47 Hong Kong Activists Charged with “Conspiracy” Under New National Security Law Denied Bail

By: Timothy Murphy

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

HONG KONG, China — The ongoing strife in Hong Kong continues as 47 activists and politicians were charged with “conspiracy to commit subversion” on February 28th. These pro-democracy activists, who were charged under the new “National Security Law,” had been arrested by authorities in early January of 2021. The National Security Law is another step in the string of continued attempts by mainland China to subvert the independence of the Hong Kong region.

Hundreds of Hong Kong citizens gathered in protest outside the courthouse as the 47 activists awaited charges. Photo Courtesy of BBC/Reuters.

The group that was charged consists of 39 men and 8 women and includes well-known figures who led pro-democratic movements in Hong Kong in the wake of Beijing’s strengthening grip on the region. Hong Kong, which was once a British colony, has long remained independent of its sovereign nation, China. Beginning in 2019, mainland China has been putting increased pressure on the freedom of Hong Kong, which has led to widespread protests from the citizens of the region.

The pro-democratic activists were arrested in January for running unofficial primary polls last summer in order to prepare for the upcoming election for Hong Kong’s legislative body: the Legislative Council. In a further attack on democratic principles, the election was postponed, the purported reason being safety precautions related to the pandemic. Officials have described these polls as an attempt to undermine the Hong Kong government.  

After four days of bail proceedings, fifteen of the activists were granted bail. However, they were not allowed to leave custody due to a subsequent appeal filed by prosecutors. Under the controversial National Security Law, they face up to life in prison for the charge of “conspiracy to commit subversion.”

In 2020, Beijing pushed for the creation of the “National Security Law” in an attempt to chip away at the independence and self-governance of Hong Kong. The law, which was put into effect on June 30th of 2020, reduces the self-governance powers of Hong Kong and criminalizes acts of secession, subversion against the central government, terrorism, and collusion. The law gives Beijing sweeping new powers to regulate the freedom of speech in Hong Kong, and even reserves interpretation of the broad law for Beijing: leaving room for even more power to be milked from the law with future judicial decisions. 

The passage of the National Security Law is a massive victory for mainland China in its efforts to further subjugate Hong Kong. It was met with protests from Hong Kong citizens. The charges laid against the 47 activists makes it clear that it is only becoming more dangerous for Hong Kong citizens to speak out against mainland China’s attempts to further subjugate the region.

For further information, please see:

BBC NEWS – Hong Kong charges 47 activists in largest use yet of new security law – 2 Mar. 2021

BBC NEWS – Hong Kong protest held as 47 activists appear in court – 1 Mar. 2021

BBC NEWS – Hong Kong security law: What is it and is it worrying? – 30 June 2021

Hong Kong Free Press – 47 democrats charged with ‘conspiracy to commit subversion’ over legislative primaries – 28 Feb. 2021

Human Rights Watch – Hong Kong: 47 Charged Under Abusive Security Law – 2 Mar. 2021

South China Morning Post – National security law: 15 out of 47 Hong Kong opposition figures granted bail, but ordered to remain in custody pending prosecutors’ appeal – 4 Mar. 2021

South China Morning Post – Hong Kong national security law: election bans, travel curbs, and more time in jail. What future awaits city’s opposition with 47 defendants charged in biggest case yet? – 5 Mar. 2021

The Economist – Hong Kong’s new security bill is being put to its biggest use yet – 6 Mar. 2021

The Political Turmoil Continues to Escalate Under the Military State in Myanmar

By: Kirsten Rasmussen

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor

MANDALAY, Myanmar – The political turmoil in Myanmar has escalated in the last few days, with former leader Aung San Suu Kyi being charged with two new offenses on Monday. The unrest follows a coup on February 1st, which overthrew the democratic government that had been re-elected for a second 5-year term.

Civilians take to the streets in an anti-coup protest in Mandalay, Myanmar. Photo Courtesy of Associated Press.

This coup reversed several years of progress for Myanmar’s path towards democracy. Since a 1962 coup, Myanmar had been without a democratic government until recently. For the last several decades the country was a military state. In 2011, the military relinquished some power to allow for the creation of a quasi-democratic system to be put into place. However, following the coup on February 1, 2021, the military has taken control of the country.

Leading members from the governing party, named the National League of Democracy, have been arrested. One of those arrested was Aung San Suu Kyi, she has been charged with violation of telecommunications law and inciting public disorder. The military has also claimed she failed to comply with coronavirus restrictions and that she illegally imported walkie-talkies.

Public outcry against the coup and its perpetrators has been seen across Myanmar. Protests have been growing across the country.

In response, the military state has also been escalating its attempts to end the protests. Security forces have made mass arrests and appear to be using lethal force as well as tear gas, flash-bang grenades, stun grenades, and water cannons. Violent police crackdowns have happened across the region in Yangon, Dawei, Mandalay, Myeik, Bago, and Pokokku. Reports have come in stating that at least 18 people have died and 30 were wounded in the crackdowns on Sunday. However, there are reports on social media that the number of fatalities is much higher.

As of February 28th, the independent Assistance Association of Political Prisoners has confirmed 1,132 people have been arrested, charged, or sentenced in relation to the coup. Thein Zaw, a journalist with AP, was detained by police while covering the protests on Saturday. As of the last update, Zaw is still in custody.

Ambassador Kyan Moe Tun, Myanmar’s ambassador to the UN, spoke at the UN general assembly urging all countries to condemn the coup and to refuse to recognize the military regime. He also called for “the strongest possible action from the international community,” to restore democracy and the rightful government.

The military state then removed Ambassador Tun from his position stating Tun had, “betrayed the country and spoken for an unofficial organization which doesn’t represent the country and had abused the power and responsibilities of an ambassador.”

The United Nations has strongly condemned the deadly crackdowns and has called on the military to “immediately stop using force against peaceful demonstrators.” However, further action from the UN may be limited due to the veto power of Russian and China in the Security Council. Many countries – including the United States – have condemned the coup and its use of force against the protesters. Several countries have already levied sanctions.

For further information, please see:

AP News – Associated Press Journalist detained by police Myanmar – 28 Feb. 2021

AP News – Defying deadly crackdown, crowds again protest Myanmar – 1 Mar. 2021

AP News – Myanmar police deploy early to crank up pressure on protests – 27 Feb. 2021

AP News – Myanmar’s UN envoy dramatically opposes coup in his country – 26 Feb. 2021

Euronews – Myanmar coup: Junta blocks internet as well as social media amid growing anti-coup protests – 6 Feb. 2021

Euronews – Myanmar: Aung San Suu Kyi charged with new offences as tear gas is fired at protesters – 1 Mar. 2021

Euronews – Protestors in Myanmar call for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi – 17 Feb. 2021

African Court Weighs in on Right to Fair Trial Claims in Three Cases from Tanzania

By: Christian González

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor

ARUSHA, Tanzania – On February 26, 2021, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Court) made three decisions regarding claims of violations to the right to a fair trial, all coming out of Tanzania. The Court found such a violation in two of the cases but did not find a violation in the third.

The judges of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights seated in front of the Court’s location in Arusha, Tanzania. Photo courtesy of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Charter) is what gives the Court jurisdiction over matters appealed on from member states of the Organization of African Unity. It also establishes norms regarding civil and political rights of individuals within member states. In particular, Article 7 of the Charter grants individuals the right to a fair trial. This includes the “right to appeal… against acts violating his fundamental rights,” the “right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty,” the “right to be defended by counsel of his choice,” and the “right to be tried within a reasonable amount of time by an impartial court or tribunal.”

The first case, Zanzibar v. Tanzania, involved the appeal of a man convicted of rape and sentenced to 30 years in prison. The petitioner, a Mr. Mussa Zanzibar, argued that the District Court in Chota made three errors that violated his right to a fair trial: 1) that the District Court convicted him based on the testimony of a single witness whom the court did not satisfy was telling the truth, 2) that the District Court failed to resolve contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence, and 3) that the District Court failed to warn itself that there needs to be evidence to satisfy the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction.

Even though the petitioner did not specifically cite a violation of Article 7 of the Charter, the Court found that he did substantially implicate the same right Article 7 concerns itself with. The Court dismissed Mr. Zanzibar’s claims regarding the District Court’s partial assessment of the evidence because it did not find a basis for interfering with a municipal court’s findings. The Court did, however, find that there was still a violation of Article 7 due to the fact that the District Court did not offer free legal assistance to Mr. Zanzibar. While the Charter does not specify a right to free counsel, the Court looked to its past interpretations of the Charter in which it held that “the right to defense includes the right to be provided with free legal assistance,” even if the petitioner did not request such legal assistance, as was the situation in the present case.

The second case, Zuberi v. Tanzania, involved the appeal of a man convicted of the rape of a ten-year-old girl and sentenced to 30 years in prison. The petitioner, a Mr. Mhina Zuberi, argued that the District Court of Muheza made three errors that violated his Article 7 rights: 1) that the District Court did not provide legal counsel to him, 2) that the District Court did not allow him to call for his own witnesses, and 3) that there were errors in the assessment of law and fact in the evidence.

The Court, like in the Zanzibar case, dismissed the claim of partial assessment of evidence. The Court also dismissed the claim of Mr. Zuberi not being able to call witnesses due to the lack of evidence. However, like in the Zanzibar case, the Court found that the District Court had deprived Mr. Zuberi of his right to be provided with free legal assistance.

The third case, Rutechura v. Tanzania, involved the appeal of a man convicted of a murder committed during the course of a burglary and sentenced to death by hanging. The petitioner, a Mr. Evodius Rutechura, argued that the High Court of Mwanza made three errors that violated his Article 7 rights: 1) that the High Court improperly dismissed his request for extension of time to file an application of review, 2) that the High Court failed to provide free legal assistance to him, and 3) that the High Court improperly assessed evidence against him.

The Court found there was no miscarriage of justice in the High Court’s denial of the time extension request, as the High Court followed its own rules in the dismissal. The Court also found that the High Court did provide Mr. Rutechura with free legal counsel. For this, the Court held that the right to have free legal assistance of one’s own choosing was not absolute, and that “the important consideration is whether the accused was given effective legal representation rather than whether he or she was allowed to be represented by a lawyer of their own choosing.” Lastly, the Court found that there was no showing that there was an improper assessment of evidence simply because the three eyewitnesses to the crime were related.

The Court granted reparations to the petitioners in the Zanzibar and Zuberi cases, each being awarded 300,000 Tanzanian Shillings (129.37 USD). The Court, however, dismissed both petitioners’ requests to be released from prison. The Court also dismissed Mr. Rutechura’s case on all claims.

For further information, please see:

African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights – African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights – Jun. 1981

African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights – Evodius Rutechura v. United Republic of Tanzania – 26 Feb. 2021

African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights – Evodius Rutechura v. United Republic of Tanzania: Case Summary – 26 Feb. 2021

African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights – Mhina Zuberi v. United Republic of Tanzania – 26 Feb. 2021

African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights – Mhina Zuberi v. United Republic of Tanzania: Case Summary – 26 Feb. 2021

African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights – Mussa Zanzibar v. United Republic of Tanzania – 26 Feb. 2021

African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights – Mussa Zanzibar v. United Republic of Tanzania: Case Summary – 26 Feb. 2021

U.S. Sanctions on ICC Officials on Hold

By: Andreas Munguia

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor

NEW YORK, United States – On November 4, 2021, a federal judge in the Southern District of New York granted a preliminary injunction blocking an executive order issued by the Trump Administration in June of last year, which threatened to impose sanctions on the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) officials and “any foreign person” assisting ongoing investigations by the court into suspected human rights abuses and other crimes by U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan between 2003 and 2014. The ICC, which holds jurisdiction over investigations and prosecutions of individuals accused of war crimes, called the Trump Administration’s move an attack on international criminal justice and referred to it as an attempt to interfere with the court’s independence and its responsibility to investigate suspected war crimes. The European Union had also expressed its opposition to the move.

Former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spoke about a Trump administration executive order on the International Criminal Court as Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper listens during a joint news conference at the State Department in Washington, U.S. on June 11, 2020. Photo Courtesy of Yuri Gripas and Reuters.

Four dual-national U.S. international law professors and the Open Society Justice Initiative, a human rights organization based in New York, challenged the executive order on the ground that it was a violation of their First Amendment right to free speech. The plaintiffs – both of whom often interact with the ICC and the Office of the Prosecutor through, for example, trainings, advice, or amicus briefs – were concerned that their interactions with the court would potentially be considered “prohibited transactions” with ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and Phakiso Mochochoko, a senior member of the prosecutor’s office. If these interactions were in fact considered “prohibited transactions” with Bensouda and Mochochoko, both of whom faced sanctions under the executive order, the plaintiffs would be subject to prosecution. In addition, because the executive order allows for sanctions to be imposed on “entities that have materially assisted designated persons,” the plaintiffs were also concerned that they would face sanctions themselves.   

The district court granted the preliminary injunction on the ground that there was a high likelihood that the plaintiffs would succeed on their First Amendment claim. According to the court, the regulations under the executive order are “content-based restrictions on free speech,” because speech in support of Bensouda or Mochochoko is prohibited while speech against them is not. Therefore, such regulations are subject to strict scrutiny under which the government must show that the regulations are narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest.   

While the court did not question the government’s stated interest in “protecting the personnel of the United States and its allies from investigation, arrest, detention, and prosecution by the ICC without the consent of the United States or its allies,” the court found that the restrictions were not narrowly tailored toward such stated interest due to the fact they also prohibited speech that was not relevant to that interest. For example, the regulations also prohibited speech pertaining to ICC investigations that did not involve the U.S. and its allies.

The litigation is ongoing, and the government must respond to the plaintiff’s complaint by January 19, 2021. However, there is a chance that President Biden may rescind former President Trump’s executive order, and thus eliminate the need for further litigation.

For further information, please see:

Human Rights Watch – US Sanctions on the International Criminal Court – 14 Dec. 2020

Just Security – ICC Associates Win Temporary Reprieve from Draconian US Sanctions – 05 Jan. 2021

Law360 Legal News – Trump’s Move to Sanction ICC Officials On Hold, For Now – 04 Jan.  2021

Reuters – U.S. judge blocks Trump’s sanctions targeting human rights lawyers, war crimes tribunal – 04 Jan. 2021

Cuban State Agents Endanger the Rights and Safety of San Isidro Movement Members

By: Anthony B. Emmi

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

WASHINGTON, D.C., United States – The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) has found that Cuban state agents are endangering the rights and physical safety of 20 members of the San Isidro Movement (MSI). The MSI was formed in 2018 in opposition to a then-new law that made it illegal to perform art before it is approved by the Ministry of Culture. It is a group of artists, academics, independent journalists, and human rights defenders pushing for increased political and artistic freedom, as well as democracy. State agents have frequently targeted members of the MSI, for heavy surveillance and often violent detention.

A demonstration outside of the Ministry of Culture following the raid on the hunger strike. Photo Courtesy of the New York Times.

Denís Solís González is a rapper and one of the 20 MSI members identified by the protection order. Mr. Solís González was violently detained by men who were allegedly state counterintelligence operatives on November 9th, 2020. On November 11th, he was sentenced to 8 months in prison for “contempt.” He was not permitted to contact anyone until November 16th. On November 12th, two other members, Luís Manuel Otero Alcántara and Iliana Hernández Cardosa, were detained while investigating the disappearance of Mr. Solís González. Other members suffered similar detentions, along with alleged beatings and sexual abuse. When activists held a hunger strike in an apartment to oppose the imprisonment of Mr. Solís González, state agents raided the building and detained the participants. The state cited Covid-19 regulations as justification to execute the raid.

State agents have also placed MSI members under 24-hour surveillance in their own homes. Between December 1st, 2020, and December 11th, Anamely Ramos González was only able to leave her home once. The one time she was able to leave, she was escorted by state agents to the Mexican embassy in Havana.

In response to the dangers that movement members are facing, on February 11th, 2021, the IACHR issued Resolution 14/2021 (the Resolution), which grants protection measures for the 20 identified members. The Resolution requires Cuba to: (a) adopt the measures necessary to ensure state agents will respect the rights and personal integrity of the MSI members; (b) ensure the measures allow the MSI members to safely continue their work as human rights defenders without threats of violence or intimidation; (c) agree on the measures with the MSI members and their representatives; and (d) report on the actions it has taken to investigate the events that necessitated the Resolution.

For further information, please see:

Amnesty International – Cuba: San Isidro movement and allies under the frightening levels of surveillance – 15 Dec. 2020

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights – The IACHR grants precautionary measures in favor of 20 identified members of the San Isidro Movement (MSI) regarding Cuba – 12 Feb. 2021

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights – Resolution 14/2021 – 11 Feb. 2021

The New York Times – They Call Us Enemies of the Cuban People – 10 Dec. 2020

Wall Street Journal – Cuba’s San Isidro Uprising – 20 Dec. 2020