Russia Blocks UN Security Council Resolution Recognizing Srebrenica Massacre as “Genocide”

by Shelby Vcelka

Impunity Watch Desk Reporter, Europe

UNITED NATIONS–

UN Security Council held a session last Wednesday on a resolution that would have condemned the Srebrenica massacre of 1995 as a “crime of genocide.” The text of the resolution stated that the “acceptance of the tragic events at Srebrenica as genocide is a prerequisite for reconciliation.” Of the fifteen members of the Security Council, four members abstained from the vote, while ten voted in favor. Only Russia voted against the resolution. The resolution’s failure to pass marks a new low in international politics and relations among the Western powers.

In 1995, 8,000 Muslim men and boys were killed by Bosnian Serb forces in Srebrenica. Approximately 7,000 bodies have been recovered since the incident; about 1,000 victims are still missing. (Photo courtesy of dw.com)

This week marks the 20th anniversary of the killing of 8,000 Muslim men and boys by Bosnian Serb troops in the worst massacre since the Second Word War. The victims were shot and buried in a mass grave after Serbian forces overran a safe zone watched by Dutch United Nations peacekeepers during the final months of the Bosnian War.

The Russian ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, described the resolution as “counter productive, confrontational and politically motivated.” He claimed that the resolution blamed the Bosnian Serbs for atrocities that were committed by all parties involved in the conflict. The resolution would further “doom the region to tension,” Mr. Churkin claimed, as Serbia was opposed to the motion. Russia and Serbia have close political ties.

Prior to the vote, the United States, Russia, and Britain attempted to come to a compromise on the language of the text. The American ambassador, Samantha Power, stated that the writers of the draft attempted to tackle many of Russia’s concerns, but Russia spurned the definition of genocide offered by the resolution. The vote had been pushed back a day to address other issues Russia had, but to no avail.

Serbia, who does not have a seat on the Security Council, has denied the allegations that the massacre was a “genocide,” and asked ally Russia to block the resolution. The denial is in spite of a UN war crimes tribunal in the Hague and other international courts recognizing the event as a genocide. Serbia admits that a “grave crime” was committed as it created closer ties with the West, but refuses to call acknowledge the legal definition of genocide.

For more information, please see–

BBC– Russia vetoes UN move to call Srebrenica ‘genocide’— 08 July 2015

Business Insider–Russia blocks U.N. condemnation of Srebrenica as a genocide— 08 July 2015

DW.com– Russia blocks UN resolution condemning Srebrenica ‘genocide’— 08 July 2015

New York Times– Russia Vetoes U.N. Resolution Calling Srebrenica Massacre ‘Crime of Genocide’— 08 July 2015

The Telegraph– Russia blocks UN resolution condemning Srebrenica massacre as genocide— 08 July 2015

President Obama Grants Clemency to Non-violent Drug Offenders

By Samuel Miller
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America and Oceania

WASHINGTON, D.C., United States of America — On Monday, as a part of a renewed effort to reform the criminal justice system, President Barack Obama has commuted the prison sentences of 46 drug offenders. Obama said the move was part of his larger attempt to reform the criminal justice system, including reviewing sentencing laws and reducing punishments for non-violent crimes.

President Obama Expresses the Rationale for Granting Clemency. (Photo Courtesy of BBC News)

The prisoners will all be released by Nov. 10.

“I believe that at its heart, America is a nation of second chances,” President Obama stated, “and I believe these folks deserve their second chance.” Furthermore, the President went on to say, “Their [the prisoners] punishments didn’t fit the crime, and if they had been sentenced under today’s laws, nearly all of them would have already served their time.”

President Obama’s action brought the total number of commutations he has issued to 89, exceeding that of any president since Lyndon B. Johnson, who commuted 226 sentences. In fact, President Obama has now commuted more sentences than the last four presidents combined.

Of the 89 commutations Obama has granted while in office, 76 have gone to nonviolent drug offenders who met criteria set by the Justice Department last year. The commutations come as the administration is working to reduce costs and overcrowding in federal prisons and to provide relief to inmates who were sentenced under the harsh guidelines put in place in the late 1980s as the country was grappling with the crack cocaine epidemic.

The president also called on Republicans and Democrats in Congress to change anomalies in federal sentencing laws, kicking off a week of presidential events devoted to the criminal justice system. Noting that Republicans have also expressed interest in criminal justice reform, Obama said, “The nation is spending too much money on incarceration of individuals who received long sentences for relatively minor drug crimes.”

This week’s focus on criminal justice signals a renewed bid by President Obama’s administration to tackle what he sees as a lack of fairness in the system. On Thursday, President Obama is expected to become the first sitting president to visit a federal prison when he goes to the El Reno Federal Correctional Institution outside of Oklahoma City.

For more information, please see:

BBC News — Obama frees drug offenders whose terms ‘didn’t fit crimes’ – 13 July 2015

CNN — President Barack Obama commutes sentences of 46 drug offenders – 13 July 2015

NY Times — Obama Commutes Sentences for 46 Drug Offenders – 13 July 2015

USA Today — Obama’s clemency grant largest since the 1960s – 13 July 2015

Washington Post — Obama commutes sentences of 46 nonviolent drug offenders – 13 July 2015

 

Several Chinese Human Rights Lawyers Believed to be Detained by Police

By Christine Khamis

Impunity Watch Reporter, Asia

 

HONG KONG, China—

Chinese authorities detained human rights lawyer Li Heping on Friday. Police searched Mr. Li’s home in Beijing, seizing computers and documents. They then took Mr. Li away. His detainment is only the latest in a series of crackdowns on lawyers who defend dissidents and human rights advocates.

Mr. Li has worked on behalf of some of China’s most well known dissidents and rights advocates. His clients included Chen Guangcheng, a blind civil rights activist and legal advocate who escaped house arrest in 2012 and later moved to the United States.

Within the 24 hours preceding Mr. Li’s detainment, three other human rights attorneys disappeared, as well as a paralegal. It appears that the lawyers were detained as part as a growing investigation by Chinese authorities, but the details surrounding their disappearances remain unclear. Police have yet to confirm that they have the four lawyers and paralegal in custody.

Zhou Shifeng, Wang Yu, and Li Shuyun, all lawyers at the Fengrui Law Firm, disappeared on Thursday and Friday. The Fengrui Law Firm’s offices were searched, and police carried away at least three computers. As of Friday afternoon, some of the firm’s other lawyers had also gone missing, as well as its financial director and driver.

Mr. Zhou had just successfully won the release of a client, a news assistant for a German newspaper who had been detained by authorities for nine months. He is said to have been led away from his Beijing hotel by what appeared to be plainclothes police. His colleagues and wife have not heard anything from him since.

Ms. Yu, a human rights attorney, disappeared from her home on Thursday. Before being taken, Ms, Yu made it known through texts and social media that her power and internet had been shut off and that people were attempting to enter her home. Security guards at Ms. Yu’s apartment complex stated that police surrounded Ms. Yu’s building, saying that it was a drug bust. About a week before, while representing a client, Ms. Wu was thrown out onto the street by court bailiffs because she insisted on being at a cross examination.

Ms. Yu. (Photo courtesy of the Epoch Times)

Maya Wang, a Human Rights Watch researcher, has stated that Fengrui’s lawyers and paralegal could have been detained because of the Fengrui Law Firm’s employment of Wu Gan, an activist who publicized controversial cases on the internet. Mr. Wu was detained by police in May.

Other lawyers and human rights advocates in the region believe that the crackdown on human rights lawyers is part of the Chinese Communist Party’s efforts to use criminal investigations to destroy China’s rights defense movement. The movement has challenged restrictions on freedom of expression as well as restrictions on the Chinese legal and political systems.

 

For more information, please see:

The New York Times – Chinese Authorities Appear to Detain 4 Human Rights Lawyers – 10 July 2015

Radio Free Asia – Beijing Rights Lawyer ‘Missing’, Believed Detained: Lawyer – 10 July 2015

The Epoch Times – Chinese Rights Lawyer Taken From Home By Police – 9 July 2015

Amnesty International – Urgent Action: Seven Missing in Feared Attack on Law Firm – 10 July 2015

 

 

 

Syria Justice and Accountability Centre:Counter-Terrorism Court as a Tool for War Crimes, a Report by the Violations Documentation Center in Syria

Counter-Terrorism Courts by VDC

Report on Counter-Terrorism Courts in Syria byVDC

The Violations Documentation Center (VDC), a Syrian human rights documentation organization, recently published a report called Counter-Terrorism Court: a Tool for War Crimes. The report details the establishment of the Counter-Terrorism Court (CTC) in Syria in response to Counter-Terrorism Law No. 19 issued on June 28, 2012. Law 19 includes definitions of “terrorist act, terrorist organization and terrorism financing,” along with the punishments for each. The report uses both publicly available information and its own documentation to argue that, since its establishment, the CTC has not follow due process and has instead rendered politicized, biased, and unfair judgements against detainees with no regard to factual evidence. VDC explains that the purpose of CTCs is “to suppress and stifle any opposition voices and to ensure the regime’s stability where a small clan controls different government establishments as well as all the country’s resources”. This report provides valuable insight into Syria’s flawed legal institutions and demonstrates areas that are in need of institutional reform in the post-conflict transition.

The report relies heavily on interviews with Syrian legal experts and former detainees. With its wide network in Syria and neighboring countries, VDC was well-positioned to access first-hand accounts of the system. One lawyer interviewed described the institutional problems with the CTCs: “The detainees in questions often confess under torture…Most of those referred to CTC are peaceful activists and ordinary citizens. Yet, the CTC judges them without any evidence . . . supporting the prosecutor’s charges. Judges typically do not pay attention to the detainees’ statements and tend to turn a blind eye to the effects of torture on their bodies.” Although the specific procedures for each case is arbitrary and relatively unknown, the report describes the general process that detainees undergo. First, government officials torture detainees into confessing for a crime that aligns with the mandate of the CTC. After the confession, local prisons refer the case to the CTC, after which the detainee are cut off from their families and lawyers and little information emerges about their trial and sentencing. Based on these coerced confessions, the CTC often issues death sentences, more than any other court in Syria. These statements and others in the report discredit the CTC and its decision-making process.

After explaining the arbitrariness of the CTC proceedings, the report examines the CTC through the legal lens of the Geneva Conventions which forbid states from carrying out extrajudicial death sentences and executions. According to report, the Syrian government clearly has been violating the Geneva Conventions through the CTC’s summary procedures that lack in basic guarantees of impartiality. The report concludes by arguing that the courts are not only being used as tools for war crimes, but the widespread and systematic application of Law 19 might also amount to a crime against humanity. VDC’s legal analysis adds depth to its documentation and provides support to the findings that the CTCs are in clear violation of international law.

One area in which the report was lacking was in the description of the methodology used to gather data. The report briefly mentions that interviews were conducted and testimonies were collected but it does not elaborate on a replicable process. Although the sensitive situation in Syria presents difficulties in fully disclosing operational details, a general outline of the methodology would have lent additional credibility to the findings and allowed for greater transparency and accountability. For example, the report is not clear on whether qualitative or quantitative methods were used or whether researchers relied on surveys or in-depth interviews. The report also does not provide information on the sample size and sample selection process or explanation of the timeline and duration of the research.

Despite the methodological gaps, the VDC report provides compelling evidence that the CTC violates due process at every stage, constituting a war crime and possibly a crime against humanity. The report’s emphasis on the abysmal judicial system in Syria ultimately points to the need for institutional reform. Institutional reform is a key aspect of the transitional justice process and is vital to ensure that the abuses that led to discontent and conflict are not reincarnated in the post-conflict period, creating the foundation for long-term peace. Post-conflict states like Syria are usually recovering from decades of corruption and political manipulation that have eroded the integrity of government structures, requiring concerted efforts to rebuild these institutions. In-depth research, like the report published by VDC, provide insight into the specific flaws within institutions and laws that have caused the systematic abuses documented daily in Syria and can provide guidance on how they should be reformed in the transition period.

The full VDC report can be accessed here.

For more information and to provide feedback please email SJAC at info@syriaaccountability.org .