Coronavirus Restrictions on Asylum Seekers May Be Pretext to Achieve Broader Immigration Policy in the United States

By: Hannah Gabbard

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor 

WASHINGTON, District of Columbia – As the rapid spread of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has garnered fear for vulnerable peoples such as individuals with underlying health conditions and the elderly, the United States has implemented measures that place asylum seekers at risk under the guise of coronavirus protections. 

Asylum seekers wear protective masks while they wait in Matamoros, Mexico. Photo Courtesy of Go Nakamura/Reuters.

Citing the need to protect United States customs officials and the general public from the spread of novel coronavirus by potentially infected migrants, President Trump implemented strict immigration controls along the United States-Mexico border. These controls empower Customs and Border Protection officers to “expeditiously expel” asylum seekers encountered between ports of entry and to turn asylum seekers back at the ports of entry despite their expression of credible fear. These measures implicate the United States’ obligations to asylum seekers under domestic and international law.

These measures require asylum seekers to remain in conditions which increase their risk of contracting the coronavirus. In Mexico, many asylum seekers live in overcrowded shelters near the United States border with limited sanitation facilities. As stay at home measures have been the “front-line defense against the coronavirus,” asylum seekers waiting in these conditions are inherently devoid of the opportunity to protect themselves against potentially contracting coronavirus. Human Rights Watch indicates that nearly 92 percent of asylum seekers have family or other close friends living in the United States. Access to these individuals by granting asylum seekers their right to access the United States asylum process would provide asylum seekers the opportunity to adequately self-isolate for the duration of the coronavirus crisis. 

The United States is not the only country to restrict asylum seekers travel through its international borders during the coronavirus crisis. In late March 2020, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that asylum seekers attempting to reach Canada between ports of entry will be automatically repelled.  Similar to the United States, the Canadian government cites the risk of public safety and security as the objectives of this policy. However, unlike the United States, the Canadian government has overtly indicated that these measures are temporary. 

Since President Trump took office, he has pursued policies which impose tough immigration restrictions including restrictions on asylum seekers. Critics of President Trump indicate that recent measures to reduce the spread of coronavirus in the United States may instead be a tool to accomplish the immigration policy objectives the Trump administration has pursued over the past three years of his presidency. Only the administration’s actions after the risks of coronavirus have subdued will indicate the true motives of this policy. 

For further information, please see: 

The Washington Post – Facing coronavirus pandemic, Trump suspends immigration laws and showcases vision for locked-down border – 3 Apr. 2020

Human Rights Watch – US: COVID-19 Policies Risk Asylum Seekers’ Lives – 2 Apr. 2020

The Guardian – Rapes, murders…and coronavirus: the dangers US asylum seekers in Mexico must face – 23 Mar. 2020

CNN – US is pushing to reject all asylum seekers, citing coronavirus worries – 17 Mar. 2020

Depreciating Human Rights Conditions in Zimbabwe

By: Eronmwon Joyce Irogue

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

HARARE, Zimbabwe – Since the reelection of Zimbabwe President Emmerson Mnangagwa in July 2018, human rights conditions in the country have deteriorated. In September 2019, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights of freedom of peaceful assembly and of association fact-finding mission discovered a “serious deterioration of the political, economic and social environment.” Even after supposed legal reforms, Zimbabwe continues undeterred on its path of human rights violations.

On March 4, 2020, the United States extended its restriction on several senior Zimbabwean government officials for another year. The United States referenced the extant human rights oppression by the government against critics as one of its reasons and urged for a more tenable reform. This extension occurred one month after the European Union commented on the “deteriorating humanitarian crisis” in Zimbabwe.

Human rights violations have allegedly been committed by the Zimbabwean security forces. Specifically, they have used force against peaceful protesters. In August 2018, the security forces used deadly force against post-election protesters where 6 people died and thirty-five were injured. In mid-January 2019, the security forces used brutal force against protesters of the President. There, seventeen people died, seventeen women were raped, eighty-one people were injured, and over a thousand protesters were arrested. After the incident, the government shut down social media and the internet on January 15 and only restored social media and internet access on January 21 after a ruling by the Harare High Court. The Zimbabwean government relies on the authority on “subverting a constitutional government” contained in Section 22, Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act to punish individuals suspected of organizing protests.

Zimbabwe remains a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. The ability of the human rights conditions in Zimbabwe to continue to deteriorate despite the country’s status as a signatory indicates that these instruments may lack importance in the region. Increased awareness and compliance with these human rights covenants is required if there is to be growth and stability in Zimbabwe and likewise in other African countries. As is apparent from the reports, continuous human rights violations contribute to both economic and political setbacks.

For further information, please see:

Human Rights Watch – Rampaging Rights Violations Despite Lukewarm Reform – 20 Mar. 2020

Human Rights Watch – World Report 2020

Human Rights Watch – UN Expert “Shocked” By Abuses In Zimbabwe – 27 Sept. 2019

Coronavirus Protections Threaten Human Rights in Panama

By: Elizabeth Wright

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

PANAMA CITY, Panama – Like other countries around the world, Panama has implemented measures to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. Over the past few weeks the country has passed several different measures that require citizens to remain in their homes, impose a mandatory 14-day quarantine for those entering the country, and limit purchasing goods. Additionally, on March 13, President Laurentino Cortizo announced that the country was under a state of emergency.

While declaring a state of emergency might seem standard given the current situation, concerns have been raised regarding the freedom of Panamanian citizens. Professor of Law Antonio Bernal has expressed concern with the lack of restriction and direction in Panama’s constitution regarding the scope of a state of emergency. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has expressed similar concerns. The Court has stated that the constitutional provisions used to justify the state of emergency have the potential to violate fundamental human rights.

Countries within the Court’s jurisdiction voluntarily agree to its terms, so if the Panamanian government were to decide to issue laws which violate the basic human rights of Panama’s citizens, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights would likely intervene. The Court would first advise the government of appropriate changes and then, if the Court deemed that the country failed to make the appropriate changes, the Court would initiate a further measures against the country.

Bernal explains that while the current state of emergency seems protective, the government may begin to create laws without any oversight. For example, like in the United States, the Panamanian government decided to restrict all prison visitations. Bernal claims that this practice may be a human rights violation.

However, Juan Carlos Araus, President of Panama’s Bar argues that the state of emergency is the most appropriate way for the government to act in this situation because it expedites the law-making process. Araus concedes that the state of emergency does temporarily “suspend constitutional guarantees,” but that it is currently necessary due to the virus’ fast spread.

The upcoming weeks will be difficult for Panama and other countries around the world as they struggle to contain the spread of coronavirus. Each of these countries should be mindful of the fundamental rights of its people while making policies which are intended to protect their citizens’ health.

For further information, please see:

Reuters – Panama Imposes Full-Day Curfew, Guatemala Extends State of Emergency – 24 Mar. 2020

The Tico Times – Panama Restricts the Entry of Foreigners to the Country – 16 Mar. 2020

Westlaw – Corona Virus and State of Emergency – 14 Mar. 2020

Lexology – The Government of Panama Decrees State of National Emergency Due to the Coronavirus – 6 Mar. 2020

Venezuela Refers US Sanctions to ICC for Crimes Against Humanity

By: Henry Schall

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor

CARACAS, Venezuela – On February 13, 2020, the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela filed a request with the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.  This request has the purpose of seeking an investigation of United States sanctions against Venezuela, calling the sanctions “crimes against humanity.”

The current crisis in Venezuela is due to economic collapse after President Maduro took power in 2013.  This collapse caused widespread shortages in basic food and supplies causing 4.5 million people to flee. 

Strong opposition parties emerged around Maduro within the National Assembly culminating in the 2018 election, where Maduro was reelected.  This election was widely dismissed as rigged, and fifty other countries recognize the National Assembly leader Juan Guaidó as the rightful president. 

To pressure Maduro in hopes that he would step down, the United States imposed new sanctions in August 2019.  In a letter to Congress, President Trump wrote that the new sanctions were imposed due to the “continued usurpation of power by Nicolás Maduro and persons affiliated with him, as well as human rights abuses, arbitrary arrest and detention of Venezuelan citizens.”

President Trump signed an executive order which declared all property or interests in property owned by the government of Venezuela in the United States as blocked which cannot be used.   The new sanctions bar any transactions with Venezuelan officials whose assets are blocked.  President Trump’s order states, “the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.” 

These new sanctions expand pressure on Maduro by targeting his government, but also targeting individuals, companies, and countries doing business with the government.  The United States Security Advisor John Bolton said the new sanction could be imposed on any supporters of the Maduro government, since the sanctions would force countries and companies to choose between doing business with the United States or Venezuela.  Venezuela has long blamed the United States for the current economic crisis, but the sanctions do include exceptions for humanitarian goods, food and medicine.  

In a sixty-page brief, Venezuela referred the situation in accordance with Article 14 of the Rome Statute, declaring that the Unilateral Coercive Measures imposed impose negative impacts on the people in Venezuela.  Venezuela contends these sanctions contravene international law that prevent foreign intervention in internal affairs and have caused an enormous hardship for the people of Venezuela.  The brief further declares these sanctions as crimes against humanity, citing a study by Mark Weisbrot and Jeffrey Sachs which provides statistical evidence that sanctions amount to a death sentence for tens of thousands of Venezuelan Citizens. 

On February 19, 2020, the Presidency of the ICC referred the situation in Venezuela to Pre-Trial Chamber III.  According to the ICC, a State Party referral does not automatically lead to an investigation, but it may speed up opening the investigation.  Now, the Prosecutor must consider issues of jurisdiction, admissibility and the interests of justice in determining if an investigation should be opened. 

For further information, please see:

International Criminal Court – Annex I to the Prosecution’s Provision of the Supporting Document of the Referral Submitted by the Government of Venezuela – 4 Mar. 2020

International Criminal Court – Statement of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Mrs Fatou Bensouda, on the referral by Venezuela regarding the situation in its own territory – 17 Feb. 2020

BBC – Venezuela crisis in 300 words – 6 Jan. 2020

BBC – US imposes sweeping sanctions on Venezuelan government – 6 Aug. 2019

ECOWAS Court Suspends Judicial Activities in Response to COVID-19 Outbreak

By: Katherine Davis

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

ABUJA, Nigeria – On March 20, 2020, the Community Court of Justice (ECOWAS) suspended its 2020 travel-related activities and all judicial activities until further notice in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The ECOWAS Court has taken precautionary action to ensure the safety of their staff and plan to reschedule travel-related activities as soon as the pandemic is over. Other judicial activities have yet to be rescheduled.

ECOWAS Court Judges in session. Photo Courtesy of Realness Magazine.

Judicial activities that will be affected by this suspension include day-to-day operations by the Court’s departments, case hearings and judgements, and other ECOWAS gatherings in Abuja.

In a statement released on March 20, the President of the Court, Justice Edward Amoako Asante “urged staff not to panic, but to ensure that they remain calm, healthy, and go about their duties whilst ‘maintaining personal hygiene and social distancing.’” Staff will begin to work remotely and maintain contact with their departmental supervisors to continue day-to-day operations as smoothly as possible.

Travel related activities that will be affected by this suspension include the second judicial dialogue of the ECOWAS Court with the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights and training of the ECOWAS Court’s office managers; both were to have taken place in Arusha, Tanzania. On March 23, the African Court also suspended the majority of their judicial activities, including their 56th Ordinary Session, which began on March 2.

President Asante noted that ECOWAS is following the health advisories issued by the West African Health Organization (WAHO) and the World Health Organization. The ECOWAS Institutions were advised “to strongly discourage non-essential large gatherings of people; defer, cancel or postpone meetings with over 50 participants” and to employ using remote technology if possible.

President Asante explained, “we don’t want to subject staff to avoidable risk considering the global threat posed by this pandemic and consistent with the international response.” ECOWAS will continue its regular activities as soon as the pandemic is over.

Prior to the suspension, ECOWAS was scheduled to hear ten additional cases. These cases concerned violations of human rights by the countries of Burkina Faso, Guinea, Liberia, Mali, Nigeria, and Niger. President Asante has not released a statement regarding the rescheduling of these cases and future cases.

For further information, please see:

African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights – African Court Suspends its 56th Ordinary Session Because of Outbreak of Coronavirus – 23 Mar. 2020

Community Court of Justice, ECOWAS – Court Suspends Judicial Activities Over Corona Virus – 20 Mar. 2020

World Health Organization – Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Advice for the Public – 18 Mar. 2020

Realnews Magazine – Coronavirus: Court Suspends 2020 Travel Related Programmes – 16 Mar. 2020

Community Court of Justice, ECOWAS – Cause List of 20th January 2020 and Subsequent Days Where Necessary – 13 Dec. 2020