Domestic Violence in Jammu and Kashmir due to India’s Revocation of its Special Status

By: Kanalya Arivalagan

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor

KASHMIR, India – In Kashmir, there was an increased surge in domestic violence due to the shutdown. This shutdown, however, was caused by India revoking its semi-autonomous status in August 2019.

A Police Checkpoint in Jammu and Kashmir. Photo Courtesy of The New York Times.

The former state of Jammu and Kashmir is a region of land that was divided unevenly between India and Pakistan, with India receiving the larger portion. It is also the biggest Muslim-majority state in India in which it had its special status of semi-autonomy under Article 370 of the Constitution of India since 1947. However, after the revocation, India placed its federal forces in parts of Kashmir, installed a communications blockade, cut access to public transportation, and closed markets.

During the 2016 and 2017’s shutdown, there was more than 3,000 domestic violence in addition to general violence against women per year. Now, in 2020, the Kashmiri women are in the middle of both a global pandemic and a military lockdown from India without any resource available to help guide them during this time.

The total internet blackout along with lack of communication access caused confusion, which continued to worsen as India’s security forces came into the region. The women’s commission for domestic violence became defunct in the past three years resulting in no proper resource for women facing such violence. In the entire Kashmir valley, there is only one women’s police station and the male’s police stations are not trained to be able to work with domestic violence victims. Furthermore, even if the women come to the male officers for help, they often dismiss it as a family matter.

Furthermore, Shah Faisal, state director of the Human Rights Law Network, stated that these women also lack access to medical help because “many out-patient departments in public and private hospitals have closed” due to Kashmir losing its special status. Now, amidst the COVID-19 global pandemic, it is ill-advised to go to the hospital because of the possibility of getting infected.

For example, one of the many women facing domestic violence under these especially frightful circumstances is Rafiqa, 39, who had to turn to a local religious leader to seek the help she needs. Her husband beat her, abused her, and this violent abuse became much worse after he lost his job last year in 2019. Due to the shutdown and the lack of access to internet/mobile lines, Rafiqa couldn’t even reach her parents for help. Similarly, another survivor, Sameena, 29, suffered harsh abuse that even resulted in rape by her husband. Such series of abuse was so horrific that she ended up suffering a miscarriage due to the severe violence. She could only turn to her parents for support.

It should be noted this pain might be eased by the decision of the high court of Jammu and Kashmir in April 2020 which directed the lower courts to treat the matter of domestic violence as an urgent issue. However, with the lockdown and lack of access to the internet as well as the mobile and landlines, India’s actions are a violation of human rights for the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir. As Mr. Mehak, a journalist, penned, “[e]ach individual has the right to life and as such no instance of domestic or any other sort of violence with any person discrete of gender, social group or any other classification is insupportable and intolerable.”

For further information, please see:

The New York Times – India Revokes Kashmir’s Special Status, Raising Fears of Unrest – 05 Aug. 2019.

The New Humanitarian – Nowhere to Turn for Women Facing Violence in Kashmir – 09 Jul. 2020.

Deccan Herald – Coronavirus Lockdown Leads to Spurt in Domestic Violence Cases in Kashmir – 23 Apr. 2020.

Greater Kashmir – Spike in Domestic Violence – 02 Sep. 2020.

IACHR Expresses Concern over the Human Rights of U.S. Sex Workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic

By: Rebecca Buchanan

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

WASHINGTON, D.C. – On November 13, 2020, The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) issued a press release expressing concern over the human rights of U.S. sex workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Cat Hollis, Founder of the Haymarket Pole Collective. Photo Courtesy of OPB.

The statement called for the U.S. government to strengthen its guarantees that individuals engaged in sex work would maintain their environmental, economic, social, and cultural rights, particularly during the pandemic’s containment and mitigation measures. The IACHR reiterated its belief that the discrimination and stigma facing sex workers in the United States pose a great risk to human rights and dignity and must be eliminated.

In its press release, the IACHR drew on information from reports indicating that sex workers throughout the United States have experienced increased violence, discrimination, and poverty during the pandemic. The stay-at-home orders and social-distancing measures instituted in most U.S. states have severely decreased opportunities for income through sex work, leaving these workers unable to cover the costs of basic needs and essential services. When reaching out for help, individuals engaged in sex work have been met with dwindling opportunities for housing, a lack of accessible healthcare, and exclusion from many social assistance programs.

Sex work is criminalized in most U.S. states, leaving sex workers dangerously excluded from State registration systems, social services, and necessary healthcare provisions. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated these unstable conditions, leaving sex workers especially vulnerable to the virus and its larger effects. Businesses providing sex work were banned from receiving U.S. Small Business Administration Loans, which offered relief to businesses struggling as a result of the pandemic because of a stipulation excluding live performances or services of a “prurient sexual nature.”

Spurned by the U.S. government, sex workers and the businesses that employ them have been forced to turn elsewhere for assistance. The Haymarket Pole Collective, an Oregon based group that advocates for Black and Indigenous strippers and other strippers of color, recently received a grant from the Oregon Health Authority. The $600,000 grant will be used to fund relief and wellness kits which will include mail-in COVID-19 infection test kits, in addition to other necessities.

The work of the Haymarket Pole Collective addresses the impact of sex work discrimination on minorities, which are often disproportionally affected by situations of emergency or social unrest. In its statement, the IACHR expressed fears that minority populations within the sex work community face rapidly increasing prejudice and discrimination during the pandemic. In particular, the IACHR highlighted the uniquely hostile situation of transgender sex workers who often lack government identification documentation aligned with their gender identity or expression. As a result, transgender sex workers “are exposed to the dual denial of various essential services, including health.” The IACHR called on the U.S. to guarantee that transgender individuals receive adequate care policies and health services respectful of their gender identity. 

Finally, the IACHR noted the increased potential for police violence against sex workers as tensions around the pandemic continue to grow. The IACHR urged the U.S. to implement training programs for police officers, medical officials, and social services personnel regarding the social, economic, and human rights of sex workers. If properly implemented, these trainings could provide sex workers with greater access to social welfare systems and allow for more accurate reporting on situations of sexual slavery, labor exploitation, and human trafficking.

For further information, please see:

American Psychological Association – How COVID-19 impacts sexual and gender minorities – 29 June 2020

Amnesty International – Include Sex Workers in the COVID-19 Response – 28 July 2020

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights – Press Release: IACHR calls on States to guarantee the human rights of women engaged in sex work in the context of the pandemic – 13 Nov. 2020

Oregon Public Broadcasting – Program providing COVID-19 relief to Oregon sex workers meets overwhelming demand – 14 Nov. 2020

U.S. National Library of Medicine: National Institutes of Health – COVID-19 Prevention and Protecting Sex Workers: A Call to Action – 14 Oct. 2020

After Nearly 8 Years, Adeel Muhammad and Ramzan Muhammad Receive the Justice They’ve Been Waiting For

By: Elizabeth Maugeri

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

STRASBOURG, France – The case of Muhammad and Muhammad v. Romania has received substantial notoriety since December 2012. Both men were living in Romania studying at Lucian Blaga University when the Romanian Intelligence Service (SRI) submitted an application to the prosecutor’s office to deem the two men “undesirable” in Romania. Adeel Muhammed had been in Romania for three months, Ramzan, almost four years; both men are Pakistani nationals.

The High Court of Cassation and Justice in Romania. Photo Courtesy of Romania Journal.

The Romanian Intelligence Service (SRI) accused the two men of being national security threats. They were charged with engaging in activities capable of endangering national security under Article 85 §1 of the Romanian Emergency Ordinance (OUG); and also, OUGs 194/2002, sections of 51/1991, and section 44 of 535/2004; all relating to the status of aliens and safeguarding national security. The prosecutor’s office believed these charges were safe under Article 1 Protocol No. 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the basis that Romania’s national security was at risk, therefore expulsion was necessary.

The document presented to the Court of Appeals by the prosecutor’s office alleged a connection between the men and al-Qaeda and their involvement in activities that threatened Romania’s national security. During the hearing, the two men were never informed of the charges brought against them because the document presented by the prosecutor’s office was deemed classified. The Court determined the classified documents were admissible as evidence because of their pertinence and conclusiveness under Article 167 of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure.

The men submitted a request for legal assistance, which the court rejected claiming that since they had failed to file before the trial began, they were unable to request legal assistance. Judgment was delivered on the same day and the men were informed that they were going to be placed in administrative custody awaiting deportation.

After the trial, in a press release, the SRI published detailed information about the case. This included the names of the men and the alleged accusations outlined in the classified documents.

The two men hired lawyers and appealed to the High Court of Cassation and Justice. They submitted a claim for breach of OUG 194/2002 Article 85 §4 in the failure to advise them of the claims; and that even though the accusations had been deemed “classified,” the SRI published them all in a subsequent press release. They submitted documents from their university as proof of good conduct. They also requested the Court obtain their bank statements showing that they weren’t financing terrorist organizations. This was necessary because neither of their lawyers held the proper certificate that allowed them to view the classified documents.

Citing Article 305 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court accepted the university’s good conduct reports but rejected the request to obtain bank statements. The High Court later dismissed the case citing that based on the classified documents, it was clear that the Court of Appeals had issued a correct judgment. Adeel and Ramzan both left Romania at the end of December.

Nearly eight years after Adeel and Ramzan left Romania, the Grand Chamber of the European Commission on Human Rights issued a judgment in favor of them. It was determined that the procedural limitations imposed on the men were a violation of their Article 1 Protocol No. 7 right for procedural safeguards relating to the expulsion of aliens.

The decision was based on a multitude of questionable tactics applied by the Court of Appeals and the High Court. The Grand Chamber noted that the domestic courts never gave clear and concrete reasoning for not allowing the men to obtain knowledge as to the charges against them nor did they assess the need to withhold the information. The Chamber also stated that it was never determined that the facts provided in the Prosecutor’s claims were verified or credible. The Grand Chamber took aim at the press release acknowledging the contradictory nature of withholding the information only to release it to the public the next day. They did not believe that the press release was an appropriate way for the men to learn of the accusations against them.

The Grand Chamber further explained that Court of Appeals only provided the men the numbers of the legal provisions, not names of the laws under which the charges were brought. Neither the Court of Appeals nor the High Court informed them of their Article 1 Protocol No. 7 procedural rights or made them aware of any domestic laws or safeguards that might have aided in their defense. The mention of obtaining lawyers was never addressed during the trial, and the Grand Chamber noted that the courts failed in suggesting lawyers with the proper certification to read the classified documents.

The limitations imposed by the courts counteracted the basic rights allotted under the ECHR and significantly disadvantaged the men throughout the trial. The judgment called for Romania to pay 10,000 euros to each man and 1,365 euros jointly for costs and fees.

For further information please see:

ECHR – Grand Chamber, Case of Muhammad and Muhammad v. Romania (Application no. 80982/12) – 15 Oct. 2020

ECHR – Press Release – Violation of Convention in view of significant limitations imposed on applicants’ right to be informed of reasons for expulsion – 15 Oct. 2020

Strasbourg Observers – The case of Muhammad and Muhammad v. Romania: the first Grand Chamber judgement on Article 1 of Protocol Nr. 7 ECHR procedural safeguards with regard to expulsion of aliens) – 29 Oct. 2020

Romania Journal.ro – Supreme Court Refers To The Court of Justice Of the EU The ‘Bule Gala’ File, Trial Procedures Suspened – 23 Apr. 2019

The Prosecutor v. Ali Muhammad

By: Jamie McLennan 

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

THE HAUGE, Netherlands – Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman was transferred to the International Criminal Court’s custody on June 9th, 2020, after voluntarily surrendering himself in the Central African Republic. Ali Muhammad is the alleged leader of the Janjaweed, a militia civilian group in Africa.

Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman at the ICC on October 8, 2020. Photo Courtesy of the ICC.

The first arrest warrant against him lists fifty criminal counts of alleged attacks against civilians in the towns of Kodoom, Bindisi, Mukjar and Arawala between August 2003 and March 2004. The alleged crimes include twenty-two counts of crimes against humanity, murder, forcible transfer of population, imprisonment, rape, torture, persecution and inhumane acts of inflicting serious bodily injury. The list continues with a total of fifty-three counts for his individual criminal responsibility for crimes against humanity allegedly committed in Sudan.

The ICC will not hear a case without the accused individual in custody and present at the hearings. At the time of arrest, there were 27 international warrants for Ali Muhammad that spanned from April 2007 to June 2020. After Ali Muhammad was placed in custody, the initial hearing was scheduled to take place on December 7th, 2020. However, the confirmation of charges has been delayed until February 22nd, 2021. The court reviewed each party’s stance, taking into account the fairness and efficiency of the court’s proceedings, the rights of the suspects and victims, and the overall safety and security of the proceedings moving forward. The prosecutor requested an extended timeline to collect more evidence against Ali Muhammad. After much consideration, the court determined that there should be a later date for the confirmation of charges and later deadlines for the disclosure of evidence by the prosecutor.

The purpose of the confirmation of charges hearing is for the court to evaluate the evidence of the crimes to establish if there are substantial grounds to believe that the accused individual committed the alleged crimes. If the court believes that the evidence is sufficient, the case will then be transferred to the Trial Chamber, where the proceedings will move to the trial phase. Due to COVID-19, the ICC is using a web streaming service to broadcast all hearings with a thirty-minute delay for any private information that may need to be redacted.

For further information, please see:

International Criminal Court- Decision on the Prosecutor’s Request for Postponement- 2 Nov. 2020

International Criminal Court- Press Release- 2 Nov. 2020

International Criminal Court- Redacted First Warrant of Arrest- 27 April 2020

International Criminal Court- Redacted Second Warrant of Arrest- 11 June 2020

The Effectiveness of the African Court on Human and People’s Rights is Dwindling as African Governments Pull Away From It

By: Thomas Harrington

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Lead News Editors 

ARUSHA, Tanzania – Amnesty International released a report in October 2020 called: The State of African Regional Human Rights Bodies and Mechanisms 2019-2020 (Report), regarding African Human Rights entities. The Report contains troubling information about the declining effectiveness of human rights organizations in Africa.

The African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights after Benin withdraws its commitment to Article 34(6). Photo Courtesy of International Justice Resource Center.

The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (AfCHPR) was one of the organizations specifically written about by Amnesty International. This is the second year that Amnesty International has written the report, and the concern for the AfCHPR has only continued to grow.

The main issue facing AfCHPR is that some African governments aren’t respecting it or it’s decisions. In fact, as a result of its decisions, four African countries have withdrawn a large part of the AfCHPR’s jurisdiction. Under Article 34(6) of the African Court Protocol, countries that have committed to the article are bound by the AfCHPR agreed to allow individuals and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to file cases in the AfCHPR after they have exhausted all possible legal means within their country. Article 34(6) essentially allows parties that are not African governments to file their cases in the AfCHPR if they cannot get adequate assistance through their own country’s legal process.  

Rwanda became the first country to withdraw its commitment to Article 34(6) back in 2016. The AfCHPR was set to hear a claim by Victoire Ingabire, a Rwandan opposition politician who was imprisoned for genocide denial by the Rwandan government. The Rwandan government claimed their withdrawal was to “prevent exploitation of the individual complaint procedure by criminals, particularly individuals who took part in the 1994 genocide and have subsequently fled the country.”

In the last two years, three other countries have followed suit and withdrawn their commitment to Article 34(6) of the African Court Protocol. The AfCHPR home country of Tanzania announced its intention to withdraw its commitment to Article 34(6) back in November 2019. Most of the cases that the AfCHPR has decided have been against Tanzania and most of its pending cases are also against the home country. Tanzania claimed that its withdrawal was due to the AfCHPR accepting cases from claimants that haven’t exhausted their legal remedies, however, no particular case was pointed to and there seems to be no evidence of it.

In 2020, Benin and Côte d’Ivoire both announced their intentions to withdraw their commitments to Article 34(6). These announcements came after the AfCHPR had ordered that both states take measures to prevent “the exclusion of opposition candidates from upcoming elections, although Benin authorities indicated Benin had communicated its withdrawal on March 16, 2020.” 

With those four countries backing away from the AfCHPR jurisdiction leaving only eleven African nations bound by Article 34(6), the Court seems to be losing effectiveness at an exponential rate. These issues along with reduced decisions and the impact of Covid-19 on its meeting time have led to a drop in importance for the AfCHPR. Governments are not respecting the Court’s decisions and the Court appears to be getting quieter.

For further information, please see:

Amnesty International – The State of African Regional Human Rights Bodies and Mechanisms – Oct. 2020

Amnesty International – Regional Human Rights Bodies Struggle to Uphold Rights Amid Political Headwinds in Africa – 20 Oct. 2020

International Justice Resource Center – Benin and Côte d’Ivoire to Withdraw Individual Access to African Court – 6 May. 2020

International Justice Resource Center – Rwanda Withdraws Access to African Court for Individuals and NGOs -14 Mar. 2016