Native American Communities Left in the Dark During COVID-19 Pandemic

By: Elizabeth Maugeri

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

WASHINGTON D.C., United States of America – Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, Native American communities have been feeling the brunt of the impact. The Trump Administration focused heavily on policies that benefitted larger private companies, leaving inadequate funding for tribal governments. However, under the transition to the Biden Administration, many Native American communities are hopeful.

An IHS hospital. Many, like this one, are located in isolated areas, causing difficulties hiring staff and supporting services. Photo Courtesy of The New York Times.

The Indian Health Service (IHS), the agency that provides hospital and health services to tribal communities, has long been criticized for its failure to provide effective healthcare to Native Americans. The IHS suffers from funding and supplies shortages, which the pandemic has only exasperated.

Native Americans visiting IHS hospitals with COVID-19 symptoms were handed inhalers and received instructions to simply “get rest.” During the commotion between the federal government and the state governments in regard to proper funding and access to supplies, IHS hospitals fell by the wayside. These hospitals lacked suitable staffing and were forced to wait months for life-saving equipment, causing the death rate of Native Americans to soar.

The Navajo Nation has been affected in a higher proportion than other tribes with over five hundred deaths recorded thus far. In the beginning months of the pandemic, positivity rates for IHS patients from the Navajo Nation in Phoenix reached about 20% as compared to a 7% positivity rate nationally during that same time. Although the positivity rate has decreased, it still remains about three times higher than the national average.

The positivity rates for Native Americans in states like Arizona and New Mexico saw heights of up to 30%, even though these communities make up only a small portion of the population.

Many health officials in IHS hospitals even took to social media to beg for personal protective equipment (PPE), hand sanitizer, and other equipment. The hospitals relied on donations as their main source for supplies. Even when the donated equipment did arrive, many of the staff realized that they never received the proper training and that they lacked understanding of how to use the equipment.

Even worse, some of the PPE that Native communities received was inadequate to help protect those using it. In an email to tribal officials, one IHS worker wrote, “we can get you N95s (they’re expired, but the C.D.C. and I.H.S. say that they’re still OK to use).” Many of the IHS health officials were left feeling as though they were the last priority, but they still made use of what they were able to receive.

Native communities have lacked proper healthcare service for years. The U.S. government has failed to provide sufficient funding and services for the healthcare system it helped create for Native Americans. Tribal elders, seen as the most important members of the community, suffered greatly at the hands of their untreated underlying health conditions. Despite this, Native Americans look to President Biden with hopes he will provide their communities with much-needed relief.

For further information, please see:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – COVID-19 Mortality Among American Indian and Alaska Native Persons – 14 States, January-June 2020,  11 Dec. 2020

Indian Health Service – Coronavirus (COVID-19) – 28 Feb. 2021

The New York Times – Native Americans ‘Left Out in the Cold’ Under Trump Press Biden for Action – 18 Feb. 2021

The New York Times – Native Americans Reliant on Hospital Feel Abandoned by U.S. During Pandemic – 3 Jan. 2021

The New York Times – Pandemic Highlights Deep-Rooted Problems in Indian Health Service – 3 Jan. 2021

Unaccompanied Migrant Children Continue to be Detained at the U.S. Southern Border

By: Ryan Ockenden

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

CARRIZO SPRINGS, United States of America – Within recent weeks, thousands of unaccompanied migrant children have arrived at the southern border of the United States. President Biden has agreed not to turn back unaccompanied minors in spite of Title 42, the emergency public health law invoked by former President Trump, which authorized turning away the majority of migrants due to COVID-19.

Trailers previously used to house oil workers have been turned into bunks for the unaccompanied migrant minors. Photo Courtesy of Eric Gay and Associated.

Although President Biden promised to take a more humane approach to unauthorized immigration, his administration has re-opened the controversial Carrizo Springs detention center, to house these unaccompanied minors. According to the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, minors cannot be held by border agents at these detention centers for more than 72 hours. After 72 hours, the unaccompanied minors must then be transferred to shelters while the Office of Refugee Resettlement can locate their family members in the United States and arrange for their release to the families. The Biden administration is not following this law. Due to the lag in processing, children are being held for much longer in detention centers like that in Carrizo Springs. Once unaccompanied minors arrive at the shelters, many of them are not being released to their families, despite the families being located, because of the requirement that the minors quarantine for ten days and test negative twice for COVID-19.

In the past, the Inter-American Court and Commission of Human Rights (IACHR) has asserted that detentions at the U.S. southern border must be as brief as possible. Further, the IACHR has stressed that the best interests of a child are the primary consideration in any action taken in relation to the child. COVID-19 has posed a confounding problem for the American government: whether to prioritize public health; or, to get children out of shelters and into their families’ possession as soon as possible.

Many human rights advocates feel that the Biden administration is reverting to the perverse policies under former President Trump. The advocates believe the vulnerable children are being held in unsafe facilities that do not meet their best interest: being sent to safety with their family members in the United States.

In the face of a health crisis, the Biden administration will continue to face two issues: (1) ensuring children are not held for more than 72 hours in Border Patrol custody; and, (2) whether prioritizing public health and quarantine policies over reuniting unaccompanied minors with their families is appropriate. On the first issue, the Biden administration has said that they do not want to keep the facilities open long, but they have no current alternative since they did not inherit a system that manages COVID-19 and the influx of unaccompanied minor migrants. On the second issue, the Biden administration has shown no indication to change their policy, raising questions about whether they are seeking the best interests of the children.

For further information, please see:

Amnesty International – Carrizo Springs detention facility cannot become status quo for children – 23 Feb. 2021

NPR – Biden Pledges That Border Shelter For Teens ‘Won’t Stay Open Very Long’ – 25 Feb. 2021

Pacific Standard – What laws protect detained children from mistreatment on the border? – 24 Jun. 2019

Politico – Biden promised a ‘fair and humane’ immigration overhaul. What he inherited is a mess – 26 Feb. 2021

The New York Times – Thousands of Migrant Children Detained in Resumption of Trump-Era Policies – 26 Feb. 2021

Illegal Pesticides: A Continual Growing Concern in Paraguay

By: Samuel Schimel

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

COLONIA YERUTI, Paraguay – Paraguay made history in a 2019 ruling that held Paraguay responsible for failing to safeguard its citizens from the severe environmental contamination caused by illegal chemicals used on large-scale agribusinesses. These illegal agrochemicals were found to violate the State’s international obligations to protect the rights to life and respect for private and family life and the home.

The seizure of 13,000 pounds of suspected illegal pesticides in January 2020. Photo Courtesy of The Washington Post.

The landmark case, Portillo Cáceres v. Paraguay, was held before the United Nations Human Rights Committee (Committee). This case was brought as a result of toxic chemical pollutants that caused the death of Rubén Portillo Cáceres and a myriad of serious health concerns for other community members. These symptoms included “nausea, dizziness, headaches, fever, stomach pains, vomiting, diarrhea, coughing and skin lesions.” However, the grave of effects of these chemical pollutants did not stop here. Additionally, these chemical pollutants have had devastating effects on the environment including the killing of fruit trees, crops, and farm animals.

In reaching the decision, the Committee showed its support by stating that a right to life also concerns the entitlement of individuals to enjoy a life with dignity. It does not include any acts or omissions that would cause an individual’s unnatural or premature death. Unfortunately, this case did not end the pervasive use of dangerous agrochemicals in Paraguay entirely.

In 2020, the running street value for banned pesticides in Paraguay is more than $2 million. The illegal pesticides and their strength are twice that of pesticides that are legal in Paraguay’s neighboring border country, Brazil. Much of the illegal pesticides prevalent in Brazil end up in Paraguay due to the shared massive, yet largely unmonitored, border. Pesticides are mostly produced in China and then smuggled across the Paraguay border. Roughly 287,000 tonnes of Atrazine and 63,000 tonnes of Syngnta were sold in Brazil in 2018.

Since the last two decades, illegal trafficking of pesticides has quickly heightened into one of the world’s most profitable criminal enterprises deserving of more recognition. The pesticide trade is operated akin to a narcotics trade and is often controlled by rival gangs and mafias. This has led to the introduction of counterfeit and contraband pesticides that are now in heavy circulation in both developed and underdeveloped countries. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) these pesticides carry with them extreme environmental and social consequences. There is an estimate of 3 million people poisoned and 200,000 killed each year due to exposure to these harmful and largely unregulated substances. Their use, researchers find, can poison soil, contaminate water sources and ravage entire ecosystems. These large-scale harms, of course, are supported by illegal and unregulated trade.

While the Paraguayan border is still largely unregulated leading to an influx of agrochemicals, this issue would largely be off the radar of health organizations without the 2019 ruling of Cáceres v. Paraguay. While the issue is still rampant, it is important to note that an individual’s health and safety are still protected from these dangerous agrochemicals under law and health organizations, like the WHO, which continue to advocate for agrochemical trafficking to be better policed. 

For further information, please see:

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – Views adopted by the Committee under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, concerning communication No. 2751/2016 – 20 Sept. 2019

International Justice Resource Center – UN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE RECOGNIZES ENVIRONMENTAL HARM AS RIGHTS VIOLATION – 22 Aug. 2019

Monga bay – For European chemical giants, Brazil is an open market for toxic pesticides banned at home – 10 Sept. 2020

The Washington Post – In agricultural giant Brazil, a growing hazard: The illegal trade in pesticides – 9 Feb. 2020

United Nations Human Rights – Paraguay responsible for human rights violations in context of massive agrochemical fumigations – 14 Aug. 2019

Modi Regime Cracks Down on Free Speech Amid Farmers Protesting for Fair Agricultural Laws

By: Hannah Bennink

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

NEW DELHI, India – In the midst of massive protests led by farmers in pursuit of fair agricultural laws, the Indian Government has imposed a crackdown on media outlets providing coverage. Police have filed criminal charges against journalists and activists for covering and sharing information on the protests.

Citizens gather to protest for freedom of speech and expression. Photo Courtesy of BBC and Getty Images.

Among the arrested include editors of two prominent independent news outlets, The Wire and The Caravan, as well as Shashi Tharoor, a very prominent opposition Congress party politician who is charged with “misreporting facts” surrounding the death of the protestor. Other charges include sedition, promoting communal disharmony, and making statements prejudicial to national integration.

This is not the first time the press has targeted India despite the freedom of expression being a constitutionally guaranteed freedom. There have been 405 sedition cases filed against Indian citizens for criticizing politicians and governments in the last decade, an overwhelming majority of those arrests coming after Modi gained power in 2014. In 2020 alone, sixty-seven journalists were arrested and 200 physically attacked. Despite the Indian government’s pride in its vibrant and competitive media, the country ranked 142 on the 180-country World Press Freedom Index in 2020 according to Reporters Without Borders.

The Indian government denies that journalists are being targeted. The National Vice President, Baijayant Panda, told the BBC that “All journalists with avowed political affiliations and evident slant against the government have continued to write and speak freely in newspapers, television and online portals.”  The Vice President alleges that recent arrests of journalists have been in response to “serious criminal allegations of fake news peddling in a riot-like situation, with the intent of fanning violence.”

In addition to the arresting journalists, the Indian government has shut down mobile internet services at protest sights in order to “maintain public safety”. Internet rights groups have condemned the shutdowns, asserting they were “suppressing the free flow of information related to peaceful assembly and the right to protest.” International human rights law requires India to ensure that restrictions on the internet and other forms of communication are part of a necessary and proportionate response to a specific security concern, and not to curtail the flow of information or to harm people’s ability to freely assemble and express political views. The Indian government has been known to block internet access in the past. In 2019, they shut off web access more than one hundred times, along with the longest imposed blanket internet outage in a democracy for five months in Kashmir.

Several internationally known figures have spoken out in support of the farmers and the journalists including Rhianna, Rupi Kaur, Greta Thunberg, and Meena Harris. Despite the international attention, arrests have continued, the most recent being February 13th when 22-year-old climate activist Disha Ravi for being a “key conspirator” in the “formulation and dissemination” of a protest “tool-kit” meant to provide resources to farmers.

For more information, please see:

BBC News – Disha Ravi: India activist arrest decried as ‘attack on democracy’ – 14 Feb. 2021

BBC News – Why journalists in India are under attack – 4 Feb. 2021

Columbia Journalism Review – India cracks down on journalism, again – 5 Feb. 2021

Human Rights Watch – India: Journalists Covering Farmer Protests Charged – 2 Feb. 2021

The Guardian – Indian journalists face criminal charges over police shooting reports – 1 Feb. 2021

The NY Times Modi’s Response to Farmer Protests in India Stirs Fear of a Pattern – 8 Feb. 2021

ICC Holds That Their Jurisdictional Authority Extends to Palestine

By: Elizabeth Maugeri

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

THE HAUGE, The Netherlands – The International Criminal Court (ICC) delivered a landmark ruling in response to a request by the ICC Office of the Prosecutor (the Office) to clarify jurisdictional authority in Israeli-occupied Palestine. By a majority vote, the presiding judges held that the Court’s jurisdiction extends to the occupied West Bank areas of East Jerusalem and Gaza.

The panel of the pre-trial chamber judges assigned to the Situation of the State of Palestine – Marc Perrin de Brichambaut, Péter Kovács, and Reine Alapini-Gansou pictured in 2019. Photo Courtesy of Human Rights Watch.

This decision came after the end of a nearly 5-year-long preliminary inquiry as to the possibility of opening an investigation into human rights abuses in the West Bank. Palestine made a formal request for an investigation in 2018, which allowed the Office to initiate one outright. However, the Office still sought guidance from the ICC before doing so.

The preliminary inquiry concluded that Rome Statute Article 53(1), detailing the ability of the Prosecutor’s Office to initiate an investigation, had been satisfied. Through the inquiry, the Office found that: [1] war crimes were being committed in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza; [2] potential cases arising would be admissible; [3] there is no reason the investigation would not serve to provide justice.

ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda called upon the Court using Article 19(3) which concludes that the Prosecutor may seek the Court’s ruling regarding questions of jurisdiction or admissibility. She called for a ruling on jurisdiction based on Article 12(2)(a) which states that the Court may grant jurisdiction because Palestine is a party to the Rome Statute and it made a formal request for an investigation in its own territory. She marked the significance of the ruling as a foundational answer to the potential for future litigation. The Prosecutor’s request was then submitted to Pre-Trial Chamber I for the ruling.

The Pre-Trial Chamber I invited Israel and other interested countries to submit relevant observations of human rights abuses to the Chamber for review. These submitted observations, compiled with testimony of victims and an amicus curiae, helped to determine the final decision.

The Chamber held that, despite countervailing international law and recognition, Palestine is a signatory party to the Rome Statute and is therefore governed by ICC terms and must be treated as any other signatory state. UN General Assembly Resolution 67/19, which reaffirmed Palestinians right to self-determination and independence in the occupied Palestinian territory also guided the ruling.

For further information, please see:

Human Rights Watch – Israel/Palestine: ICC Judges Open Door to Formal Probe – 6 Feb. 2021

International Criminal Court – ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I issues its decision on the Prosecutor’s request related to territorial jurisdiction over Palestine – 5 Feb. 2021

International Criminal Court – ICC Pre-Trial Chamber invites Palestine, Israel, interested States and others to submit observations – 28 Jan. 2020

International Criminal Court – Pre-Trial Chamber I: Situation in the State of Palestine – 5 Feb. 2021

International Criminal Court – Statement of ICC Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, on the conclusion of the preliminary examination of the Situation in Palestine, and seeking a ruling on the scope of the Court’s territorial jurisdiction – 20 Dec. 2019