International Criminal Court Convicts Dominic Ongwen of 61 Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes

By: William P. Hendon

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor

THE HAGUE, Netherlands – On February 4, 2021, the International Criminal Court (ICC) found Dominic Ongwen guilty of 61 crimes against humanity, including four counts of rape, 4 counts of sexual slavery, 2 counts of forced pregnancy, and one count of forced marriage.  Ongwen was a leader of the Lord’s Salvation Army in Uganda.

Dominic Ongwen. Photo Courtesy of ICC.

The ICC had been looking for Ongwen for crimes committed in Uganda from July 2002 to December 2005. In December 2014, Ongwen gave himself up to the Central African Republic’s government who then turned him over to the ICC within ten days. Ongwen’s trial began December 6, 2016.

In 2010, the ICC issued the first warrant for a sex crime committed in furtherance of genocide. Critics say the lack of sex crime prosecutions is because the ICC’s prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, needed quick and easy cases to build the organization’s reputation. Others say the organization doesn’t prosecute sex crimes because of cultural stigmas and differences among peoples.

Acts of sexual violence have historically been brought under charges of war crimes or crimes against humanity. The ICC has expanded the definition of crimes against humanity to include crimes such as rape or forced pregnancy. Yet, the ICC has only indicted 44 people in its history. Sex crimes remain ignored and overlooked in favor of easier cases with easier evidence.

Seven witnesses testified at trial about their forced sexual encounters with Ongwen. Three of the women were Ongwen’s “wives.” One witness said, “When I started crying he asked me ‘between death and life, what do you choose?’” Another witness said, “I was only crying. I did not say anything nor refuse to sleep with him because I was fearful because he was commander and if I said anything or refused I would be killed.”

The pursuance of convictions of gender-based crimes against women and girls, under Article 7 of the Rome Statute, is pivotal for the ICC. The decision recognizes that biological females are affected by sex crimes differently than their biological male counterparts. It also allows for the organization to publicly announce that sex crimes are mainly gender-based. While this doesn’t mean to discredit other forms of sex crimes (namely, those committed against same-sex people and those committed against non-cisgender people), it is a step forward.

Ongwen was kidnapped by the LRA on his way to school as a boy. A psychiatrist at trial said Ongwen tried to escape the LRA with a few others; upon their capture, Ongwen was forced to skin another kidnappee alive. At trial, he said, “I’m one of the people against whom the LRA committed atrocities.”

For further information, please see:

BBC – Dominic Ongwen – from Child Abductee to LRA Rebel Commander – 4 Feb. 2021

BBC – LRA Commander Dominic Ongwen Appears Before ICC in The Hague – 26 Jan. 2015

ICC – Dominic Ongwen Declared Guilty of War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity Committed in Uganda – 4 Feb. 2021

ICC – Decision Scheduling a Hearing on Sentence and Setting the Related Procedural Calendar – 4 Feb. 2021

ICC – Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court – 1 July 2002

Modern Ghana — ICC Confirms 70 Charges Against Ugandan LRA Rebel Leader — 21 Jan. 2016

Explicit Red-Tagging Escalates in the Philippines

By: Thea Bonifacio

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor

MANILA, Philippines – With national elections approaching in 2022, the Philippine government, under President Rodrigo Duterte, has escalated its red-tagging efforts in a bid to silence opposition. As a result, the current government’s propaganda has led to increased deaths in the past year.

Woman holds sign protesting against Red-Tagging after a famous celebrity had been red-tagged by government officials for expressing dissent. Photo Courtesy of LiCAS News Philippines.

Red-tagging is the act of accusing a group of persons as communists, or sympathizers, and publicizing these persons as “Enemies of the State,” attempting to violently overthrow the government. However, these accusations are commonly baseless and are targeted at dissenters or at civilians aiding minority or indigenous groups.

Last December 2020, a doctor and her husband were gunned down in broad daylight. Prior to her death, Dr. Mary Rose Sancelan had appeared on an unverified list from the local militia group “Kagubak,” which linked Sancelan to the New People’s Army (NPA). Sancelan had spearheaded her community’s response to COVID-19. In January 2021, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) published a list of alumni and academics from the University of the Philippines, the national university, claiming they were current NPA rebels. Recently, a lieutenant general accused a journalist of “aiding terrorists by spreading lies” when the journalist had earlier reported on a Supreme Court petition that alleged that soldiers tortured members of an Indigenous community.

Under the Philippine 1987 Constitution Article II Section 2, the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. Additionally, the Philippines is one of the first countries to support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Thus, the country has accepted Article 18 of the UDHR—the right to freedom of opinion and expression, including the right to hold opinions without interference.

Red-tagging is an indirect attempt to suppress civilians’ freedom of expression. The activity criminalizes the perpetuation of socialist practices that have helped society to various degrees. Dissent towards ineffective government responses and clamors for change becomes more challenging to continue when a label could lead to one’s death. A June 2020 report by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights found that red-tagging in the Philippines has “posed a serious threat to civil society and freedom of expression.”

According to Neri Colmenares, a former House Representative, the escalated red-tagging of government critics is directly linked to the upcoming 2022 elections. Two specific reasons are connected to this escalation. First, dissent and criticisms towards the government’s COVID-19 response and the killings of human rights activists are mounting, which require more active tagging to stifle dissent. Second, the government fears that their candidates for the upcoming elections are not fairing well in surveys, which start as early as 2 years before elections.

As the Philippine national elections start closing in, there is a need to stay vigilant of the government’s attempts to monopolize and police free expression. The upcoming months will be a test to see whether the act of red-tagging will be penalized, with the Philippine Senate spearheading the efforts to combat the repressive act.

For further information, please see:

Human Rights Watch – Philippine General Should Answer for ‘Red-Tagging’ – 10 Feb. 2021

Philippine Inquirer.net – Red-tagging, as explained by an AFP top brass and a premier activist – 25 Jan. 2021

LiCAS.News Philippines – Yes, let’s talk about red-tagging as censorship – 31 Oct. 2020

Official Gazette – 1987 Philippine ConstitutionConstitution of the Republic of the Philippines -–  2 Feb. 1987

United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights -–  10 Dec. 1948

Voice of America – Deadly ‘Red-Tagging’ Campaign Ramps Up in Philippines – 18 Feb. 2021 

Turkish Criminal Proceeding Violates the European Convention on Human Rights

By: Genna Amick,

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Lead Articles Editor

ISTANBUL, Turkey – The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) recently released a decision involving a sexual abuse case that began nearly two decades ago. On January 8, 2003, a Turkish individual identified only as N.Ç. filed a complaint against two women who forced N.Ç. to engage in prostitution alongside them.

Chambers within the European Court of Human Rights. Photo Courtesy of Bianet.

After an investigation was conducted, the prosecutor in the case filed a bill of indictment against twenty-eight individuals on various charges, including raping a girl who was under fifteen years old, falsely imprisoning a person to fulfill sexual desires, and inciting someone to prostitution. In 2010, after thirty-five hearings, the Mardin Assize Court acquitted several defendants, struck certain charges, such as “consensual imprisonment” and incitement to prostitution, and held that the sexual acts could not affirmatively be deemed nonconsensual as a psychiatric report found that N.Ç. “had not been totally unwilling.” On this basis, the Mardin Assize Court imposed on defendants the minimum sentence outlined in the Criminal Code.

On March 25, 2011, an application was submitted to the ECHR based on a complaint regarding the manner in which N.Ç.’s case was handled by the Mardin Assize Court. The application sought relief based on Article 3, which prohibits inhumane or degrading treatment, Article 6, which provides for the right to a fair hearing, Article 8, which provides for the right to respect for private and family life, and Article 13, which provides for the right to an effective remedy. A number of events occurred during the criminal proceeding that prompted N.Ç.’s application to the ECHR.

In the early stages of the proceedings, N.Ç. was subjected to ten, extremely intrusive medical examinations. All of the examinations were performed at the request of judicial authorities. The ECHR deemed the number of medical examinations to be excessive. Further, the Court stated that the intrusive nature was an unacceptable interference with N.Ç.’s psychological and physical integrity.

Several other human rights violations arose during the trial. On the same day that the defendants, N.Ç., and her representatives first appeared for a hearing before the Mardin Assize Court, N.Ç. and her representatives were attacked by relatives of some of the defendants as they left the courtroom. The Court ignored their request for protection measures, and later dismissed a request that the trial be transferred for safety reasons. Furthermore, N.Ç. was forced to confront her assailants on numerous occasions at various hearings. She also had to recount in detail the threats that the respondents had made and how she was raped. The Court held that the judicial authorities had not properly balanced the varying interests at play. Their failure resulted in a lack of protection for N.Ç. from the defendants in an extremely serious sexual abuse case.

Numerous other oversights on the part of the Turkish court resulted in the Court holding that the criminal proceedings had not been conducted in a manner that protected the values espoused by Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. The Court ordered Turkey to pay N.Ç. 25,000 euros for non-pecuniary damages, as well as an additional 3,000 euros for costs and expenses.

For further information, please see:

European Court of Human Rights – Criminal proceedings against persons charged in connection with prostitution of a fourteen-year-old child: violations of the Convention – 09 Feb. 2021

Brazil’s Indigenous Communities Need Immediate Access to COVID-19 Vaccinations

Dedication:

The Journal of Global Rights & Organizations and Impunity Watch News dedicates this article to Zaiden Geraige Neto, Ph.D., who passed away from COVID-19. Zaiden was pursuing his LL.M. at the College of Law and had joined the Impunity Watch News team in 2021. Zaiden was a highly regarded class action lawyer and law professor in Brazil. He also leaves his legacy in numerous articles and books about law theory and practice. We extend our deepest sympathy to Zaiden’s wife, family, friends, and loved ones.

 Rest In Peace, Zaiden

 

BRASILIA, Brazil – As COVID-19 deaths continue to rise to their highest levels yet, and a dangerous new variant stalks Brazil, President Jair Bolsonaro tells Brazilians to “stop whining.” Currently, Brazil ranks third amongst all countries in confirmed COVID-19 cases. President Jair Bolsonaro’s “lack of a cohesive and rigorous” COVID-19 policy and other “geographic and governmental challenges” threaten all Brazilians, but particularly the vulnerable communities like the Indigenous populations.

Nurse from the Special Indigenous Health District of Mato Grosso do Sul treats patient in the Lagoinha Village. Photo Courtesy of ReliefWeb.

According to Survival International, Brazil is made of nearly 305 Indigenous tribes which are composed of 900,000 people. Amongst these Indigenous communities, there have been 50,000 confirmed COVID-19 cases and 900 deaths. “Those who have died include people working in health care, traditional healing, politics and education, as well as chiefs and leaders of their own tribes.”

Health experts warn that Indigenous people are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19 due to “factors ranging from lack of consistent healthcare to their culture of shared housing and food.” Additionally, due to the isolated nature of their communities, Indigenous people have not developed the same immunity to pathogens like the rest of the Brazilian population. While Brazil’s health ministry claimed that Indigenous communities would be some of the first to be inoculated, many Indigenous leaders of territories not recognized by the Brazilian government have stated that their community members have not been vaccinated.  According to the University of São Palo, it will take over four years for Brazil to immunize its entire population if Brazil’s current rate of vaccination is maintained. Today, only 3.8 percent of Brazilians have been vaccinated. Meanwhile, the U.S. is administering over 2 million vaccinations a day.

Indigenous healthcare workers conducting examinations and educating relatives that work in the city on quarantine protocol. Photo Courtesy of Conselho Terena Archives.

Four years is far too long. Historically, Indigenous communities have been disproportionately impacted by pandemics, such as the measles and now COVID-19. The Brazilian government must act now to protect its most vulnerable, including those who reside on land outside the Amazon that is not legally recognized. With this, Brazil should support the proposed World Trade Organization (“WTO”) Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights waiver (“TRIPS”).

In October 2020, India and South Africa proposed the waiver that would allow all countries “to collaborate on the COVID-19 response, including vaccine development and distribution, without being unduly hampered by the complexity of laws and restrictions governing intellectual property.” Since then, over one hundred countries globally have endorsed the proposal while President Jair Bolsonaro’s administration has remained in opposition.

During the HIV/AIDS epidemic, Brazil supported a similar proposal that allowed the global distribution of treatment.  Once again, Brazil should take the lead in “prioritizing public health over intellectual property rules” and pharmaceutical companies’ profits. Inequitable access to vaccinations is a clear human rights issue.

For further information, please see:

Reuters – Slow rollout of COVID-19 vaccine in Brazil leaves indigenous at risk – 4 Mar. 2021

BBC News – Covid: Bolsonaro tells Brazilians to ‘stop whining’ as death spike – 5 Mar. 2021

Human Rights Watch – Brazil: Support Wider Vaccine Production at WTO – 9 Mar. 2021

Just Security – Fair Shots for All: At WTO US Must Prioritize Vaccine Access for Lower-Income Countries Over Drug Company Profits – 9 Mar. 2021

NBC News – Survival of Brazil’s Indigenous groups hinges on urgent Covid response, human rights groups warn – 12 Mar. 2021

Yahoo! News – ‘History is dying’: Brazils’ Indigenous urgently need Covid vaccines, protection, groups say – 12 Mar. 2021

Ukraine Brings New Inter-State Application Against Russia

By: Rebecca Buchanan

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

STRASBOURG, France – On February 19, 2021, the Ukrainian Government lodged a new inter-state application with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), against the Russian Federation. The application concerns the Ukrainian Government’s allegations of routine state-sponsored assassinations by the Russian Government.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy (Left) and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Photo Courtesy of Unian.

Inter-state applications allow countries to lodge complaints against one another, and they make up a minority of the cases handled by the ECHR. This is the ninth inter-state application made by Ukraine against Russia. In addition to the newest application, three cases between the two nations are currently pending before the Court.

The first of the three pending cases, Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea), concerns human rights violations by the Russian Federation in Crimea from February 27, 2014, to August 26, 2015. The application alleges that the Russian Government’s conduct, during that period, violated 12 separate articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, including Article 2’s right to life and Article 3’s prohibition of inhumane treatment and torture. This application was declared partly admissible by the Grand Chamber on January 14, 2021, and a Grand Chamber judgment is expected shortly.

The second pending case, Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia, was joined by the Grand Chamber on November 27, 2020, combining three separate inter-state complaints against the Russian Federation. Notably, the joined case addresses the alleged abduction of three groups of Ukrainian children who were temporarily held in Russia from June to August 2014, and the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over Eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014.

The third case, Ukraine v. Russia (VIII), concerns the capture of three Ukrainian Naval vessels in the Kerch Strait in November 2018. The Russian Government captured and held 24 Ukrainian sailors without communication with the Ukrainian Government. Ukraine alleges that the sailors were deprived of their liberty, were refused medical care, and were held without authority under International law. This case is currently pending before the First Section of the Court.

The Ukrainian Government’s newest inter-state complaint, registered under application no. 10691/21, alleges that Russian state-sanctioned assassination operations have targeted opponents of the Russian government within Russia and have extended into the territory of other nations. The application indicates complicity by the Russian Government in continuously covering-up and failing to investigate assassination operations. Ukraine alleges that these assassinations, and the Russian Government’s alleged complicity, violate both the procedural and substantive aspects of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

February 20, 2021, marked the 7th year anniversary of the outbreak of the Russo-Ukrainian War in the Crimean Peninsula. In addition to the inter-state applications, 7000 individual applications remain before the ECHR regarding Russian conduct in Ukraine. These applications allege various and extensive violations of the European Convention on Human Rights by the Russian Federation and map the increase in hostilities between the two nations. Proceedings regarding the newest inter-state application are pending and the Russian Federation has yet to submit written observations on its own behalf.

For further information, please see:

European Court of Human Rights – ECHR puts questions in new inter-State case brought by Ukraine against Russia – 30 Nov. 2020

European Court of Human Rights – European Court joins three inter-State applications – 04 Dec. 2020

European Court of Human Rights – Grand Chamber decision Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) – 14 Jan. 2021

European Court of Human Rights – New inter-state application brought by Ukraine against Russia – 23 Feb. 2021

European Court of Human Rights – Q & A on Inter-State Cases – Jan. 2021

Statecraft – Ukraine Lodges Ninth Complaint Against Russia at ECHR – 24 Feb. 2021

Unian – Zelensky: I think Putin understands Ukraine is big, independent country – 20 Jan. 2020