The ECHR issues ruling on COVID-19 related human rights violations

By: Ryan Ockenden

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

STRASBOURG, France – On March 11, 2021, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) awarded compensation to Joseph Feilazoo after a nearly 13-yearlong immigration battle. In 2008, Mr. Feilazoo was sentenced to 12 years in prison in Malta for drug trafficking. He was also fined €50,000 but was unable to pay the fine. As a result, two years were added to his sentence.

Prisoners like Joseph Feilazoo are kept in detention at Safi Barracks where they are subject to forced quarantine with COVID-19 patients. Photo Courtesy of the Council of Europe.

In 2019, he was scheduled for release. He made it known that he intended to return to Spain, which is where he was living prior to his arrest in 2008. However, Spain refused his return. Shortly after his release, he was charged with violence against prison officers and was resentenced to imprisonment. The sentence was changed from imprisonment to deportation and a fine. Mr. Feilazoo could not pay that fine and Nigeria refused to issue a travel document for his deportation. Malta ultimately placed him in the Safi Barracks immigration detention center.

Mr. Feilazoo complained to the ECHR, based on European Convention of Human Rights, alleging violations of: (1) inhuman and degrading treatment; (2) denial of his right to liberty; and (3) denial of his right to individual petition. First, per the European Convention on Human Rights, Malta is required under Article 3 to provide detention conditions that respect human dignity and avoid unnecessary hardship. The ECHR found that Mr. Feilazoo was subjected to non-functioning toilets, pest infestations, solitary confinement without natural light for 77 days, no exercise, and was forced to be in proximity of people in COVID-19 quarantine. Thus, the ECHR found that Malta violated his Article 3 rights by keeping him in inhuman and unacceptable conditions.

Second, under Article 5, Malta is required to protect detainees against arbitrary interference of their right to liberty. The ECHR found that Maltese authorities had not diligently pursued the travel documentation from Nigerian officials; they essentially gave up on trying. Thus, the ECHR found Malta violated Mr. Feilazoo’s Article 5 rights by keeping him detained for a period of time beyond necessary to complete deportation proceedings.

Third, under Article 34, Malta is required to ensure that a detainee’s access to the courts and judicial process is uninhibited. Unfortunately, the ECHR found that Mr. Feilazoo had not been allowed to access his documentation which was needed to submit a complaint to the ECHR. In addition, there were insufficient lawyer-client contacts and Maltese authorities were found to have done nothing to rectify this except to blame COVID-19 for the issues. Thus, the ECHR found that Maltese authorities inhibited his right to petition.

This is the ECHR’s first ruling on COVID-19 related detention issues. The ECHR makes it clear that placing someone in unfair detention with people who were exposed to COVID-19, and blaming COVID-19 for preventing a detainee from accessing the necessary documents and legal assistance to access justice, is unacceptable. This should set precedent in the ECHR that COVID-19 is not an excuse to deny detainees, or anyone, any rights granted to them by the European Convention on Human Rights.

For further information, please see:

Council of Europe – Torture prevention committee calls on Malta to improve treatment of detained migrants – 10 Mar. 2021

European Court of Human Rights – Deportation Detainee Housed With COVID-19 Quarantine Patients, And Multiple Other Violations – 11 Mar. 2021

Times of Malta – Man Wins €25,000 Compensation For Degrading Treatment At Detention Centre – 11 Mar. 2021

Olympic Medals and Championships… at What Cost?

By: Melissa N. Berouty 

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

TOKYO, Japan – A glimpse at the dictionary will tell you that a coach is “a person who teaches and trains an athlete or performer.” Yet, any athlete knows that the role of a coach stretches far beyond this simple definition. A coach can serve as a mentor, motivator, or even a catalyst for a young athlete to fall in love with their respective sport. Thus, a coach possesses a great deal of responsibility, power, and influence. However, for decades in Japan, coaches have prioritized Olympic medals and Championships over the safety and well-being of their child athletes, subjecting them to brutal physical and verbal beatings.

Child athlete abuse in the quest for Olympic gold medals. Photo Courtesy of Humanium.

While one might commonly hear tough coaches make tougher players, Japanese coaches utilize a training tactic that far exceeds tough coaching, referred to as taibatsu, or corporal punishment. Japanese child athletes report being “punched in the face, kicked, beaten with objects like bats or bamboo kendo sticks, being deprived of water, choked, whipped with whistles or racquets, and being sexually abused and harassed.” According to Human Rights Watch, in 2020, 425 current and former child athletes reported physical abuse at the hand of their coaches or trainers.

Recently, Japan amended the Child Welfare Act of 1947 to prohibit corporal punishment. While this prohibition does extend to athletics, the protection it offers child athletes is inadequate and irregularly enforced. Similarly, the 2013 Declaration on the Elimination of Violence in Sports and the 2019 government codes put forth by various leading sports organizations fails to specifically address child athlete abuse. Without clear legal implications for a failure to abide, these reforms carry little to no weight in ensuring the safety and welfare of child athletes.

“I was hit so many times I can’t count.” Photo Courtesy of Human Rights Watch.

Under international law, governments are obligated to protect children’s right to not only participate in athletics but to participate in a safe environment, free of both abuse and violence. This right is detailed in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Japan is a party to. With this, it is imperative for leading Japanese sports organizations, such as the Japan Sports Agency, the Japan Sport Association, and the Japanese Olympic Committee, to create clear and comprehensive reporting, investigation, and sanction protocols for child athlete abuse. Without the correction of these institutional failures, child athletes will remain vulnerable.

The Olympics are marketed as an idealistic and extraordinary meeting of the world’s most prominent and gifted athletes. To preserve this façade, numerous nations, from Japan to the United States, prioritize the quest for medals over athletes’ basic human rights. Meanwhile, these athletes, child and adult alike, still represent their countries with pride and dignity. But, at what cost?

In a matter of months, we will all sit down in front of our televisions to watch the Olympic and Paralympic Games in Tokyo. Here, the Japanese government has a unique opportunity to set the record straight and “serve as a model for how other countries should end child abuse in sports.” Japan should take the lead in demonstrating that child athletes’ health and well-being do not just simply matter, but that they are the priority.

Participation in athletics should be a root of joy, empowerment, and growth, not fear, abuse, and manipulation. While winning may be the ultimate goal, one day, these child athletes will move on from competition and the global spotlight. As you view the Olympics and Paralympics this summer, keep in mind that behind every uniform is a human being. A human being that should be offered all fundamental human rights both in and out of athletic competition. The abuse of child athletes is not exclusive to Japan and remains a pressing issue worldwide.

For further information, please see:

End Violence – Japan Prohibits all corporal punishment of children – 28 Feb. 2020

Human Rights Watch – Pressure Builds on Japan to Protect Child Athletes – 28 Jan. 2021

Human Rights Watch – I Was Hit So Many Times I Can’t Count: Abuse of Child Athletes in Japan – 20 July 2020

Merriam Webster Dictionary – Coach – 2 Apr. 2021

 

In a Historic Vote, Argentina Legalizes Abortion

By: Elizabeth Maugeri

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina – In 2018, Amnesty International of Argentina (AIAR), Catholics for the Right to Decide (CDD), Center for Legal and Social Studies (CELS), and the Latin American Team for Justice and Gender (ELA) hosted a public hearing regarding reproductive rights laws in the country. This hearing, hosted alongside the IACHR, called upon the Argentine Congress to adopt a law legalizing abortion nationally.

Young pro-choice activists celebrating the passing of the abortion legalization bill. Photo Courtesy of BBC News.

At the time, under the Argentine criminal code, abortion was legal in some provinces and only in cases of rape or when the mother’s health was at risk. However, no national standard had been set to provide all women with safe access to voluntary abortions. The IACHR asserted the importance for Argentina to enact a nationwide standard that coincided with the country’s international human rights obligations.

In 2018, Congress attempted to pass a sweeping bill that would provide abortion access, although it ultimately failed when it reached the Senate. However, the prospect of a second attempt arose in 2019 when President Alberto Fernández was elected. A large part of his running platform was reproductive rights and abortion access, making the statement “I’m Catholic but I have to legislate for everyone” during his campaign. In December 2020, he delivered on his promise.

The Argentine Senate passed a bill legalizing voluntary abortion up to 14-weeks in a 38-29 vote. The same day, the CIDH – IACHR expressed approval for the Argentine Senate passing the Law on Access to Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy and Post-Abortion Care. It stated that the passing of the law marked a new set standard for inter-American human rights which it hoped would influence Argentina’s neighbors.

President Fernández asserted that providing free and legal abortions was a public health matter, highlighting how many women die from undergoing dangerous and illegal abortion procedures. Alongside this bill, the Senate also passed a piece of targeted legislation titled the “1,000-Day Plan,” which provides higher quality healthcare to pregnant women and women with young children.

Despite the new sweeping measure, anti-abortion activists have made it a point to challenge the legislation on all fronts. They have made sure doctors know they can deny a woman an abortion, they have called the laws unconstitutional, and they have filed lawsuits in at least 10 provinces.

Doctors in northern Argentina, mostly in the Jujuy province, consider themselves “conscientious objectors” and have asserted that they will not provide the services for women who ask. Only a few obstetricians and gynecologists in the province will offer the care, leaving many women in the same circumstances as before the bill was passed. The most rural provinces, where women are most likely to suffer from clandestine abortions, are those opposing the bill.

It is believed that at least one of the lawsuits will make it to Argentina’s Supreme Court. Though it is not clear as to what might happen once it arrives. However, pro-choice activists have been pushing for this legislation for years, even changing the perspectives of once anti-abortionists. Former president and current Vice President, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner originally opposed a similar bill during her tenure as president but has since changed her position thanks to her daughter’s activism. This change was considered a big win for the pro-choice movement, and activists are hoping to continue this charge.

For further information, please see:

BBC News – Argentina abortion: Senate approves legalization in historic decision – 30 Dec. 2020

CELS – iachr hearing on abortion: legalization is a human rights imperative – 9 May, 2018

CIDH – IACHR – IACHR approval of Law on Access to Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy and Post-Abortion Care tweet thread – 30 Dec. 2020

The New York Times – Abortion Is Now Legal in Argentina, but Opponents Are Making It Hard to Get – 7 Mar. 2021

Dissenting Voices Shutdown in Nicaragua

By: Mark Burroughs

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

MANAGUA, Nicaragua – In October and December of 2020, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) condemned the seizing and occupation of property belonging to various government oppositional organizations. The recent events stem from anti-social security reform protests that began in April 2018. After three months of protests, Nicaraguan President, Daniel Ortega, initiated “Operation for the Peace” also known as “Operation Clean Up” with the goal of stopping the protests.

One of the properties that belonged to Confidencial confiscated by the government, now a health facility. Photo Courtesy of the Havana Times.

In December, the Interdisciplinary Group of Independent Experts (GIEI) and the IACHR launched an investigation to examine the consequences of the crackdown. Since the 2018 protests, the government has arrested journalists, shutdown news organizations, and seized the assets of human rights organizations. 

The IACHR released the contents of the investigation earlier this year, and it details various incidents of human rights abuse by the Nicaraguan government. The report documents 328 deaths, approximately 100 people still incarcerated, 150 students expelled from university, and around 100,000 people that were forced to leave the country.

In 2020 Nicaragua’s National Assembly, which is mostly controlled by Ortega’s political party, the Sandinista National Liberation Front passed various laws intending to shut down dissenting speech. One of the bills passed is the Foreign Agents Regulation Law. The government claims it passed this bill to stop foreign influence in Nicaragua. One section of the law that Amnesty International highlights is article 14. This part of the bill prohibits Nicaraguans and foreign nationals from intervening in external and internal political issues. The bill also bans Nicaraguans from being a member of or financing any organization that is implanting political activities in Nicaragua.

The Ortega government also passed a bill called the “Special Cyber Crimes Law.” This law has been condemned by various human rights organizations, including the IACHR. This bill established a prison term of two to four years for people who “promote or distribute false or misleading information that causes alarm, terror, or unease in the public.” The government is responsible for determining the appropriate term. Sandinista politician, José Zepeda praises the bill saying, “it helps protect the integrity of the family.” Azucena Castillo, a politician from Nicaragua’s Liberal Constitutionalist Party, condemned the bill as an attack on free speech.

Another bill that the IACHR has condemned is the “Act to Defend the Rights of People to Independence, Sovereignty, and Self-Determination.” The IACHR has specifically condemned article 1 of this bill. This bill will ban Nicaraguans from running for elected office if they have “promoted terrorist acts, incited foreign interference in internal affairs, organized and implemented acts of terrorism and destabilization with financing from foreign powers, or welcomed and applauded sanctions against the State of Nicaragua and its citizens.” 

One consequence of the various bills passed is the seizing of properties owned by Confidencial, a news organization in Nicaragua. The government began confiscating property owned by Confidencial and other news and political organizations in December 2018. Since that time, the police have occupied the buildings. Other organizations targeted by the government were the Nicaraguan Center for Human Rights and Institute for Democracy and Development. This year, the government transferred ownership of the properties seized to the Nicaraguan Health Ministry, also known as MINSA, without officially giving notice to Confidencial. On February 23, 2021, the government transferred the last of the buildings they occupied to MINSA.

For further information, please see:

Amnesty International – Silence at any Cost: State Tactics to deepen Repression in Nicaragua – 22 Mar. 2021

Havana Times – Nicaragua: A Monument to Crimes against Press Freedom – 26 Feb. 2021

Havana Times – Ortega’s Final Act of Confiscation against Confidencial – 23 Feb. 2021

Havana Times – IDB & World Bank Silent on Nicaragua Confiscations – 15 Feb. 2021

Havana Times – Amnesty International: “Ortega Wants to Suffocate Dissent” – 17 Feb. 2021

IACHR – IACHR Condemns Destruction of Civilian Organizations’ Property in Nicaragua – 8 Feb. 2021

 

Vaccine Equity: Member States at the World Trade Organization Debate Global Vaccine Access And Human Rights Commitments

By: Rishav Shah

 Impunity Watch Staff Writer

WASHINGTON D.C., United States – As governments around the globe scale up vaccination efforts amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the international community is grappling with the convergence of “vaccine nationalism” or “hoarding” and intellectual property rights resulting in gross disparities in access to vaccine supply between upper and lower-income countries.

New Director-General of the World Trade Organization Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala. Photo Courtesy of Reuters.

On February 5th, 2021, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced that three-quarters of the current vaccine supply has been secured and administered by 10 countries that account for 60 percent of global economic growth, while 130 countries- home to 2.5 billion people- had not received a single dose.

The potential emergence of a “vaccine apartheid” has prompted member states of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to debate the means by which to boost global vaccine access.

On October 2nd, 2020, South Africa and India submitted a proposal to suspend the WTO’s agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) for the duration of the pandemic. The effect of the proposal would be a temporary intellectual property waiver on technology, drugs, and vaccines related to the pandemic. By temporarily waiving intellectual property rights with respect to COVID-19 specific equipment, drugs, and vaccines, the proposal seeks to facilitate the transfer of technology and scientific knowledge to developing countries with the goal of ramping up global production of vaccines and increasing access beyond just the wealthiest nations.

At issue before the WTO is the larger question of whether vaccines should be treated as market commodities, or public goods.

Since October, support for the proposal has gained momentum, with all 57 members of the African Union at the World Trade Organization signing on as co-sponsors. In addition, 31 U.S. lawmakers have expressed support for the waiver, along with 115 members of the European Parliament. Notably, in February 2021, more than 400 organizations in the United States called on President Biden to endorse the waiver.

A number of high-income countries in which large pharmaceutical companies exert substantial political influence, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Japan, and Brazil, have argued against the waiver. This opposition is based on the argument that any waiver of patents would deter private investment, thus hampering scientific innovation. In addition, these countries contend that existing WTO regulations like the Doha Declaration of 2001 allow pharmaceutical companies to negotiate bilateral agreements with generic manufactures in order to tackle public health emergencies.

Supporters of the proposal disagree with the notion that the waiver would hamper scientific development, noting that large pharmaceutical companies received close to 10 billion USD in public funds and non-profit funding for their vaccine candidates. Their position is that the waiver will give governments of the global south an opportunity to pursue mass vaccine manufacturing by tapping into unused or under-used factories and facilities in their respective countries or anywhere in the world, instead of being priced out of vaccine purchase agreements with pharmaceutical companies

The Director-General of the WTO, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, has come out strongly against vaccine nationalism but is yet to endorse the proposal set forth by India and South Africa. She has articulated a “third-way” approach whereby large pharmaceuticals license manufacturing to countries in order to increase vaccine supply without compromising intellectual property rights. This approach would leave control over production limits with large pharmaceutical companies.

Some of the countries in opposition to the waiver-Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Japan, and others- have pledged to donate financial resources and surplus vaccines to the UN-backed COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access Facility (COVAX).  COVAX is a program designed to boost the distribution of vaccines to low-income countries. While donations to COVAX will improve vaccine access, COVAX aims to vaccinate only 20% of every participating country’s population. This is far from what is needed to achieve herd immunities in lower-income countries that are relying heavily on COVAX as their primary vaccine distributor.

In the months since the impasse at the WTO, another 2.65 million people have succumbed to the virus globally. The wealthy countries in opposition to a temporary suspension of the TRIPS agreement have made their case in favor of private enterprise, but are yet to outline an approach that would remedy the issue of vaccine hoarding and curb the spread of COVID-19 in countries with limited access to the vaccine. The decision to treat a vaccine that has been largely subsidized by taxpayer money and public funds as a private market commodity– rather than a public good– will have unconscionable human rights implications. Without the temporary suspension of the WTO TRIPS agreement allowing poorer nations to produce the vaccines widely, the vast majority of the global vaccine supply will remain disproportionately concentrated in the world’s wealthiest countries, leaving lower-income countries to be ravaged by mass fatalities from the virus.

For further information, please see:

Al-Jazeera – Patently Unfair: Can Waivers Help Solve Vaccine Inequality? – 1 Mar. 2021

Euronews – Rich countries must stop ‘vaccine apartheid’ – 11 Mar. 2021

Foreign Policy – Rich vs. Poor (Again) at WTO – 10 Mar.2021

Reuters – Incoming WTO head warns ‘vaccine nationalism’ could slow pandemic recovery – 15 Feb. 2021

World Health Organization – WHO Director-General’s opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 – 5 Feb. 2021