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

Pro-Democracy Demonstrations in Thailand Shed Light on the Government’s Troubling Constraint on the Right to Freedom of Expression

By: Rachel Brenner

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor

BANGKOK, Thailand – Recent pro-democracy demonstrations have put a spotlight on Thai authorities pressuring them to allow peaceful protests, end police crackdowns on nonviolent demonstrations, and stop the repeated use of serious criminal charges against individuals exercising their right to freedom of expression. Since demonstrations organized by the People’s Movement began on July 18, 2020, the Thai government and police have shown increased hostility toward protestors. Protestors are calling for the drafting of a new constitution, an end to harassment for exercising freedom of expression, and the dissolution of parliament.

Pro-democracy protesters during a rally near the Democracy Monument in Bangkok, Thailand on August 16, 2020.

On November 17th, police in Bangkok used water cannons laced with purple dye and teargas chemicals, teargas grenades, and pepper spray in an attempt to prevent peaceful protestors from reaching the national parliament. Demonstrators had planned to protest outside the parliament as debates over proposals for seven different constitutional amendments were underway. The Erawan Medical Centre in Bangkok reported at least 55 injuries, most of which resulted from teargas inhalation.

On November 18th, the spokesperson for the UN Secretary-General “expressed concern regarding the human rights situation in Thailand.” He emphasized that the Thai government must refrain from the use of force and ensure the full protection of Thai people who exercise their right to peaceful assembly. UN guidance on less-lethal weapons in law enforcement states that “water cannons should only be used in situations of serious public disorder where there is a significant likelihood of loss of life or injury,” and should only be used to the extent required to achieve a legitimate policing objective. In 1996, Thailand endorsed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which protects the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. However, Thailand has consistently subdued discussions about human rights and public reforms.

Thailand’s royal family is protected by one of the world’s strictest defamation laws, known as lese majeste law. This controversial law, which is punishable by a maximum of 15 years in prison, prohibits defaming, insulting or threatening the royal family. Between July and November 2020, Thai Lawyers for Human Rights noted that at least 175 protestors had been prosecuted for taking part in political demonstrations. Many protestors face illegal assembly penalties, while some protest leaders face a more serious sedition charge. Additionally, at least five pro-democracy leaders face accusations of lese majeste in connection with the demonstrators’ call to reform the monarchy.

The lese majeste charges against pro-democracy leaders were the first time since 2018 that the law has been enforced, indicating that the Thai government is becoming increasingly frustrated with pro-democracy demonstrations. A senior researcher on Thailand at Human Rights Watch states that “as pro-democracy protestors break the longstanding taboo that prohibits Thai people from criticizing and challenging the monarchy, reactions from the state are becoming harsher.” The UN expressed concern over the charges, which inhibit the exercise of free speech, and urged the Thai government to amend the lese majeste law. Regardless of the government’s intolerance to listen to the demonstrators, these charges are unlikely to stop the movement due to the protestors’ outrage with Thailand’s outdated political system. 

For further information, please see:

Amnesty International- What’s Happening in Thailand: 10 things you need to know- November 6, 2020

CNN- Thai protest leaders report to police on charges of insulting the monarchy, as authorities’ tolerance wears out- November 30, 2020

CNN- Thousands protest in Bangkok after Thai parliament votes on constitutional reform- November 18, 2020

Statement by International NGO’s on Pro-Democracy Protests on November 17 and 25, 2020- November 25, 2020

UN News- Thailand: UN rights office deeply troubled by treason charges for protests- December 18, 2020

Vanghele and Others v. Romania Dismissed After No Response by Applicants to Court

By: William Krueger

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

STRASBOURG, France – On January 21, 2021 the Fourth Section of the European Court of Human Rights (Court) joined together and dismissed 19 applicant complaints of Article 3 of the Convention violations by the Romanian government. In the decision of Vanghele and Others v. Romania, the Fourth Section was composed of Armen Harutyunan, Jolien Schukking, Ana Maria Guerra Martins, and Viktoriya Maradudina.

The exterior of the Aiud Prison located in Aiud, Romania. Photo Courtesy of The National Administration of Penitentiaries.

The first application was introduced to the Court on May 1, 2016 by Adrian Vanghele, with other applications arriving from George Orbulescu, Florin Gabriel Popescu, Petrică Dobre, Gavril-Lucian Ciupea, Silviu-Sorin Ungureanu, Ion Horga, Dumitru Ignat, Fănel Serea, Mădălin-Ionuț, Adrian Stoica, Gabriel Dorel Popu, Dănuț-Marian Nastas, Marian Dincă, Alexandru-Cristian-Anton Gheorghe, Mihai Dumitru, Gheorghe Albu, Ambrosie Teglaş, and Alin Dondoți. Three of the applicants had even included notice of a representative to act on their behalf: Stocia Nicolae of Norway, Daniela Voduță of Vaslui, Romania, and Titiana-Daniela Satnoianu of Braşov, Romania. The three represented Horga, Ignat, and Teglaş respectively. The letters of all nineteen applicants were introduced to the Court from May 1, 2016 to March 13, 2017. Generally, in the applications the nineteen had complained that their detentions in Romanian facilities were in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention. Article 3 states that: “No one shall be subject to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” After the introduction of the letters, the Court informed the Romanian government of the complaint levied against it. The Romanian government submitted a response to the Court of its opinion on the admissibility of the complaints and the merits of an Article 3 violation. The applicants were invited to give their own observations; but none of the nineteen applicants replied.

In September 2020, the Court had sent each applicant a letter via registered mail that any observations submitted would be invalid as time had expired. The Court had set a new deadline however for all applicants in the same letter while reminding them of Article 37 in the European Convention. Article 37, specifically section 1(a), grants the court the right at any stage of a proceeding to strike an application from the list of cases if “the applicant does not intend to pursue his application.” All nineteen of the letters would be returned to the court in November 2020 without response. Most of the applicant’s letters would be returned to the court unclaimed, with four being returned as the applicant had been released from incarceration. According to court records, all nineteen applicants had been released from prison before the mailing of the letters. The Court was not notified of a change of address by any applicant and never received correspondence by an applicant or their representative.

In the Court’s decision, the Fourth Section concluded that the nineteen applicants must not desire continuing litigation. The Court then applied all of Article 37 section 1 to find there was no special circumstance that would lead the court to continue on the applicant’s behalf. The Court finished by joining all nineteen applications together and then striking the applications from the list of cases.

Vanghele and Others v. Romania was not the first time that alleged abuse of incarcerated individuals may have occurred under Romanian authority as according to a State Department of the United States Report on Human Rights Practices in Romania: prisons are overcrowded and undermaintained by Council of Europe standards, 633 complaints made by incarcerated persons to the National Penitentiary Authority in Romania were not referred to prosecutors, and medical care in Romanian prisons was insufficient.

European Court of Human Rights – European Convention – 6 Feb. 2013

European Court of Human Rights – Vanghele and Others v. Romania Decision – 21 Jan. 2021

European Court of Human Rights – Forthcoming Judgments and Decisions – 5 Jan. 2021

United States Department of State – 2019 Reports on Human Rights Practices: Romania – 11 Mar. 2020

Jade Mining in Myanmar Poses Severe Human Rights Abuses to the Health and Safety of its Workers

By: Kathryn Sharkey

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor

HPAKANT, Myanmar – If anyone has ever purchased jewelry made from jadeite, perhaps they should consider how that necklace or ring came into their possession. Jade mining in Myanmar has received little to no recognition from mass media, but even more unfortunate is the lack of recognition that its labor has resulted in the loss of thousands of lives.

Jade pickers hold onto each other while carrying large stones up steep hills where the stones will be cracked open in search of any jadeite slivers. Photo Courtesy of TIME.

Many people have died trying to make a living by searching for jade stones. Some of these individuals are children, who are forced into labor. Despite the high-risk environment, these workers desperately continue to search for jade stones to feed the billion-dollar industry. Led by China, this industry relies heavily on Myanmar mines since they have produced approximately seventy percent of the world’s jade.

These jade pickers spend hours every day and sometimes, even more dangerously, hours at night, sifting through rocks and dirt searching for “stones of heaven.” The environment and conditions under which they labor is anything but “heaven.” Precarious working conditions pose extreme risks for the jade pickers who often work on unstable, steep ground and are at severe risk of being swept away or buried by unexpected mudslides during the monsoon season. In 2020 alone, almost two hundred workers died as a result of mudslides. Amongst those lost were many child workers. Bodies are almost never recovered due to the terrain and the fact that most laborers are illegal migrants, drug addicts, and rarely thought to be persons worth finding. Some workers die due to rampant infection within mining camps, such as HIV from unsanitary needles. Nearly all of them die alone and terrified. Families of those who have died in the mines receive almost no compensation for their loss.

The industry itself is tight-lipped about labor conditions and most of Myanmar’s mines are completely closed off to unwanted visitors. Many of these mines are also run illegally and without proper licensing. Security appears to be overboard, but the Myanmar army maintains control over the jade mines. According to a senior campaigner at Global Witness, “If you keep the jade business in a black box and don’t let any information get out, it’s hard to put pressure on the people that control the industry.” The army has made sure of that.

Stones found by the workers vary in price depending on size. Most workers only make a small wage each day, but some who fail to find any stones walk away with no pay for that day. Supervisors or corporate entities profit off of larger stones, forcing jade pickers to earn little profit.

The National League for Democracy has failed the laborers, having made no effort to implement regulatory policies to help curb the devasting conditions under which vulnerable adults, and especially young children, operate in. Civil and human rights activists have been advocating for change but calls for reform are largely overlooked. The industry has remained corrupt and will likely continue to pose severe risks to the health and lives of Myanmar’s men, women, and children working there for the foreseeable future.

For more information, please see:

BBC News – ‘I feel guilty for surviving’: The deadly hunt for jade in Myanmar – 3 Aug. 2020

International Labour Organization – Child labour in Myanmar’s jade mines is a deadly gamble – 10 Jan. 2021

The Diplomat – A Deadly Gamble: Myanmar’s Jade Industry – 13 July 2020

The National News – Jade trade in Myanmar thrives on exploitation, rights abuses – 29 Sep. 2008

TIME – Myanmar’s Jade Mines May Yield Great Wealth – But They Leave A Long Trail of Death – 9 Mar. 2017