ECHR finds Russia responsible in the death of Alexander Litvinenko

By: Elyse Maugeri

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor

STRASBOURG, France – In 2006, while living in London, former KGB officer Alexander Litvinenko died after being poisoned with polonium 210, a radioactive substance. It has been long believed that Moscow was behind the attack due to the allegations that Mr. Litvinenko as working with western European authorities to prove high levels of corruption and organized crime in the Russian intelligence services. Now, the European Court of Human Rights confirmed what many suspected, that Russia was behind the attack.

The Litvinenko Inquiry, the report used during the investigation. Photo curtsey of Reuters.

In October 2006, over the course of the month, two Russian men, Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitriy Kovtun, both acquaintances of Mr. Litvinenko, visited him in London for multiple meetings. After each meeting, there were found to be trace amounts of polonium contamination in areas where the men had met. During the final meeting on 31 October 2006, Mr. Litvinenko and the two men met in their hotel’s bar and drank tea together. Three days later, Mr. Litvinenko fell extremely ill and was admitted to a hospital in London. Trace amounts of polonium were found in the teapot. He was later transferred to the University College Hospital, where it was suspected he had been poisoned using a radioactive substance. Mr. Litvinenko died three weeks later, with cause of death as acute radiation syndrome.

Shortly after he died, UK police opened an investigation into the poisoning. In 2007, they determined that there was sufficient evidence to charge Mt. Lugovoy for the murder. Later, in 2011, Mr. Kovtun was also charged. However, due to Russian extradition laws, neither man stood trial in the UK. In fact, later in 2007, Mr. Lugovoy became a member of Russian Parliament and acquired parliamentary immunity.

The Russian Prosecutor General launched its own investigation but provided little to no information for the ECHR.

In the UK a public inquiry was carried out, finding that beyond a reasonable doubt, Mr. Lugovoy and Mr. Kovtun poisoned Mr. Litvinenko with polonium. It also rejected any allegation that the two men had been set up by British authorities or that Mr. Litvinenko accidentally or purposefully poisoned himself. The inquiry also found that the two men had strong ties with the Russian state and the assassination had been directed by the FSB. All information in the inquiry was provided to the ECHR.

In its decision, the ECHR found that Russia failed to provide any necessary documents that had been requested, such as the investigation file, Mr. Lugovoy’s statements, and legal assistance requests. Further, despite Russian objection, the UK’s inquiry was permissible to be used as evidence because it was an independent and unbiased inquiry.

The Court also determined that since Russia investigated the death, a jurisdictional link had been established in the incident. Also, there existed a “special feature” in the case, that Russia retained an exclusive jurisdiction over Mr. Lugovoy, which further established the jurisdictional link. The Court acknowledged the lack of information provided by Russia in their investigation and thus concluded that the investigation was not effective in identifying and punishing those involved.

In the UK inquiry, it was determined that neither Mr. Lugovoy nor Mr. Kovtun had specific reason to kill Mr. Litvinenko, leaving State involvement as the most, and only, plausible reason. This paired with Russia’s refusal to cooperate, strengthened the belief that the assassination was ordered by the Russian State.

The Court held that Russia was to pay the applicant, Mr. Litvinenko’s widow Marina Litvinenko, €100,000 for non-pecuniary damage and €22,500 for costs and expenses. Punitive damages were not awarded.

For further information, please see:

The European Court of Human Rights – Press Release: Russia was responsible for assassination of Aleksandr Litvinenko in the UK – 21 Sept. 2021

BBC News – Russia behind Litvinenko murder, rules European rights court – 21 Sept. 2021

NPR – Russia Fatally Poisoned A Prominent Defector In London, A Court Concludes – 22 Sept. 2021

Reuters – Russia was behind Litvinenko assassination, European court finds – 21 Sept. 2021

Mexican Supreme Court Declares Criminalization of Abortion Unconstitutional

By: Christian González

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Managing Editor of the News

MEXICO CITY, Mexico – The National Supreme Court of Justice unanimously voted on September 7, 2021 that criminalization of abortion is unconstitutional.

Protestors demonstrate for abortion rights in Mexico City. Green handkerchiefs have become a symbol for pro-choice and women’s rights movements in Latin America. Photo courtesy of Reuters.

The Court made its ruling when determining the validity of several provisions of the Penal Code of Coahuila, a state in northern Mexico. Article 196 of the Penal Code imposed a prison sentence of up to three years on women who voluntarily undergo an abortion and on those who help facilitate the abortion. The Court held this provision to be invalid in totality. A portion of Article 198 forbade healthcare professionals from assisting a woman with her abortion. A portion of Article 199 created an exception to penalization for abortions occurring before the twelfth week of pregnancy – but only instances of rape or artificial insemination. Both these individual portions of were also held to be invalid by the Court. Additionally, the Court ruled that section II of Article 224 – a provision that gives a lower penalty for crimes of rape between spouses, common-law partners, and civil partners – was also invalid.

In a press release, the Court stated that it “understood that the product of pregnancy deserves protection that increases over time, as the pregnancy progresses. However… this protection cannot ignore the rights of women and pregnant people to reproductive freedom. Therefore, the Plenary establishes, to absolutely criminalize the interruption of pregnancy is unconstitutional.” The President of the Court, Arturo Zaldívar Lelo de Larrea, explained the consequences of this ruling: “From now on, you will not be able to, without violating the court’s criteria and the constitution, charge any woman who aborts under the circumstances this court has ruled as valid.” The final decision of the Court has yet to be published, so what the Court’s “criteria” is remains to be seen.

Only four states in Mexico – Oaxaca, Hidalgo, Veracruz, and Mexico City – have thus far affirmatively legalized abortion, with all allowing for access to abortion before the twelfth week of pregnancy. The remaining twenty-eight states in the country all have some form of criminal penalization for abortion in their respective state codes. Since decisions from the National Supreme Court of Justice are binding to all federal and state judges, there are now constitutional grounds for challenging the restrictive laws in each of these states. Rebecca Ramos Duarte, director of the pro-reproductive rights group GIRE, believes that state legislatures will now be pressured into revising their anti-abortion laws before facing potential litigation.

Mexico, a largely conservative and Catholic country, will potentially be the largest Latin American country to allow abortion. This decision comes within a week of a new abortion law in Texas being signed into effect, which bans all abortions in the state after six weeks of pregnancy. The United States Supreme Court ruled to deny an injunctive order on the law on September 1. María Verza of AP News suggests that women in Texas, a state that shares a border with Coahuila, could now potentially find access to legal abortion in Mexico.

For further information, please see:

AP News – Mexico’s Supreme Court rules that abortion is not a crime – 7 Sep. 2021

Reuters – Mexico’s top court decriminalizes abortion in ‘watershed moment’ – 7 Sep. 2021

Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación – Comunicados de Prensa: Suprema Corte declara inconstitucional la criminzación total del aborto – 7 Sep. 2021

Supreme Court of the United States – Whole Women’s Health v. Jackson – 1 Sep. 2021

The New York Times – Mexico’s Supreme Court Votes to Decriminalize Abortion – 7 Sept. 2021

 

Chocolate Making Companies Can Learn A Lesson From Ferrero’s Ethical Commitments

By: Ryan Ockenden

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

YAMOUSSOUKRO, Côte d’Ivoire The cocoa harvesting industry in Côte d’Ivoire continues to be rife with child slavery. Children have been forced to overwork in unhealthy environments often kidnapped from their homes, brought across country lines, and held prisoner on cocoa plantations. Some of the largest international chocolate-making companies – such as Hershey, Nestle, and Mars – stand at the center of this controversy.

Children work side by side on cocoa plantations to cultivate cocoa from pods in order to serve a massive international chocolate-making market. Photo Courtesy of Fortune and Benjamin Lowy.

Chocolate-making companies seem inept at solving the child slavery problem, or perhaps they simply do not care to. Executives at these companies publicly abhor child labor in the chocolate industry. For decades, companies have promised to make changes through either stricter regulatory measures, or changing where they buy cocoa from – but these promises remain largely empty. The executives know that their success relies on gaining competitive advantages within the international market. For them, using child labor gives them an advantage because they can keep their cocoa purchase costs down.

One company, Ferrero, has put ethics before the zeal of gaining a competitive advantage. In 2011, Ferrero partnered with Save the Children in order to work toward a ten-year goal of transitioning their cocoa purchases to 100% sustainable and broadly ethical sources. Ferrero met their goal, and just last week renewed their partnership with Save the Children for an additional five years. Together they are committing €8M ($9.43M) to continue their sustainability and ethical devotion to cocoa cultivation. The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights has noted that all actions taken by another person that concern a child must be primarily focused on that child’s best interests. In many African communities, cultural expectations of children’s labor contributions differ from those generally sought by countries enforcing United Nations policies. Therefore, Ferrero and Save the Children agreed that moderate child labor is acceptable so long as it includes healthy working conditions that will protect child workers from economic exploitation, hazardous activities, and will give them an opportunity to attend school.

Ferrero’s project with Save the Children incorporates a variety of ways to ensure those goals are met. Ferrero is investing in tracking the supply chain to trace the source of cocoa so that they can check farms for any violations. Additionally, they are mapping farmers in order to prevent deforestation, helping women in the communities to attain small business loans, and ensuring children have access to continually improving education. While other international chocolate-making companies find themselves subject to lawsuits for aiding and abetting human rights violations, perhaps they can learn a lesson from a company that stands invested in ethics.

In order to ensure that abusive child labor is eliminated from the cocoa industry in Côte d’Ivoire, it will take contributions from all chocolate-making companies to commit to ethical and sustainable cultivation. These commitments will strengthen protections for child workers, increase access to quality education, empower women to engage in markets, and develop communities across West Africa.

For further information, please see:

African Court on Human and People’s Rights – African Court Law Report – 2017-2018

European Food Agency News – Ferrero Still In Field Against The Scourge Of Child Labor – 25 Mar. 2021

The Guardian – Mars, Nestle and Hershey to face child slavery lawsuit in US – 12 Feb. 2021

The Washington Post – Supreme Court Weighs Child Slavery Case Against Nestle USA, Cargill – 1 Dec. 2020

Fortune – Bitter Sweets: A special on-the-ground report from West Africa – 1 Mar. 2016