KAGARA, Niger State, Nigeria – On February 17, 2021, gunmen wearing military uniforms stormed into a college in Niger state, abducting dozens of students and their teachers. One student was killed during the attack.
President Muhammadu Buhari. Photo Courtesy of the New York Times (Phill Magakoe/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images).
Attacking in “huge numbers,” gunmen stormed into the Government Science College in the town of Kagara, driving schoolboys and some teachers into the forest. At least one student was killed during the kidnapping, according to one of only a few of the students who managed to escape.
The exact identity of the group is unknown. They do not appear to have an official designation, but they are a criminal gang referred to locally simply as “bandits.” This group has become notorious in central and northwestern Nigeria for pillaging, raping, and kidnapping for ransom. Through aerial troops and communications with local informants, the state government has made contact with the bandits. As of February 19, 2021, negotiations are underway to secure the release of the students. The situation is ongoing.
The abductions follow a similar tragedy only two months ago when perhaps the same group abducted more than 300 schoolboys in Katsina. The kidnappers released the students two days later after receiving a ransom. Boko Haram claimed responsibility for the raid in December, though authorities deny the group’s involvement. These incidents, however, are eerie reminders of Boko Haram’s abduction of hundreds of schoolgirls in Chibok in Borno state in 2014. More than a hundred of those students remain missing.
Nigeria’s president, Muhammadu Buhari, has been under pressure as a result of the wave of crime by bandits in his country, and he faces accusations of apathy and inaction. As a result, he ratified the Safe Schools Declaration—an international initiative to implement and enforce policies to protect schools.
Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor
ERBIL, Kurdistan Region – On January 26th, 2021, Hind Latif Al Khadir and Sa’da Faysal Al Hermas, political leaders of the Kurdish-led autonomous region in northeastern Syria, have been found beheaded after being kidnapped, in an attack blamed on the Islamic State group. The two women, who were found dead in Al Dashisha in the countryside of northeastern Syria’s Hasakah province, were known for their work for local institutions within the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES).
Hind Latif Al Khadir and Sa’da Faysal Al Hermas, both officials with the Til Shayir municipality in Hasakah, northeast Syria, were assassinated on January 22, 2021. Photo Courtesy of Rudaw.
A continuous pattern of violence against Kurds, and specifically women in northeastern Syria, culminated in their kidnapping from their homes by unknown men. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) reported that they were both found dead hours after being kidnapped. Hind Latif Al Khadir was head of the economy committee of the town of Til Shayir, while Sa’da Faysal Al Hermas was co-president of the town’s people’s council.
Local councils in the region and news outlets condemned the crime and blamed their kidnapping and death on ISIS sleeper cells. Crimes of this variety have been common in the region, with the goal of destabilizing security and stability, while spreading terror among the people. Opponents of the autonomous administration, notably ISIS and Turkish backed militias, have targeted politicians involved with the organization in the past. A notable victim of a similar crime was Hevrin Khalaf, a politician with the Future Syria Party. He was assassinated by the Turkish-backed armed group Ahrar Al Sharqiya in October 2019.
According to SOHR, at least 234 people have been killed by ISIS sleeper cells in northeastern Syria since June 2018.
The news of their deaths brings to focus the ongoing ISIS emergence in Syria. Since the organization’s takeover of large swaths of Syria and Iraq in 2014, several US-backed military campaigns whittled away at the terrorist organization. The Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), an armed group linked to AANES, expelled the militants from their last patch of land in the Dayr Az Zawr village of Baghouz, located south of Sousa in 2019. Yet violence continues to spread in the name of the organization, often targeting women and those most vulnerable in war-torn Syria.
Since the overthrow of the group, the SDF and AANES have managed tens of thousands of prisoners and displaced people in the region, including ISIS relatives and fighters from around 50 countries. Adding to the crisis, western nations have been largely reluctant to repatriate their ISIS-linked nationals held in northeast Syria, though some have brought home women and children on a case-by-case basis.
While crime has largely targeted political leaders in the region, murder and violence have plagued many of the refugee camps offering protection from similar violence. Just last week, the UN reported that 12 murders had taken place in Al Hol camp in northeast Syria in just over two weeks, sounding the alarm over an increasingly untenable security situation.
While outlets and governments have reported the deterioration of the ISIS presence in the region, violence continues to plague those most vulnerable to the present instability. Women and refugees are still at high risk, requiring more protection and action from the region and the international community at large.
MOSCOW, Russia – In January, Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny was arrested at Sheremetyevo International Airport after returning from Germany. In August of last year, a few weeks before the Russian regional elections, Navalny fell seriously ill. He was flown from Russia to Berlin to receive treatment for what turned out to be an attempt on his life. Tests conducted on Navalny’s personal belongings found a presence of Novichok, a known Russian nerve agent.
Alexei Navalny was kept inside a glass cell during his court hearing in Moscow’s Babishkinsky District Court – Agence France-Presse – Photo Courtesy of Getty Images via The New York Times.
While recovering in Germany, Navalny released a statement that announced his plan to return to Russia. The moment he stepped off the plane in Moscow, he was detained and subsequently arrested by police. He was also denied access to his lawyers.
Navalny was detained for 30 days pending trial, in which he was expected to be sentenced for violating the terms of his parole. A parole that stemmed from previous fraud and embezzlement charges that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) held were “arbitrary and manifestly unreasonable.” Despite the ECHR’s ruling, the Russian government sustained the charges and forced Navalny’s compliance for years. Not only do his convictions bar him from running for public office, but he must also report in person to parole services in Moscow on the Russian government’s terms.
In the case against Navalny, Russian authorities claim that he failed to report as required during the months of August 2020 through January 2021. They also assert that in some instances he failed to report on the correct day of the week.
Navalny received a 3.5-year suspended sentence for these charges but was granted time served for the time he previously spent on house arrest. He was left with 2.8-years in prison. However, Russian authorities continue to pile on other charges. Navalny now faces new criminal charges of fraud and another for allegedly disparaging a WWII veteran.
The international community has demanded the release of Navalny and considers the arrest to be politically motivated. The European Parliament presented a joint motion for a resolution regarding the arrest. The motion called out Russia for breaching its Constitution, international law, international human rights standards, and multiple international conventions. It further calls for the Council to utilize the ECHR Article 46(4) power to bring a case to the ECHR against Russia for Russia’s failure to abide by the final judgments of the Court as it has signed on to do.
Navalny has historically posed a serious challenge for Vladimir Putin and is widely considered to be the man Putin fears most. While it is expected that he will appeal his sentence, the Russian government has labeled this a domestic matter and doesn’t plan on abiding by any ruling that contradicts the decision of the country’s courts.
Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor
SOUTH OSSETIA & ABKHAZIA, Russia – The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) recently reached a verdict thirteen years in the making. On January 21st, the ECHR found that Russia breached six articles of the European Convention of Human Rights due to their actions amidst the Russo-Georgian War of August 2008. This conflict centered around a dispute involving South Ossetia and Abkhazia, two “breakaway provinces” in Georgia. While these provinces are officially apart of Georgia, they proclaim to have separate governments, which were notably unrecognized by most countries. However, Russia did support South Ossetia and Abkhazia, thereby igniting years of tense conflict and eventual violence between Russia and Georgia.
Georgian women cry as they leave their village. Photo Courtesy of The Guardian and Gleb Garanich.
A review of Georgia’s original 2009 application filed with the ECHR reveals a hefty list of claims. Georgia alleged that Russian military and/or separatist forces under Russian control perpetuated indiscriminate, heinous attacks against Georgian civilians. Over the course of a five-day conflict in August 2008, Russia was allegedly responsible for the murder and detainment of Georgian civilians, as well as the looting and burning of their homes. Specifically, Georgia accused Russia of unlawfully detaining ethnic Georgians and subjecting them to “inhuman and degrading treatment.” After what Georgia characterized as a “rampage” through civilian villages, Russia then failed to investigate these war crimes and abuses and prevented 20,000 Georgians from returning to their burned down villages.
In so doing, Georgia asserted that Russia had violated eight articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. These breaches included: “the right to life, the prohibition of torture, the right to liberty and security, the right to respect for private and family life, right to an effective remedy, protection of property, and the right to education and the freedom of movement.”
The ECHR held largely in favor of Georgia, finding Russia in violation of several provisions of international human rights law. It held by sixteen votes to one, that there were administrative practices by Russia which ran awry of “Articles 2, 3, and 8 of the Convention, involving the right to life, prohibition of torture and respect for private and family life, respectively, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, involving the protection of property.” Furthermore, the ECHR held several points unanimously. Namely, that the detained Georgian civilians from August 10th through the 27th of 2008 did fall under Russian jurisdiction within Article 1 purposes. Therefore, Russia was further found in breach of Article 3, the prohibition of torture. The ECHR also found that Russia’s subsequent failure to investigate these alleged war crimes and human rights abuses amounts to a breach of international law.
While Georgia’s case highlighted direct Russian involvement in some violations, it did not demonstrate direct involvement in every part of its complaint. However, the ECHR emphasized that as the prisoners of war fell within Russian jurisdiction, Russia was responsible for the actions against them. The court discussed that while some of these actions may have been formally carried out by the self-proclaimed South Ossetian forces, Russia was present and failed to intervene. The ECHR explained that “strong Russian presence and the South Ossetian and Abkhazian authorities’ dependency on the Russian Federation indicated that there had been continued ‘effective control’ over South Ossetia and Abkhazia.” In light of Russia’s effective control, their failure to intervene may be considered “official tolerance.” The Court also explained, that “the de facto South Ossetian and Abkhazian authorities, and the Russian Federation, which had effective control over those regions, had a duty under the Convention to enable inhabitants of Georgian origin to return to their respective homes.”
International reactions to the ECHR’s recent decision to find Russia in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights for their actions in August 2008 has varied. The U.S. Embassy hailed the decision as a human rights victory and a necessary demand for Russia to honor other nations’ sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Embassy added, “[Russia’s] actions threaten the lives, culture, and personal freedoms of people living in these Georgian territories, and deny them the ability to exercise rights and access opportunities that should be available to all Georgian citizens.” Numerous members of the European Parliament (MEPs) also praised the decision, declaring the holding to be “historic,” citing that “[j]ustice prevailed over policy.”
Meanwhile, allies of Russia, such as the Moscow-backed leader of Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia Anatoly Bibilov, have criticized the ECHR decision. Bibliov asserts that Georgia was no victim, but rather a perpetrator of the 2008 violence. Bibliov boils the entirety of the ECHR’s decision against Russia to the West’s “anti-Russian political course.” It has yet to be seen what Russia’s full reaction to the momentous ruling will be; however, given that Russia has previously been reported as on the brink of withdrawal from the ECHR, all eyes should be on Moscow for the Kremlin’s response.
Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor
TUNIS, Tunisia – On October 6, 2020, hundreds of LGBTQ+ activists gathered in front of Tunisia’s Parliament to protest draft law Number 25/2015, which would severely limit criminal accountability for the use of force by police and armed forces. Ironically, police attacked and arbitrarily arrested many protesters.
Seif Ayadi, LGBTQ+ activist at protest on October 6, 2020. Photo Courtesy of Nawaat.
The proposed law would grant security forces legal immunity from prosecution for use of force. The stated purpose of the law is to enhance protection of armed forces, including military, internal security, and customs forces, as well as suppress attacks against institutions, facilities, and equipment that fall under their authorities. The bill would allow courts to enforce long prison sentences to people who reveal broadly defined “national security secrets.”
If passed, the proposed law would affirm security forces in their use of force, and therefore send a disturbing message to marginalized groups, many of whom are already vulnerable to police misconduct, that they will not be protected from police violence. LGBTQ+ folks are particularly afraid that this law may pass.
Consider Ahmed El-Tounsi’s experience. El-Tounsi is a transgender Tunisian man and founder of OutCasts (transgender rights organization). On August 5th, 2020, he and other LGBTQ+ activists were walking near the French embassy, when police approached and asked them for identification. When officers noticed discrepancies between their identification and gender expression, a verbal altercation ensued. The verbal altercation quickly escalated into a physical assault. El-Tounsi and the others attempted to run away, but additional police officers arrived. The officers continued to beat the activists while encouraging bystanders to join in.
El-Tounsi reported the officers shouted to bystanders, “Kill them! They are sodomites!” Bystanders followed the activists into an alleyway and continued to beat them. The bystanders took their phones and deleted video evidence of the encounter. El-Tounsi commented, “It felt like our entire country beat us that day.”
El-Tounsi went to Habib Thameur Hospital but was denied treatment based on his gender expression. He then went to Charles Nicole Hospital, where administrative staff refused to help him, and referred him to a woman’s hospital, despite his self-identification as a man. Activists took El-Tounsi to Wassila Bourguiba Hospital, which specializes in women’s health, where they refused to treat him because El-Tounsi “[looked] like a man.”
Activists filed a complaint, seeking to hold police and embassy officers accountable. Several lawyers reported the request to review camera footage near the embassy was dismissed. This footage would show the officers’ role in the attack. The lawyers appealed, and are now awaiting a decision.
Avadi attacked and detained by Tunisian police. Photo Courtesy of Nawaat.
Seif Ayadi, a social worker at Damj, a Tunis LGBTQ+ rights group, was present at El-Tounsi’s attack in August and was also one of the activists beaten and detained at the protest in October. Ayadi has spoken out about the increasing police violence against LGBTQ+ people in Tunisia, as well as the overwhelming dangers of the proposed bill. Ayadi reported in 2020 that Damj provided legal support for LGBTQ+ people at police stations in 75 cases and responded to 98 requests for legal consultations. These statistics are five times higher than Damj recorded in 2019.
Currently, there is no legal recognition for transgender people. Many face systemic discrimination, especially when confronted by the incongruence between official identification documents and gender expression. Trans people are often arbitrarily arrested and experience abusive police protocols leading to prosecution. Tunisia should decriminalize same-sex conduct and protect LGBTQ+ people from discrimination and police violence, rather than granting increased power to police.
