Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in Conflict Zones

Syria Justice and Accountability Centre

“For decades – if not centuries – there has been a near-total absence of justice for survivors of rape and sexual violence in conflict. We hope this Protocol will be part of a new global effort to shatter this culture of impunity, helping survivors and deterring people from committing these crimes in the first place.” – Rt. Hon. William Hague MP, British Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

As SJAC has noted before, sexual and gender based violence (SGBV) is widespread in conflict zones all over the globe, and Syria is no exception.  Women and men in Syria have been subjected to sexual, physical, and psychological assault and abuse while in detention, during home raids, or even while walking on the street.  When SGBV is committed as part of a broad pattern of violations, as is almost certainly occurring in Syria, it can constitute a crime under international law: namely, a war crime, a crime against humanity, or genocide.  The effects of SGBV on individual victims and entire communities have had a dramatic impact on the Syrian people’s sense of security, and they have been a major force in driving families out of the country and into refugee camps in neighboring countries.

SGBV can be difficult to document due to the lack of evidence available following the violence, the stigma often associated with the violence, and victims’ corresponding reluctance to disclose.  In Syria, women in particular are hesitant to disclose sexual violence due to cultural, social and religious beliefs related to marriage and sexuality.  Moreover, even where SGBV in conflict zones has been documented, the incidents have systematically been ignored or downplayed in post-conflict justice mechanisms and courts.  Perpetrators of SGBV in conflict zones have rarely been held accountable for their crimes.

Last month, British Foreign Secretary William Hague and Angelina Jolie, Special Envoy for the UN High Commissioner on Refugees, co-chaired the Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict.  The gathering was held in London and brought together 1700 delegates and 129 country delegations to focus on ending impunity for sexual violence in conflict.  Meetings were held on a wide range of issues related to sexual violence in conflict, including conflict prevention, international justice, women’s rights and participation, men and boys, and children affected by conflict.  The Summit corresponded with the launch of an International Protocol on the Documentation of Sexual Violence in Conflict, aimed at establishing international standards for documenting and investigating sexual violence in conflict zones.  The Protocol uses current best practices to provide guidance to investigators, activists, national policymakers, prosecutors, counselors, and medical professionals.

SJAC is in the process of integrating many of the best practices from the Protocol into its own polices, methodology, and operations manual for documenting SGBV in Syria.  Other organizations documenting SGBV in Syria and in other conflict zones should make use of this comprehensive document to further our shared goals of documenting SGBV and holding perpetrators of these crimes accountable.

California Court Loosens ‘Three Strikes’ Law

By Lyndsey Kelly
Desk Reporter, North America  

Washington D.C., United States of America – The California Supreme Court has loosened the states infamous “three-strikes-and-you’re-out” law. The law was originally passed as a part of the national trend to get “tough on crime” in the 1990’s.

California Supreme Court rules that under the state’s “three strikes” law a defendant cannot be given two strikes from charges which stemmed from the same incident (Photo Courtesy of L.A. Times).

Under the three strikes law, an individual whom committed a violent crime and who had been convicted of two prior felonies was sentenced to a mandatory 25 years. The law was recently amended in 2012, as a result of a ballot vote, requiring the third strike to be a violent felony. Prior to this amendment the law allowed the third strike to be a misdemeanor.

The ruling came about in a case regarding a woman, Darlene Vargas, who had been charged with two prior felonies, car jacking and robbery. Both charges came out of the same incident. The Court decided that Vargas’ two prior felonies stemmed from the same act- taking a car by force. The unanimous decision by the court will overturn a 25-years-to-life sentence for the woman.

Associate Justice Kathryn Werdegar likened the situation to America’s favorite pastime, baseball. “The voting public would reasonably have understood the ‘Three Strikes’ baseball metaphor to mean that a person would have three chances – three swings of the bat if you will – before the harshest penalty could be imposed,” “The public also would have understood that no one can be called for two strikes on just one swing,” Justice Werdegar wrote for the court.

In making their ruling, the judges stated that the legislature and the voters intended for criminal defendants to have three separate chances to redeem themselves before they are sentenced to 25-years-to-life.The Court’s decision marks the second time the rules regarding imprisoning career criminals have been softened in recent years.

The justices sent the case back to the trial court for resentencing.

 

For more information, please see the following:

CBS – State Supreme Court Rules On Three Strikes Law – 13 July 2014.

L.A. TIMES – Multiple Convictions From One Act Count As One ‘Strike,’ Court Rules – 13 July 2014.

REUTERS – California High Court Softens ‘Three Strikes” Law – 13 July 2014.

YAHOO – California high Court Softens ‘Three Strikes’ Law – 13 July 2014.

Papua New Guinea in the Midst of a Far Reaching Corruption Scandal

by Max Bartels 

Impunity Watch Reporter, Oceania 

 

Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea 

Papua New Guinea (PNG) has been in the grips of a fraud scandal that goes to the very top of the country’s political structure. The Prime Minister Peter O’Neil himself has been accused of siphoning off millions of dollars of public money to a private law firm. The key evidence in the case against O’Neil is a letter he allegedly signed authorizing $31 million dollars to be sent to a prominent PNG law firm.

IW #7 PNG Corruption Photo
PNG Prime Minister Peter O’Neil (left) shakes hands with Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott (right) in March.
(Photo curtesy of the Sydney Morning Herald)

In response to the growing corruption that runs rampant in PNG the government faced pressure from both the public and from international powers such as Australia and the United States to investigate the problem. The former Attorney General of PNG, Mr. Kua formed a task-force to investigate the corruption. When the task-force turned their attention to Prime Minister O’Neil he not only disbanded the task-force but fired Attorney General Kua and the police commissioner at the time. This reaction from Prime Minister O’Neil was not only in response to the investigation turning toward him but also because the task-force and the police issued an arrest warrant for the Prime Minister. O’Neil accused the task-force of being compromised by political and media ties.

O’Neil denies all allegations of corruption and obtained a court order to prevent his arrest. This order has been appealed in the PNG courts and the arrest warrant was upheld, O’Neil was told to cooperate fully with police. The Court also reinstated the corruption task-force to continue their investigations into the PNG Prime Minister and his government. Now that the Court has ruled on the arrest warrant O’Neil has said that he will cooperate fully with the investigation and police.

The former head of the task-force who was sacked by O’Neil, a Mr. Koim has visited Australia to leverage support against O’Neil.  He visited Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop as well several Australian newspapers in order to drum up support. There is support in PNG for the idea of appointing an Australian judge to oversee the investigation into the corruption as well as involving Australian police. Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister of Australia is under increasing pressure to use Australian assets in the investigation to halt the flow of corrupt funds from PNG to Australia.

O’Neil has since appointed a new Attorney General, Mr. Pala. Mr. Pala has said recently that he believes all the transactions between O’Neil and the private law firm are legal and has advised the corruption task-force to drop the case against the Prime Minister. These statements have resulted in an outcry from supporters of the original investigation, who believe the new Attorney General is protecting Prime Minister O’Neil.

For more information, please see:

The Guardian — Papua New Guinea National Court Reinstates Anti-Corruption Task-force — 8 July 2014

The Sydney Morning Herald — Abbott Urged to Act on PNG Allegations — 24 June 2014

ABC Australia News Network — Court to Rule on Peter O’Neil Arrest Warrant Case — 27 June 2014

The Guardian — PNG Prime Minister to Co-Operate After Court Rejects Stay of Arrest Warrant — 1 July 2014

SBS News — Australians Join PNG Pm’s Fraud Probe — 17 June 2014