Russia Attempts to Ban Book on Chechen War Crimes

By Madeline Schiesser
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

NIZHNY NOVGOROD, Russia – A book on Chechen war crimes, co-authored and edited by Russian-Chechen human rights activist Stanislav Dmitrievsky, may be banned by the Russian government as “extremist.”

Stanislav Dmitrievsky’s monograph on human rights crimes in Chechnya may be banned by Russian authorities. (Photo Courtesy of RFE/RL)

On November 28, 2012, Dmitrievsky received an official summons to appear before the Dzerzhinsk City Court in the Nizhny Novgorod region of Russia on December 6 for a ban hearing.  The summons did not include the prosecutor’s claim; therefore, what portions of the book have been labeled as “extreme” are unknown.

However, the summons did indicate that the petition to ban the book was based on a federal law “on countering extremist activities.”  Human Rights Watch (HRW) has characterized the case as “part of the growing misuse of anti-extremism legislation against civil society activists” and suggests that this application of the law is in violation of Russia’s legal obligations to respect and protect freedom of expression under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Dmitrievsky’s book is a 1,200-page monograph entitled International Tribunal for Chechnya. Prospects of Bringing to Justice Individuals Suspected of War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity During the Armed Conflict in the Chechen Republic.  700 print copies were originally published in July 2009 and it was made the independent news website Novaya Gazeta.

HRW describes the book as “a detailed analysis of the violations by all parties during the conflict in Chechnya from the standpoint of international criminal law.”  The main argument is described as “emphasiz[ing] the chain of command and responsibility of top Russian leadership.”

Attempts to ban the book in 2009 failed for lack of sufficient grounds to open a criminal inquiry.  However, if the court decides to ban the book this time, copies will be removed from stores and liberties, and digital versions will be deleted from websites.

The human rights activist has had difficulty with Russian authorities in the past.  He has been convicted of fomenting national hatred for publishing articles by Chechen separatist leaders in 2006 and sentenced to nine days of administrative arrest for disobeying police orders during a protest rally in March 2012.  He has also been targeted due to his work.  A brick was thrown through in his apartment window in 2008, and earlier this year, the Group of Free People in Nizhny Novgorod, with which he works, was the subject of an arson attack.

In early November, the apartments of his family and eldest daughter were attacked.  While Dmitrievsky was away in Sweden, two men attacked his apartment at 4:30 in the morning, waking his wife and teenage daughter. The men, armed with hammers, wore hooded jackets, face masks, and gloves; broke the apartment windows; poured cement into the door lock so his family could not leave; and ripped out security cameras.  The lock on the apartment door of Dmitrievsky’s eldest daughter was similarly manipulated the same night.

Police arrived at Dmitrievsky’s apartment 40 minutes later and refused to call an investigator.  Investigators were finally called two hours later.  The investigations results so far have been inconclusive.

The HRW director of the Europe and Central Asia division, Hugh Williamson, has said: “Dmitrievsky’s book is based on meticulous desk research and is an important source of information on the Chechen conflict. The authorities’ efforts to ban the book as “extremist” have no basis in international human rights law and seem aimed at punishing Dmitrievsky for his human rights work.”

Williamson concludes that the attempt to ban Dmitrievsky’s book is symptomatic of the Russian government’s recent moves to suppress human rights and civil society type organizations.  “There has been an unprecedented crackdown on civil society in the past six months, and this seems to have sent the authorities a signal that it’s all right to go after Dmitrievsky with a new zeal. In the past, he clearly demonstrated that he wouldn’t be intimidated into silence by arrests and attacks, so now they’re trying to silence him by banning his monograph, which Dmitrievsky considers his life’s work.”

For further information, please see:

RFE/RL – Tenacious Russian Activist Girds For Yet Another Battle – 4 December 2012

Human Rights Watch – Russia: Stop Efforts to Ban Human Rights Book – 3 December 2012

Human Rights Watch — Russia: Investigate Attack on Rights Group – 7 November 2012

HRO in English – Attack on the Apartment of Stanislav Dmitrievsky – 6 November 2012

Charles Taylor Appeals Hearing Postponed

By Ryan Aliman
Impunity Watch Reporter, Africa

FREETOWN, Sierra Leone – The Special Court for Sierra Leone postponed the appeals hearing in the case of former Liberian president Charles Taylor. The hearing was supposed to take place this week, but judges of the Special Court announced that it has now been moved to next year, January 22.

Former Liberian President Charles Taylor was convicted of serious crimes including rape, murder, and destruction of civilian property on April 26, 2012.(Photo courtesy of Times Live/Gallo Images)

A possible reason for the postponement of Taylor’s appeals hearing is inadequate funding. According to recent press releases from the UN, the Special Court for Sierra Leone only has enough money alloted until the end of October 2012 since it never had a fixed annual budget from the government. By November this year, it will have to depend on pledges and contributions from countries like the United States, Switzerland, and Ireland to continue its work for a month.

If the Special Court will not be able to resolve its financial crisis, human rights groups and international organizations fear that Taylor’s appeal might be compromised. In a recent phone interview, the Special Court’s registrar, Binta Mansaray, said, “it [the appeals] will be affected, definitely, if the money doesn’t come through.”

Mariana Goetz, deputy director of programs at the London-based human rights and torture survivors advocacy organization REDRESS, expressed the same concern on the issue saying that the lack of funds could affect the prosecutor’s and defense counsel’s ability to prepare their teams despite the fact that the appeals briefs for both sides have already been filed and replies are due by the end of October. The lawyers have yet to present the grounds for their appeals in court. The appeals judgment will then follow next fall.

Much is at stake in an unprecedented case like Taylor’s. “It is the first time a head of state is convicted for 11 counts of international crimes, including rape, sexual slavery and other forms of sexual violence,” Goetz said in an interview. “This case, as well as others . . .  are slowly ensuring that violence against women in the conflict contexts are not laughed off in patriarchal societies as private acts.”

Without the necessary funds, the victims of Charles Taylor will have to wait for justice from the Special Court when the appeals case is finally over. “If we don’t get that funding we can’t fulfill the promises that we make to the people of Sierra Leone,” the Special Court’s president, Justice Shireen Avis Fisher, told the media.

Last week, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon appealed to the Security Council for $14 million to fund Charles Taylor’s appeal. According to him, the unavailability of funds greatly affect the development of good governance in the region. “As I have said before, the legacy of the Special Court and the progress that has been made towards ensuring accountability and restoring peace and security in Sierra Leone and the region would be at risk,” the UN Secretary said.

 

For further information, please see:

All Africa – Sierra Leone: Taylor Appeals Hearing Postponed – 7 December 2012

Swit Salone – Sierra Leone Special Court is Broke – 6 December 2012

All Africa – Liberia: Appeals Hearing in Taylor Case Postponed – 5 December 2012

Times Live – Former Liberian president Taylor should be a “free man” – judge – 25 November 2012

WeNews – World Court Struggles to Finish Mass Rape Cases – 21 November 2012

All Africa – Liberia: 45 Legal Errors Identify in Taylor’s Verdict – 9 November 2012

Muhammad Ibn al-Dheeb al-Ajami Jailed for Life in Qatar

By Justin Dorman
Impunity Watch Reporter, Middle East

DOHA, Qatar –  A week ago, the poet Muhammad Ibn al-Dheeb al-Ajami was handed a life sentence after a five-minute hearing in which no law was allegedly broken, Ajami was not present, and his lawyer was kept from entering any defense. Najib al-Nuaimi, Ajami’s attorney claims that the judge made the whole trial secret.

The poet Muhammad Ibn al-Dheeb al-Ajami has received a life sentence for offending the emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani. (Photo Courtesy of the Guardian)

Ajami was arrested in November 2011 and ultimately convicted for “insulting” Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani and “inciting to overthrow the ruling system.” These claims came after a video was posted on the internet of Ajami reciting his poem, Tunisian Jasmine.

The poem extols Tunisia’s uprising which kicked off the Arab Spring. One line of the poem stated that, “we are all Tunisia in the face of repressive coteries.”The poem further criticizes governments who restrict its people’s freedoms.

Qatar’s authorities interpreted the poem as criticizing the emir for not doing his job properly and encouraging attempts at a coup. Ajami contested this claim to the police whom arrested him, stating that if they had continued to read the poem they would see that he was thanking the emir.

Nevertheless, the police had Ajami arrested, and he’s been detained in solitary confinement since November 17, 2011.

Qatar holds itself out as a defender of human rights. It is a member of the Arab Charter on Human Rights and in Article 47 of Qatar’s constitution it guarantees freedom of expression. Furthermore, Qatar made efforts to establish a center for media freedom.

Despite the facade that Qatar is a safe haven for freedom of expression, Article 134 of Qatar’s penal code carries a five-year sentence for “anyone who challenged by any public means the exercise by the Emir of his rights or authorities or criticizes him.”Based on the sentence Ajami was given, it seems much more likely that he was convicted under Article 130 for trying “to overthrow the regime of the country.”

Deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch, Joe Stork, has said that “Qatar, after all its posturing as a supporter of freedom, turns out to be determined to keep its citizens quiet.”

He adds, “Ibn al-Dheeb’s alleged mockery of Qatar’s rulers can hardly compare to the mockery this judgment makes of the country’s posture as a regional center for media freedom.”

Al-Nuaimi has already filed an appeal, and Ajami’s case will be heard on December 30th. In the meantime, there will be pressure on the emir to pardon Ajami.

For further information, please see:

Democracy Now – Qatari Human Rights Official Defends Life Sentence for Poet who Praised Arab Spring Uprisings – 7 December 2012

Crescent – Muhammad ibn al-Dheeb al-Ajami and Sattar Beheshti: Agenda Driven Reporting – 4 December 2012

Human Rights Watch – Qatar: Poet’s Conviction Violates Free Expression – 4 December 2012

Guardian – Qatari Poet Jailed for Life After Writing Verse Inspired by Arab Spring – 29 November 2012

U.S. Supreme Court Will Hear Same-Sex Marriage Cases

By Mark O’Brien
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, United States — The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to consider, during its current term, two challenges to federal and state laws that only permit marriage between a man and a woman.

For the first time, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review two cases regarding same-sex marriage. (Photo Courtesy of Reuters)

The high court announced on Friday that it would hear a case challenging a federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, as well as a case challenging California’s Proposition 8, or Prop 8, a gay marriage ban that voters approved in 2008.

These cases mark the first time the Supreme Court will consider the issue of same-sex marriage.  The hearings are expected to take place in March, with the justices delivering their opinions by the end of June.

The issue has become a politically charged debate in recent years.  Just last month, three states joined a small number of states where gay marriage is legal.  Voters in Maine, Maryland, and Washington passed laws legalizing gay marriage, bringing the total to nine states plus the District of Columbia.  Of the other 41 states, 31 have passed constitutional amendments banning it.

And even where it is legal, married same-sex couples do not qualify for many federal benefits because the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, only recognizes marriages between a man and a woman.

Edith Windsor was “delirious with joy” upon hearing the Supreme Court would hear her DOMA case, reports The Guardian.   Windsor, 83, was forced to pay more than $363,000 in federal estate taxes after her the death of her spouse, Thea Spyer, in 2009 because federal law did not recognize their marriage.

“I think DOMA is wrong for all of the various ways in which it discriminates against same-sex married couples and against gays altogether,” Windsor said.  “It’s enormously satisfying and fulfilling and exciting to be where we are now.”

Four lower federal courts and two federal appellate courts have ruled against DOMA.  Last October, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a lower court ruling in Windsor’s case that a portion of DOMA was unconstitutional.  The provision in question, Section 3, denies gays and lesbians married under state laws benefits such as Social Security survivor payments and the right to file joint federal tax returns.

The Prop 8 case involves a review of California’s voter-approved gay marriage ban.  It passed in November 2008, months after a state supreme court ruled that same-sex marriages were legal.

Earlier this year, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that Prop 8 was unconstitutional.  The reasoning was that California could not take away the right to same-sex marriage after previously allowing it.  But the judges’ ruling was narrow; it only affected California and not any other states.

Supreme Court observers said it is unlikely that the justices will recognize a federal right to marriage equality.  Instead, many expect the high court’s ruling will be in the same narrow fashion—applying it only to California, regardless of the outcome.

For further information, please see:

The Guardian — US Supreme Court Agrees to Take up Two Gay Marriage Cases — 7 December 2012

Reuters — Supreme Court Takes up Same-Sex Marriage for First Time — 7 December 2012

SCOTUSblog.com — On Same-Sex Marriage, Options Open — 7 December 2012

The Washington Times — High Court Sets up Showdown over Gay Marriage — 7 December 2012

Russia Plans Retaliation After US Passes Magnitsky Bill

By Alexandra Sandacz
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe 

MOSCOW, Russia – On Thursday, the United States Congress passed a bill to stabilize trade with Russia. However, the bill will also simultaneously penalize Russian officials who are linked to human rights violations.

Sergei Magnitsky’s tombstone in a cemetery in Moscow. (Photo Courtesy of The Washington Post)

In August, Russia joined the World Trade Organization (WTO), and as a result, opened its market and reduced tariffs under the terms of its membership.

The new United States trade legislation, which passed by large majorities in the House and Senate, replaces a 1974 provision, the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, that connected trade relations with the former Soviet Union to the emigration of Jews and other Soviet minorities. Before the new trade provision was passed, the US was the only WTO member that could not take advantage of Russia’s newly modified market.

Under the Magnitsky bill, named after Russian lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, who died in a Russian prison three years ago after allegedly being tortured, the United States will release a list of Russian officials suspected to be involved with human rights violations and withhold their visas and freeze their financial assets.

The bill currently awaits President Barack Obama’s signature. President Obama, expressing his desire to sign the law, stated, “The legislation will ensure that American businesses and workers are able to take full advantage of the WTO rules and market access commitments that the United States worked so hard to negotiate.

He continued, “My administration will continue to work with Congress and our partners to support those seeking a free and democratic future for Russia and promote the rule of law and respect for human rights around the world.”

Furthermore, Senator Benjamin L. Cardin, a supporter of the Magnitsky bill, said, “Today, we close a chapter in U.S. history. It served its purpose. Today, we open a new chapter in U.S. leadership for human rights.”

However, despite the optimism in the United States, Moscow does not favor the human rights portion of the trade bill. The Russian Foreign Ministry called the bill “a performance in the theatre of the absurd”.

The Ministry also said, “It’s strange and wild to hear such claims about human rights addressed to us by politicians of the very state where in the 21st Century torture and the kidnapping of people all over the world were officially legalized.”

Russian Prime Minister, Dmitry Medvedev, warned that the Magnitsky provision will provoke a “symmetrical and asymmetrical reaction” from Russia. He continued, “It’s inadmissible when one country tries to dictate its will to another.”

As a response, Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, announced Moscow’s plan to retaliate by barring “entry to Americans who are in fact guilty of human rights violations.”

For further information, please see:

BBC News – Russia to retaliate over US Magnitsky rights act – 7 December 2012

Reuters – US trade-human rights link tests Obama-Russia ties – 7 December 2012

BBC News – US Congress passes ‘Magnitsky’ rule on Russia trade law – 6 December 2012

The Washington Post – Russia fumes as U.S. Senate passes Magnitsky law aimed at human rights – 6 December 2012