Leader of West African Terrorist Group is Dead

By Alexis Eka

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

On Thursday, October 16, 2021, the head of Nigeria’s armed forces, Military Commander and Chief of Defense, General Lucky Irabor announced that a key figure in the West African terrorist group, Abu Musab al-Barnawi, had passed away. Al-Barnawi was said to be the son of Boko Haram’s late founder Mohammed Yusuf.

Islamic State West Africa Provenience (“ISWAP”) has been regarded as the most prominent jihadist group in Nigeria since the death of Boko Haram leader, Abubakar Shekau that occurred earlier this year. After Shekau’s father died in law enforcement’s custody, Shekau was appointed the group’s new leader. And after, Shekau’s death, Barnawi was said to be the leader of the ISWAP. 

ISWAP is a splinter of Boko Haram, a terrorist group that has killed several thousands of people, kidnapped students, and added to the increasing homeless population in Nigeria. ISWAP has been fighting against the Nigerian armed forces for about 12 years. ISWAP has primarily focused on its attacks on the Nigerian military as opposed to Boko Haram who has terrorized several other groups. However, in Nigeria, the ISWAP insurgency group is still referred to as the “Mamman Nur Faction,” a term coined by West Africans explaining that they are still under the control of Boko Haram.

The two militant groups have been at conflict with each other for several years, until ISWAP became Boko Haram’s successor. The conflict between Boko Haram and ISWAP and the insurgents in Nigeria’s armed forces has spread to neighboring countries, Cameroon and Chad, and has left about 300,000 people dead and millions of Nigerian citizens injured.

Ibrahim Awami, an individual who was kidnapped by ISWAP in 2016 and forced to join the ISWAP insurgency, said that “the death of Shekau will not be the end of insurgency in the Northeastern region.” Awami escaped from the ISWAP insurgency less than a month ago and indicated that there are several Shekaus that are still seeking to abduct other west Africans and enlist them into the ISWAP insurgency. ISWAP stated that often, there are fights that break out for power between the ISWAP members, sometimes resulting in their deaths.

For more information, please see:

AP News – Nigerian Military says Leader of IS-Linked Group is Dead – 14 Oct. 2021. 

BBC News – Nigeria Says ISWAP Leader Abu Musab al-Barnawi is Dead – 14 Oct. 2021.

New York Times – Leader of West African Terrorist group is Dead, Nigerian Army Says – 14 Oct. 2021. 

Reuters – Nigerian General Says Leader of Islamic State West Africa is Dead – 14 Oct. 2021.

Supreme Court to Hear First Pre-Viability Abortion Case Since Roe v. Wade

By: Anna E. Melo     

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

WASHINGTON D.C., United States – On December 1, 2021, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization to evaluate the constitutionality of a Mississippi law restricting access to abortion in most situations after 15 weeks of gestation-period. The Department of Health in Mississippi seeks to overturn previously decided landmark abortion cases ensuring a woman’s right to terminate pregnancy up to fetal viability (defined as where a growing fetus would be able to survive ex utero). With a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court, proponents for women’s reproductive rights anxiously await a decision that may transform the landscape of accessible healthcare in the United States.

Pro-choice advocates protest outside of the Supreme Court in Washington D.C. Photo by REUTERS/Tom Brenner.

For nearly 50 years, the holdings of cases such as Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey have established that the 4th and 14th Amendments support a woman’s right of privacy to choose to terminate a pregnancy without unnecessary barriers. Subsequently, some state legislatures have sought to impose restrictions dictating the limited circumstances whereby a woman would be allowed to receive the procedure.

In 1972, Mississippi enacted the Gestational Age Act which is full of language directed towards the potential emotional and physical harm caused by abortion procedures. It describes various fetal developments week by week up to the ‘cut off gestational age’ of 15 weeks (two weeks into the second trimester). The only exceptions past this threshold point that the Act allows for are medical emergencies or in cases of severe fetal abnormality (notably excluding instances of rape and incest). Physicians are tasked with reporting each abortion procedure conducted under oath, with the threat of civil penalties and/or license suspension or revocation for noncompliance with the provisions of the Act.

Jackson Women’s Health Organization is the last operating abortion clinic in the state of Mississippi, leaving women, especially the poor and minorities, with very few opportunities to obtain the procedure.

Jackson Women’s Health sued the State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health to challenge the Gestational Age Act in 2018 on the merits that a pre-viability ban on abortion is unconstitutional. The district court for the Southern District of Mississippi found that the restrictive obstacles the Act imposes on women were unlawful. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision that the Act was unconstitutional in 2019. The State Health Officer of Mississippi Department of Health and the Executive Director of the Mississippi State Board of Medical Licensure appealed the 5th circuits decision, to which the Supreme Court has granted certiorari.

The topic of abortion is inherently contentious. It invites arguments and counterarguments concerning religion, philosophy, politics, and medicine. A case on the Supreme Court’s docket, especially in 2021, may leave more questions than answers.  Will advancements in medicine naturally shift ‘fetal viability’ earlier into a pregnancy?  Will an outright overturn of predominant case law in women’s and reproductive rights cause a domino effect in various conservative states to ban abortion altogether or the adoption of certain restrictions such as the ‘Heartbeat Bill’ at six weeks gestation?  Will we see action by Congress in an attempt to implement federal law that counters prohibitory state actions? In the next few months, the Supreme Court will be tasked with balancing these delicate matters that will have an undoubted impact on the status of women’s health and human rights in the United States.

For more information, please see:

5th Circuit – Decision Jackson Women’s Health Org. v. Dobbs, 945 F.3d 265 – Dec. 13, 2019.   

Mississippi Gestational Age Act – Current through 2021.  

United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi – Decision Jackson Women’s Health Org. v. Currier, 349 F. Supp. 3d 536 – Nov. 20, 2018.

United States Supreme Court – Decision Granting Motion for Certiorari Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health – Oct. 12, 2021.

The European Court of Human Rights Vindicates Dismissed Bulgarian Judge on Grounds of Freedom of Expression

By: Angelica Judge

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor

STRASBOURG, France – The European Court of Human Rights ruled in favor of Miroslava Todorova, a Bulgarian judge, on October 19, 2021 regarding a violation of her freedom of expression.

Photograph of Judge Miroslava Todorova. Photo Courtesy of noinvite.com.

Todorova is a judge in the criminal division of Sofia City Court in Bulgaria, and was elected president of the Bulgarian union of Judges (BUJ) in 2009.  During that time, she was publically critical of certain leadership decisions and statements within the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC).

A proposal was brought to the SJC Inspector General in July of 2011 for disciplinary proceedings to be instated against judges with a backlog of cases – with Todorova being named as one such judge. She suffered a salary reduction followed later by dismissal, and after a series of appeals, her case came before the ECtHR.

She alleged several claims under the European Convention on Human Rights, and the court found that her Article 10 right to freedom of expression had been violated. The court argued that “Those proceedings and sanctions could… have had a chilling effect on the applicant’s exercise of her freedom of expression and on that of all members of the national judiciary,” as a result of her previous comments criticizing the SJC. In coming to this decision, the court weighed what they felt to be an inadequate showing by the domestic authorities that the sanctions here were “necessary and appropriate to the legitimate aims pursued in the case.”  

The ECtHR recognized that judges still must be subject to appropriate sanctions following breaches of professional duty due to exercising their right to freedom of expression. However, if the discipline is suspected of being retaliatory, the domestic authorities must show that the sanctions were legitimate.  

Todorova had several other claims that were either unsuccessful, or were read in conjunction with the Article 10 violation. For example, the court did not find that there was a violation to Article 8 of the Convention, which provides for an individual’s right to respect for their private and family life. The basis for this claim was that the disciplinary proceedings caused significant media coverage that may have damaged her reputation. However, the court found that the media coverage was fairly balanced in terms of positive and negative attention. Proving this violation requires a standard of severity that the court felt was lacking.

Despite Todorova being unsuccessful in some of her claims, the court unanimously agreeing that there was a violation of her freedom of expression is a significant victory after a legal battle that had lasted for several years.

For further Information, please see:

American Society of International Law – ECtHR Issues Two Judgments on Freedom of Expression – 19 Oct. 2021

EU Law Live – Disciplinary proceedings against Bulgarian judge Miroslava Todorova breached freedom of expression ECtHR rules – 19 Oct. 2021

European Court of Human Rights – European Convention on Human Rights – 2 Oct. 2013

European Court of Human Rights – Disciplinary Proceedings Against and Sanctions Imposed on the Applicant, a Judge and President of the Bulgarian Union of Judges, Violated her Right to Freedom of Expression – 19 Oct. 2021

Radio Bulgaria – Judge Miroslava Todorova wins case against Bulgaria at the European Court of Human Rights – 19 Oct. 2021

Azerbaijani Government’s Act of Gagging Opposition Activists Violates Freedom of Expression

By: Ositadinma Nwosu

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

STRASBOURG, France – Activists against the Azerbaijani Government submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights (the Chamber) for the determination on whether the applicants’ right to freedom of expression under the provisions of Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention) was violated by the government. The Chamber found for the applicants.

Azeri riot policemen detain protestors in central Baku, Azerbaijan on Jan. 26, 2013. Photo Courtesy of Tofik Babayev/AFP/Getty Images.

The opposition activists are members of Nida and Free Youth Organization, civic movements founded in 2011 in Baku, capital of Azerbaijan, whose aim was to defend the constitutional and human rights of Azerbaijanis, preserve democratic values, increase the socio-political activeness of young people, and advocate for the rights of students in Azerbaijan. The organizations have most agitated for political change in the country and the applicants, in particular, were extremely vocal in their opposition against the government of Azerbaijan.

In 2013, with an intention to sensitize the public of their rights, especially as provided for in Chapter 1 of the Azerbaijan Constitution, the applicants distributed leaflets at an underground station in Baku and were arrested and detained by the police.

They were found to be guilty, after their rights to legal representation were denied, and sentenced to fifteen days in prison for pasting and handing out anti-government leaflets and for disobeying a lawful order given by a police officer. The applicants’ appeal to the Baku Court of Appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the lower court was upheld.   

Presenting their arguments before the Chamber, the applicants submitted that their right to freedom of expression in Article 10 was violated when they were arrested, detained, and convicted for distributing leaflets which did not contain any expression against the public or the interests of national security. On the other hand, the government argued that the arrest and arraignment of the applicants was due to public disorder and noise caused by the distribution of the leaflets, and not related to their freedom of expression. It is important to note that this argument by the government was neither raised at the domestic courts nor supported by any evidence before the Chamber.

The Chamber found that there was an unlawful interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression under Article 10, §2 of the Convention which provides that any interference must be prescribed by law. The Chamber found that the leaflets distributed by the applicants did not contain any speech or ideas prohibited by Azerbaijani domestic law and subsequently, they should not have been charged under it. Therefore, the violation of the right to freedom of expression of the applicants was not justified and it was more of an attempt by the government to silence opposition since the applicants were members of the major opposition organizations.

The Chamber awarded the sum of €5,850 to each applicant as non-pecuniary damage but refused their claim for cost and expenses since they did not support these claims with necessary documents. The Chamber further noted that it had dealt with similar cases involving the government of Azerbaijan and members of the Nida and Free Youth Organization, and the government’s actions in these cases illustrate a pattern.

For further information, please see:

Free Youth Organization – About FYO – accessed on 22 Oct. 2021.

Open Democracy – Meet N!DA, the exclamation mark that terrified the Azerbaijani authorities – 25 May 2016.

Refworld – Azerbaijan: Three youth activists sentenced and four detained ahead of presidential election – 17 July 2013.

The European Court of Human Rights – Case of HASANOV AND MAJIDLI v. AZERBAIJAN – 7 Oct. 2021.

Supreme Court of India Reinforces the Rights of People Suffering With Mental Health Conditions

By: Camisha Parkins

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor

INDIA – On September 1, 2021, the Supreme Court of India ordered all states and Union territories of the country to establish a system for facilitating vaccination against COVID-19 of all individuals residing in a mental health facility– including service providers, health care professionals, and all other associated staff. Each state must submit a progress report to the Department of Social Justice and the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment on or before October 15, 2021 explaining the steps taken and the number of people who have been vaccinated.

The outbreak of COVID-19 and the lockdown that followed exacerbated the long-standing inadequacies that already existed within India’s mental healthcare system. In the initial weeks of the lockdown, patients and doctors at mental health hospitals and institutions throughout India received very little support from central or state governments in battling the COVID-19 crisis, which placed patients and mental health professionals in imminent danger of the spread of the virus. Throughout the pandemic, hospitals were forced to turn away patients living with chronic mental illnesses who relied on hospitals due to lack of beds, staffing issues and the inability to provide sufficient medication. “Disabled people accessing health infrastructure, especially people with mental illness, were the last ones to be thought about,” said Anjlee Agarwal, founder of disability advocacy organization Samarthyam.

The Entrance to the Institute of Mental Health in Chennai, India. Photo Courtesy of The Hindu.

The Court’s order came in a contempt petition filed by advocate and petitioner-in-person in this case, Gaurav Kumar Bansal. Bansal accused states of disregarding a July 10, 2017 order from the Indian Supreme Court that required states and union territories to set up rehabilitation homes for mentally ill patients who remained in government-run mental health institutions despite being cured and ready for discharge. After reviewing status reports submitted by states and union territories following the July 2017 order, the Court said it “[did] not find that any genuine progress has been made… though different State Governments have indicated varying time lines for setting up the Halfway homes.” Accordingly, the bench of Justices led by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud mandated the establishment of halfway homes and rehabilitation homes for the mentally ill and directed the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment to establish an online dashboard that monitors the progress of the states and union territories. Information on the dashboard depicting the availability of institutions, facility provided, capacity, occupancy and region-wise distribution of halfway homes must be updated “on a real time basis.”

The bench, in making such court orders, noted that these problems involving people with mental health conditions “are of serious concern.” While this recent action by India’s Supreme Court counts as a major victory for advocates who work tirelessly in fighting for people with disabilities’ right to equal access to health care in India, ensuring that state governments take “appropriate and timely action” to meet the needs of people suffering with mental illnesses is of utmost importance. As Bansal stated, “We are just at the beginning of the battle… And we will keep fighting, together, until one day, people with psychosocial disabilities can live in dignity.”

For further information, please see:

Hindustan Times – Vaccinate inmates, staff of mental health facilities in a month, Supreme Court tells states – 2 Sept. 2021

Human Rights Watch – India’s Supreme Court Orders to Vaccinate Patients in Mental Health Facilities – 5 Oct. 2021

India Legal – Supreme Court directs all states to ensure vaccination of mentally-ill persons within 1 month – 1 Sept. 2021

Scroll.in – In India, coronavirus crisis has been particularly hard for mental health patients and hospitals – 3 Nov. 2020

Supreme Court of India – Gaurav Kumar Bansal vs. Mr. Dinesh Kumar & ORS – 1 Sept. 2021