Ratification of African Court Protocol Symbolizes a New Hope for Human Rights in the Democratic Republic of Congo

By: Chelsea Simpson

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Technical Director

ARUSHA, Tanzania – The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) ratified the African Court Protocol to the African Charter of Human and People’s Rights in an attempt to safeguard human rights.

Photo of protestors in Congo advocating for government officials to adhere to the constitution and peacefully conduct democratic elections. Photo Courtesy of Human Rights Watch, Congo.

On December 8, 2020, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) officially deposited its ratification instrument of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights. This ratification is in support of the establishment of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Its purpose is to promote and protect human rights and freedoms in Africa.

The move to ratify the protocol is a positive step in the right direction for safeguarding human rights in DRC. Human rights violations have been a major concern in the DRC for many years, and increasingly so in the past three years due to the long-delayed presidential, legislative, and provisional elections. The delayed elections led to substantial unrest in the DRC. Amnesty International reports that by December 2019 over one million Congolese were forcibly displaced as a result of election violence. The violence also resulted in the death of over 1,500 civilians and thousands more injured. A widespread critique is that these continued human rights abuses are perpetuated by a lack of accountability by the perpetrators. Accordingly, DRC’s ratification of this protocol gives positive hope towards a new future of human rights protections in DRC.

This picture captures the unrest following delayed presidential elections of the Democratic Republic Congo. Photo Courtesy of PLUStvAfrica.

Although the ratification of the protocol is a bold step in the right direction for human rights in DRC, there is still more DRC can do to safeguard the human rights of its citizens. Currently, 31 member states of the African Union have ratified the protocol. Only six of the 31 member states to the protocol have deposited the Declaration under Article 34(6) to allow NGOs and individuals access to the African Court directly. Those six member states are Burkina Faso, Gambia, Mali, Malawi, and Tunisia.

Under Article 34(6) of the victims of human rights violations would be allowed to fiercely bring their cases to the African Court in hope of attaining justice. The allowance of this access to justice is a possible solution towards ending the culture of impunity and accountability in DRC.

This step for DRC is one of the necessary many on the journey of human rights protections. Swift action should be taken to continue the protection of human rights in DRC. Although the ratification of the protocol proves a willingness to acknowledge an issue of adherence to human rights protocols, further attempts to end the culture of impunity through signing the 34(6) declaration should be taken.

For further information, please see:

African Court – Democratic Republic of Congo Ratifies the Protocol on the Establishment of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights – 11 Dec. 2020

Amnesty International – The Democratic Republic of Congo 2019

BBC News – DR Congo Elections: Five Things to Know – 30 Dec. 2018

Jurist – DR Congo Ratifies Protocol Establishing African Court of Human Rights – 16 Dec. 2020  

The Citizen – DR Congo Now Ratifies African Court Protocol – 13 Dec. 2020

Transgender Rights Victory in Europe

By: Veronica Devries

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor

BUCHAREST, Romania – The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has held in the case of X and Y v. Romania that the applicants had experienced a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 8 covers the right to respect for one’s private and family life.

Pride parade in Bucharest, Romania in 2019. Photo Courtesy of Balkin Insight and Robert Ghement.

The case concerned X and Y, two Romanian nationals registered female at birth, that applied for their civil-status records to be changed from female to male. They were born in 1976 and 1982, respectively, and live in the United Kingdom and Bucharest. X brought an action in 2013 against Bucharest’s first district’s local council. X presented several medical certificates to confirm that he suffered from a gender identity disorder. Despite this, the district refused to change his gender, stating that the change was “premature” as X had not undergone gender reassignment surgery. X moved to the United Kingdom in 2014 and obtained male forenames thereafter the courts in Romania had refused to change his gender.

Y brought an action against the local council for the third district in Bucharest. Y requested authorization to undergo gender reassignment surgery, along with various administrative changes, including a civil-status change of their gender like X had requested. In May 2013, the court stated that the applicant would not be able to apply for a change in forename until the gender reassignment surgery had been performed.

In their complaints, the applicants stated that the Romanian state had not established a clear process for the legal recognition of their gender identities, as the state was effectively making gender reassignment surgery a prerequisite for a civil-status change.

On January 19, 2021, the ECHR ruled that the state’s refusal to provide the requested administrative changes without the applicants having undergone surgery was an “unjustified interference” of the applicants’ right to respect for private and family life. This right is found in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In its decision, the ECHR held that the state had unreasonably required gender reassignment surgery in order for the administrative change to occur. In a statement, the ECHR stated “…the national courts had presented the applicants, who did not wish to undergo gender reassignment surgery, with an impossible dilemma; either they had to undergo the surgery against their better judgement…or they had to forego recognition of their gender identity…”

The ECHR required Romania to pay 8,653 euros to X in damages, and 7,500 euros to Y in damages, in addition to paying costs to each applicant.  

For further information, please see:

Balkan Insight – European Court Rules Romania Violated Trans Rights – 19 Jan. 2021

European Convention on Human Rights – 1 June 2010

European Court of Human Rights – Press Release – 19 Jan. 2021

Radio Free Europe News – European Human Rights Court Fines Romania For Transgender Rights Violations – 19 Jan. 2021

TGEU – Third Party Intervention X v Romania and Y v Romania – 19 July 2018

Bandits Abduct Dozens of Students in Nigeria

By: Shane Kelly

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

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.

For further information, please see:

BBC – Nigeria’s Katsina School Abduction: Boko Haram Says it Took the Students – 15 Dec. 2020

Human Rights Watch – More Schoolchildren Abducted in Nigeria – 17 Feb. 2021

MSN – Negotiations Under Way in Nigeria to Free Abducted Children – 19 Feb. 2021

New York Times – Gunmen in Nigeria Attack School, Abducting Dozens and Killing a Student – 17 Feb. 2021

New York Times – In Town of Missing Girls, Sorrow, but Little Progress – 11 May 2014

Two Female Members of Kurdish-led Administration in Syria Found Beheaded.

By: Christopher Martz

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.

For further information, please see:

Kurdistan24 – Two local female politicians abducted and killed in northeast Syria – 24 Jan. 2021.

MEE And Agencies – Two female members of Kurdish-led administration in Syria found beheaded – 26 Jan. 2021.

Rudaw – Two Rojava municipal council women assassinated: reports – 23 Jan. 2021.

Syrian Observatory for Human Rights –  After threats in 2018, ISIS executes two female officials in the Autonomous Administration in southern Al-Hasakah – 23 Jan. 2021.

Alexei Navalny Faces Prison Time After Returning to Russia

By: Elizabeth Maugeri

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

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.

For further information, please see:

European Parliament – Joint Motion for a Resolution pursuant to Rule 132(2) and (4) of the Rules of Procedure – 20 Jan. 2021

Politico – Collision course Moscow: The Return of Alexei Navalny – 15 Jan. 2021

Politico – Election official: Navalny can’t run for Russian president – 15 June 2017

Reuters – Russian opposition leader’s fraud conviction arbitrary, Europe’s top rights court says – 17 Oct. 2017

The New York Times – Russia Expels European Diplomats Over Navalny Protests, Defying the West – 5 Feb. 2021

The New York Times – Russian Activist Navalny Sentenced to More Than 2 Years in Prison – 2 Feb. 2021