992; it found that family violence occurred in more than two-thirds of households. The report makes no statistical claims on the prevalence of family violence in the country but does highlight “systemic problems” in addressing the issue.
In particular, the report demonstrated the attitudes and practices of police and prosecutors when handling domestic violence complaints. Human Rights Watch reported police often demand money from victims before they will act or simply ignore cases occurring in rural areas.
Furthermore, police in Papua New Guinea appear reluctant to refer survivors for protection orders, and survivors who seek protection orders frequently encounter delays in the courts. These failures occur even in specialized family violence police units.
When police do get involved, they often seek to resolve the situation not by bringing charges, but instead by counselling the attacker to stop violent abuse, and send the woman home. Police will also choose to counsel the attacker in cases of attempted murder and repeated rape and when the victim does not feel safe returning, does not want to reconcile, and asks for the attacker to be imprisoned.
Human Rights said while the government deserves praise for developing a strategy to handle gender-based violence, including the formation of a human rights commission, many lives are being devastated in the meantime. The report calls on the government to implement family protection legislation, increase public awareness of family violence and ensure the police properly investigates crimes.
The government has yet to respond to the report, which despite its criticisms, does give the authorities some credit for taking initial steps to combat family violence.
For more information, please see:
BBC News — Papua New Guinea suffering domestic violence ’emergency’ – 4 November 2015
The Australian — Papua New Guinea’s domestic violence crisis is being ignored – 4 November 2015
Radio New Zealand — PNG govt failing women: Human rights watch – 4 November 2015
Human Rights Watch — Papua New Guinea: Prosecute Domestic Violence – 3 November 2015
Syria Deeply: State Kidnappings a Cash Cow for Assad, Amnesty Says
|
|
|
|
Woman in Afghanistan Is Stoned to Death
By Christine Khamis
Impunity Watch Reporter, Asia
KABUL, Afghanistan—
A woman accused of adultery was stoned to death in central Afghanistan last week. The woman, named Rokhshana, was buried in a hole with only her head exposed. Men then surrounded her and threw stones at her until she died. Onlookers filmed the killing and a video portraying the stoning was subsequently released online. The Tolo news agency, a news source focusing on Afghanistan, has reported that the stoning occurred about a week ago in the village of Ghalmeen, a Taliban-controlled area in the Ghor province.
Rokhshana received her punishment for her elopement with a man, who received only a lashing for his own crime of adultery. The governor of Ghor province, Seema Joyenda, told a news agency that Rokhshana had been married off by her family against her will. Ms. Joyenda, who has staff members from Ghalmeen, stated that Rokhshana’s family tried to marry her off several years ago and that the young woman ran away to Iran. Her family brought her back from Iran and forced her to marry another man. Rokhshana then eloped with another man and was brought back after two days, leading to her adultery charge and stoning.
Ms. Joyenda has reported that the Taliban leader of Ghalmeen ordered Rokhshana’s stoning and other officials have stated that Rokhshana was stoned by a group of men comprised of Taliban, local religious leaders, and warlords.
Activists in Kabul, however, believe that the Taliban was not involved in the stoning and that local tribal leaders committed Rokhshana’s killing. Wazhma Frogh, a founder of the Research Institute for Women, Peace and Security in Afghanistan, has stated that her contacts in Ghor province told her that local officials are responsible for Rokhshana’s stoning. Tribal leaders in Afghanistan have been known to blame the Taliban for their own atrocities.
Ms. Joyenda is one of only two female governors in Afghanistan. She has been criticized for permitting local authorities in Ghor province to violate women’s rights.
Stoning is officially banned in Afghanistan, but its government considered a proposal to reintroduce the punishment in 2013. The government, led at that point by President Hamid Karzai, backed down from the proposal due to objections from the international community.
Women throughout Afghanistan consistently face persecution. In March, another woman was beaten and set on fire in Kabul after she was falsely accused of burning a copy of the Koran. Her murder led to protests in Afghanistan and drew an outcry from the international community about the treatment of women in the country.
A report by the U.N. Assistance Mission in April stated that “the prevalence of violence against women and harmful practices continues to be of serious concern”. Amnesty International has also released a report detailing the persecution of women’s rights activists at the hands of Taliban members, tribal warlords, and government officials.
For more information, please see:
Al Jazeera – Afghan Woman Stoned to Death for ‘Adultery’ – 4 November 2015
CNN – Woman Stoned to Death in Afghanistan Over Accusation of Adultery – 4 November 2015
BBC — Afghan Woman Accused of Adultery is Stoned to Death – 3 November 2015
The Guardian – Afghan Woman Stoned to Death for Alleged Adultery – 3 November 2015
Supreme Court Hears Arguments In Jury Selection Case
By Samuel Miller
Impunity Watch Desk Reporter, North America and Oceania
WASHINGTON, D.C., United States of America — The United States Supreme Court is determining whether racism played a role when an all-white jury put a black teenager on death row for killing a white woman. The Supreme Court appeared troubled Monday by the actions of a Georgia prosecutor in disqualifying all the black prospective jurors from the death penalty trial of a black teenager who was accused of killing an elderly white woman.
At issue: the conviction of a 19 year old African American man, sentenced to death in Georgia, by an all-white jury.
Jury selection boils down to how prosecution and defense lawyers use peremptory strikes. These are the set number of prospective jurors who can be eliminated by each side without any stated reason.
In 1986, in Batson v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court made an exception to the centuries-old rule that peremptory challenges are completely discretionary. It ruled that race discrimination in jury selection was unconstitutional and required lawyers accused of it to provide a nondiscriminatory explanation.
But Monday’s case, Foster v. Chatman, appears poised to be an exception.
The original jury pool for Timothy Foster’s 1987 murder trial in Rome, Ga., included 10 blacks among 95 potential jurors. After more than half the pool was excused for specific reasons, each side was allowed to make a set number of additional strikes, as long as it wasn’t because of race or gender. On a sheet during the selection process, prosecutors listed the five remaining black prospects on top labeled definite NO’s.
On objection, the defense cried foul, but the trial judge and every appellate court after that accepted the prosecution’s alternative nonracial reasons. The courts continued to accept these nonracial justifications even after the defense in 2006 obtained the prosecutor’s jury selection notes.
During the selection process, prosecutors highlighted their names, circled the word ‘black’ on their questionnaires and added handy notations. Prosecutors also rated the black jurors against each other in case the prosecution had to accept one black juror.
Georgia courts have consistently rejected Foster’s claims of discrimination, even after his lawyers obtained the prosecution’s notes that revealed prosecutors’ focus on the black people in the jury pool.
The Foster case could give the court the chance to add teeth to its standards. Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested the court could clarify what trial judges should do when prosecutors offer “a laundry list of reasons for striking the black juror, and some of those are reasonable and some are implausible.”
Justice Stephen Breyer also added his commentary in questioning the rationale, saying “I think any reasonable person looking at this would say no, his reason was a purpose to discriminate on the basis of race.”
If the justices find that Foster’s constitutional rights were violated and instruct that he be given a new trial, the ruling could impact the way prosecutors, defense attorneys and trial judges handle jury selection in the future.
Furthermore, because Foster received a death sentence, the decision could fuel concerns previously voiced by two justices that the death penalty itself may be unconstitutional.
For more information, please see:
Al-Jazeera America — Supreme Court takes up racial bias in jury selection case – 2 November 2015
BBC News — US Supreme Court hears white jury case – 2 November 2015
CBS News – Supreme Court seems troubled by prosecutor’s rejection of black jurors – 2 November 2015
NPR — Supreme Court Weighs 1987 Conviction By All-White Jury – 2 November 2015
USA Today — Supreme Court takes up racial discrimination in jury selection – 2 November 2015