Tag: HRW

Srinagar Encounter: Eyewitnesses Say Civilians Were Used as ‘Human Shields’; Probe Demanded

Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director of Human Rights Watch, said it was the “responsibility of security forces to keep civilians from harm during an armed operation, not to place them in harm’s way.”

Srinagar: Human Rights Watch (HRW), the international rights advocacy group headquartered in the US, has sought a “credible and independent” probe into the allegations that a civilian was used as a human shield during a shootout in Srinagar’s Hyderpora locality.

Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director of HRW, said it was the “responsibility of security forces to keep civilians from harm during an armed operation, not to place them in harm’s way.”

“The authorities should immediately order a transparent, credible and independent investigation into this incident,” Meenakshi told The Wire.

The killing of businessman Altaf Ahmad Bhat, father of three minor children, in a controversial shootout that left four people dead in Srinagar, has sparked allegations that he was used as a human shield by security forces.

In a conflict situation, the Geneva Conventions, to which India is a signatory, forbid the use of human shields who can be either civilians or prisoners of war. A human shield is used by any side involved in a conflict in a potentially life-threatening situation to achieve their own military objectives.

According to Doctors Without Borders (MSF), a French non-profit which works in conflict zones, including Kashmir, the use of civilians “to shield military objectives or operations” is a violation of international humanitarian laws.

“Such acts are clearly established as war crimes under international humanitarian law. Many categories of persons are specifically protected by humanitarian law, such as civilians, the wounded and sick, prisoners of war, and medical personnel,” the MSF notes.

Also Read: As Civilian Victims’ Families Contest Official Version, J&K Police SIT to Probe Encounter

Eyewitnesses accounts

Eyewitnesses and family members who spoke with The Wire said a search team of security forces led by the J&K police asked Altaf, owner of the shopping complex in Srinagar’s Hyderpora locality where the shootout took place, to accompany them when they started the anti-militancy operation.

A statement issued by the J&K police also admitted that Altaf was taken along by the security forces. It said the anti-militancy operation was launched along with the Army’s 2 Rashtriya Rifles and the CRPF following “specific police inputs” about the “presence of terrorists” in the shopping complex.

“If security forces knew there were militants inside the building, why did they ask my brother to accompany them? They deliberately put him in harm’s way. He was used as a human shield,” Altaf’s brother, Abdul Majid Bhat, told The Wire, dismissing rumours that his brother was linked to militancy.

Majid’s claim has been corroborated by several eyewitnesses who saw the happenings at the shopping complex when the search unit started the operation on Monday at around 5:30 pm.

Two eyewitnesses who spoke with The Wire on the condition of anonymity, disclosed that when the search unit arrived, counterinsurgency forces in the civvies were already deployed in the area, “They asked the traders to down their shutters while other forces laid a cordon around the complex,” said an eyewitness.

Security forces then assembled the traders and their workers in a two-wheeler showroom housed in the shopping complex and seized their mobile phones. As the cordon was tightened, the search unit attempted their first entry into the complex.

A member of the security forces during an encounter with militants at Hyderpora, in Srinagar, November 15, 2021. Photo: PTI /S. Irfan

“Altaf was closing his shop when they (jawans) asked him to accompany them while they searched the shopping complex. He obliged without any resistance,” said the eyewitness, who didn’t want to be named for the fear of reprisal by security forces.

After some time, the eyewitnesses said, Altaf and Dr Mudasir Gul, the second civilian killed in the shootout, walked out of the complex along with the security forces. “Altaf and Mudasir were asked to remain on standby outside the showroom. Some 30 minutes later, they were again taken into the complex after which there was firing. There is CCTV footage which can prove this,” another eyewitness said.

Inspector general of police (Kashmir) Vijay Kumar told reporters that Altaf and Mudasir, accompanied by security forces, knocked on the door of the room on the top floor of the shopping complex where the suspected militants were believed to be hiding, a potential violation of the Standard Operating Procedure. The Wire tried reaching the IG for his comment but he didn’t respond. This story will be updated if and when he responds.

A J&K police spokesperson said the suspected militants “started firing indiscriminately towards the party which was retaliated. However, in the initial exchange of fire, both the individuals (Altaf and Mudasir) accompanying the search party received critical gunshot injuries and succumbed to their injuries.”

‘Illegal’ says lawyer

Habeeb Iqbal, a human rights lawyer based in south Kashmir, said the statement of the J&K police suggests that Altaf was asked to accompany them when the “possibility of a gunfight was high”, which is “illegal.”

“Civilians can’t be used as human shields. This is irrespective of the fact whether the civilians are used voluntarily or involuntarily. These prohibitions are contained in the various instruments of international humanitarian law as well in the general laws,” Habeel said.

The J&K police claimed to have killed a suspected Pakistani militant and his alleged local associate, Aamir Lateef Margay, during the shootout. However, eyewitnesses claimed to have seen Aamir, a resident of Ramban’s Gool area who was working as a helper at the office of Dr Mudasir, leaving the complex when the search operation started.

“He was frisked by cops who asked him to hand over his phone. However, he told them that he was not carrying a phone and left the building,” said the second eyewitness.

Former J&K chief minister Omar Abdullah said on Wednesday that the police’s admission that the two businessmen were used to “knock on doors” of the militant hideout suggests that there were not militants. “They are civilians who died because they were put in harms (sic) way,” he wrote on Twitter.

“To vilify them as militants or OGWs is bad enough but to take the bodies away & forcibly bury them in North Kashmir is a crime against humanity. The bodies must be returned to the families so they can be buried. It’s the only just thing & it’s the only humanitarian thing to do,” Omar said.

The families of Altaf and Dr Mudasir staged a protest in Srinagar’s Press Enclave on Wednesday evening, demanding that the police must return their mortal remains so that they could perform the last rites. Despite freezing cold conditions, the families, which included the wife and one-year-old daughter of Dr Mudasir, were planning to continue the protest through the night.

“We don’t want justice. We only want the body of my brother. We want to get a glimpse of his face and give him a decent burial close to his home so that we can visit his grave and pray for him,” Majid, Altaf’s brother said.

‘Cause Indiscriminate and Excessive Injury’: HRW Wants Pellet Guns Banned in Kashmir

The use of shotguns has resulted in “shocking, grievous injuries of protesters and bystanders”, the NGO said in a statement.

New Delhi: After severe injuries were caused to Shia mourners participating in a Muharram procession in Srinagar, international NGO Human Rights Watch (HRW) on Friday asked Indian police and paramilitary forces to stop using pellet-firing guns in Kashmir as they cause ‘grievous injuries’.

On August 29, pellet guns were fired on people in Khomeini Chowk because they were part of a Muharram procession that violated COVID-19 guidelines. Reports suggest that at least 40 people were injured in the firing, including minors.

Also Read: Pellet Guns Fired On Srinagar Muharram Procession, Leading To Blindings

“Time and again, Indian law enforcement’s use of shotguns in Kashmir has resulted in shocking, grievous injuries of protesters and bystanders,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director at HRW. “Indian authorities need to recognise that this weapon fired into crowds, even with violent demonstrators, will invariably cause indiscriminate and excessive injury in violation of international standards.”

“Indian leaders who claim that their policies are improving the lives of Kashmiris cannot disregard that security forces are maiming, blinding, and killing people,” Ganguly said. “The Indian government should cease the use of shotguns firing metal pellets and review its crowd control techniques to meet international standards.”

In a statement, the organisation said that pellets have caused thousands of injuries, including loss of eyesight, since the shotguns were first deployed them as an “ostensibly ‘non-lethal’ option” for crowd control, in 2010.

Expressed its concern, HRW said that though the small metal pellets, sometimes referred to as “birdshot” or “dove shot”, are concentrated in a tight pattern as they are fired, “the pellets spread out to create a constellation that can reach a wide radius, causing injuries indiscriminately, including to bystanders”.

HRW said while no accurate data on casualties from shotgun-fired pellets is available, at least 17 people were killed due to the use of pellet guns between 2015 and 2017. “According to the data journalism website IndiaSpend, pellets fired from shotguns blinded 139 people between July 2016 and February 2019. In January 2018, Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Mehbooba Mufti told the state assembly that 6,221 people had been injured by pellets between July 2016 and February 2017 and among them, 782 people had eye injuries,” the statement adds.

A man injured by a pellet gun lies in a Kashmir hospital. Photo: Reuters

‘Usage prohibited by UN’

The use of pellet guns has come under criticism internationally, with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) already describing the method as “one of the most dangerous weapons used in Kashmir”. It called for an immediate end to their use for crowd control.

In its statement, HRW pointed out that the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms “prohibit the use of those firearms and ammunition that cause unwarranted injury or present an unwarranted risk.”

Also Read: Use of Pellet Guns Has Caused a Public Health Crisis in Kashmir

The UN Human Rights Committee, which monitors compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, also states in its General Comment No. 37 that “Firearms are not an appropriate tool for the policing of assemblies, and must never be used simply to disperse an assembly.… [A]ny use of firearms by law enforcement officials in the context of assemblies must be limited to targeted individuals in circumstances in which it is strictly necessary to confront an imminent threat of death or serious injury.”

The 2020 UN guidance on “less-lethal weapons” in law enforcement also discourages the use of pellets, the statement noted. The guidance says, “Multiple projectiles fired at the same time are inaccurate and, in general, their use cannot comply with the principles of necessity and proportionality. Metal pellets, such as those fired from shotguns, should never be used.”

Writing for The Wire in March 2017, public health researcher Sarojini Nadimpally noted that the use of pellet guns in Kashmir is also creating a public health crisis. She wrote:

“[T]he indiscriminate use of force, and in particular pellet guns by the state to control crowds, is not only a gross violation of human rights, but also a serious violation of the right to health. People in Kashmir have been subjected to the fatal consequences and permanent disabilities as a result of the use of pellet guns.”

Human Rights Watch Criticises Arrests of Teltumbde and Navlakha

The international NGO accused the government of using counterterrorism laws against those “criticizing the government or raising their voices against injustice”.

New Delhi: Human Rights Watch (HRW) has issued a statement condemning the arrests of activists Anand Teltumbde and Gautam Navlkha, accusing the government of using counterterrorism laws against those “criticizing the government or raising their voices against injustice”.

In a statement, the international rights organisation demanded the immediate release of Teltumbde, Navlkha and the nine other activists “wrongfully detained in the 2018 Bhima Koregaon case”. The statement says the charges filed by police against the activists “cite flimsy evidence and raise serious concerns that the investigations were politically motivated”. It adds that two retired judges who were the main organisers and sole funders of the rally have said that most of the activists arrested in the case had nothing to do with the event.

HRW said the authorities in Maharashtra, under the former BJP-led state government, used the Bhima Koregaon case to “jail critics of the government” and did not investigate “cases that implicated Hindu nationalist leaders for inciting the violence”.

The statement also referred to the FIRs registered against The Wire and one of its founding editors, Siddharth Varadarajan, by the Uttar Pradesh police.

“Indian police have increasingly detained people for dissent, and in several cases used sedition or counterterrorism laws against government critics and social activists,” Human Rights Watch said.

The statement also refers to the arrests of those who protested against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, many of whom were charged with sedition. HRW noted that the Supreme Court has said that expressing ideological support should not be conflated with criminal complicity in violence. “The courts have also repeatedly held that speech or action constitutes sedition only if it incites or tends to incite disorder or violence. Various state governments charge people with sedition even when that standard is not met,” it said.

Also Read: Hindi Newspapers Look Away as Anand Teltumbde Is Arrested

The organisation urged the Indian government to “uphold the rights to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly”. It also called for the repeal of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the colonial-era sedition law.

“The Indian authorities should stop targeting human rights defenders, activists, and journalists for criticizing the government,” Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director at Human Rights Watch said. “At a time when governments around the world are releasing prisoners because of coronavirus, it is extraordinary that Indian authorities want to jail activists who should never have been arrested.”

The complete statement has been reproduced below.

§

India: Activists Detained for Peaceful Dissent
Counterterrorism Law Politicized in Bhima Koregaon Case

(New York, April 15, 2020) – Indian authorities on April 14, 2020 detained two rights activists who have been critics of government policies, Human Rights Watch said today. The government should immediately drop all charges under a counterterrorism law against Anand Teltumbde and Gautam Navlakha for allegedly inciting caste-based violence along with other activists during a demonstration in Maharashtra state in 2017.

“Indian authorities are using draconian counterterrorism laws against activists simply for criticizing the government or raising their voices against injustice,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The authorities should immediately release Anand Teltumbde and Gautam Navlakha and the other activists wrongfully detained in the 2018 Bhima Koregaon case.”

The police allege that these activists support a Maoist insurgency and at a large public rally on December 31, 2017, they incited Dalits to violence, leading to clashes with supporters of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) the following day. One person died and several were injured. However, the charges filed by police cite flimsy evidence and raise serious concerns that the investigations were politically motivated. Two retired judges, who say they were the “main organizers and sole funders” of the rally, have said that most of the activists arrested in the case had nothing to do with the event.

The authorities charged Teltumbde and Navlakha under India’s principal counterterrorism law, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. After the Supreme Court rejected their anticipatory bail pleas, the two men were ordered to surrender by April 14, 2020. Both have been openly critical of the government for failing to ensure social welfare and communal harmony. “In the name of the ‘nation,’ such draconian laws denude innocent people of their liberties,” Teltumbde wrote before he surrendered. “The jingoist nation and nationalism have got weaponized by the political class to destroy dissent and polarize people.”

Nine other prominent activists – Sudha Bharadwaj, Shoma Sen, Surendra Gadling, Mahesh Raut, Arun Ferreira, Sudhir Dhawale, Rona Wilson, Vernon Gonsalves, and Varavara Rao – have been detained since 2018 in the Bhima Koregaon case.

While Maharashtra authorities under the former BJP-led state government used the case to jail critics of the government, they did not pursue investigations in cases that implicated Hindu nationalist leaders for inciting the violence.

In October 2019, the social media company WhatsApp, owned by Facebook, informed Teltumbde and at least one lawyer involved in the case that their phones were targeted by surveillance software. They were among 121 users in India who were reportedly targeted with spyware produced by NSO, an Israeli firm, including at least 22 activists, journalists, academics, and human rights lawyers. Although the Indian government denied purchasing the software, the NSO website says its products are “used exclusively by government intelligence and law enforcement agencies.”

Indian police have increasingly detained people for dissent, and in several cases used sedition or counterterrorism laws against government critics and social activists, Human Rights Watch said.

Authorities in Uttar Pradesh state filed a criminal case against Siddharth Varadarajan, a well-known journalist and a founding editor of the news website Wire, for publishing an article that made an “objectionable” comment against the state’s chief minister. State authorities have previously arrested journalists for criticizing the chief minister on social media. In June 2019, the Supreme Court, while ordering the release of a journalist, Prashant Kanojia, had said: “A citizen’s right to liberty has been infringed.”

In December, police in Uttar Pradesh detained and allegedly beat activists involved in organizing protests against the new Citizenship Amendment Act and the proposed citizenship verification process that could exclude millions of Indian Muslims. Sadaf Jafar, an activist associated with the opposition Congress party, was arrested on December 19 in Lucknow as she filmed the protest.

When Deepak Kabir, a theater artist and cultural activist, went to the police station to inquire about Jafar he too was arrested. Kabir alleged that he was beaten by over a dozen policemen. While granting him bail on January 7, 2020, a local court found that police had failed to provide evidence of his involvement in the violence during the protests and that his name was not included in the case filed initially but was added later.

In Assam state, the police arrested several activists, charging some of them with sedition and under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for protesting against the new citizenship law. In January, Delhi police charged a university student with sedition. In February, a young woman was arrested for sedition in Karnataka for raising the slogan “Pakistan Zindabad, Hindustan Zindabad” (Long Live Pakistan, Long Live India) at a protest.

Karnataka police also arrested a head teacher and a parent at a private primary school on sedition charges for a play critical of the citizenship law. The police questioned students, most of them Muslim and between 9 and 12 years old, for five consecutive days to get them to identify teachers or parents who may have helped to develop the play.

The Supreme Court has said that expressing ideological support should not be conflated with criminal complicity in violence. The courts have also repeatedly held that speech or action constitutes sedition only if it incites or tends to incite disorder or violence. Various state governments charge people with sedition even when that standard is not met.

Human Rights Watch has urged the Indian government to uphold the rights to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly and called for the repeal of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act as well as of the colonial-era sedition law.

“The Indian authorities should stop targeting human rights defenders, activists, and journalists for criticizing the government,” Ganguly said. “At a time when governments around the world are releasing prisoners because of coronavirus, it is extraordinary that Indian authorities want to jail activists who should never have been arrested.”

Human Rights Watch Blasts China for Rights Violations at Home and Abroad

Human Rights Watch head Kenneth Roth also heavily criticised the United Nations Secretary General for not holding China accountable for its human rights abuses.

United Nations: China is currently under heavy scrutiny for its massive human rights violations across different sections, Human Rights Watch (HRW) head Kenneth Roth said on Wednesday. 

At the launch of World Report 2020, which focuses largely on China’s record of violating human rights for both its citizens domestically as well as abroad, Roth blasted the country’s government for undermining global interests and interventions with regards to human rights issues.

Roth, who was denied access to Hong Kong over the weekend, said at the launch that China is “using diplomatic clout to silence global institutions”. He also heavily criticised the United Nations Secretary General for not holding China accountable for its human rights abuses.

“At the UN headquarters, a major Chinese government priority has been avoiding discussion of its conduct in Xinjiang,” he said. “UN Secretary General António Guterres has been unwilling to publicly demand an end to China’s mass detention of its Muslims.”

Also read: China Accuses UN Human Rights Chief of Inflaming Hong Kong Unrest

On Wednesday, Stéphane Dujarric, Guterres’ spokesperson told reporters during a briefing that the Secretary General had previously spoken out on this issue on a number of occasions and raised a number of issues with his Chinese counterparts. He reiterated the Secretary General’s position which is based on principles surrounding “full respect for the unity and territorial integrity of China,” protection of human rights in the “fight against terrorism” and the importance of “each community to “feel that its identity is fully respected.”

He was unable to respond to specific allegations by Roth that China continues to “avoid discussion of its conduct in Xinjiang” at the UN.  In September HRW released a report of the “Chinese government’s mass arbitrary detention, torture, and mistreatment of Turkic Muslims”.

Suu Kyi’s ‘appalling’ efforts

Meanwhile, Roth also echoed thoughts from experts who have previously said that one of the reasons the Security Council had not been able to take steps against Myanmar is because of pressure from China.

In November, on the heels of a lawsuit being filed against Myanmar by the Gambia, Akila Radhakrishnan of the Global Justice Center expressed similar concerns to IPS.

“Security council has consistently failed to act because of China — there’s no possibility of any strong action,” Radhakrishnan had said, reiterating why it’s important for states to directly take action against Myanmar.

In that regard, especially with Roth’s concerns about China “intimidation of other governments” with threats, one issue of concern would be China’s relations with the Gambia, which has grown in the past few years.

Also read: Why the Youth Have Been Protesting in Hong Kong for Years

When asked, Roth told IPS he wasn’t aware if the Gambia was going to suffer any threats from China given its actions against Myanmar, but he said Aung San Suu Kyi leading the defence in the case is “appalling.”

“One element of this that is not generally appreciated is the initial hearing that took place a few weeks ago was actually not about the merits of the genocide case, it was about the provisional measures,” he said.

Provisional measures in the case of international law ensures that the main concern at the centre of the suite is not destroyed while the case is pending, which in this case would mean Myanmar imposes measures to refrain from any acts of genocide against the Rohingya community, and would ensure protecting the Rohingya community still in Myanmar.

“It was about protecting the roughly 450,000 Rohingyas who are still in Rakhine state, still within Myanmar,” Roth said. “So these are the people who are living terrified, displaced…unable to move. They are extremely at risk of the same violence that sent 730,000 compatriots fleeing to Bangladesh a couple years ago.”

He said Suu Kyi’s move implies that she isn’t just defending the past atrocities of Myanmar against Rohingya people.

“It’s not just defending past action that she was there for,” he said, “she was defending the future.”

(IPS) 

Myanmar: UN Threatens to Withhold Aid Over ‘Apartheid Policy’ Against Rohingya

Rohingya Muslims continue to face egregious abuses both within and outside Myanmar with low access to basic needs and a serious restriction on their freedom of movement.

New Delhi: The United Nations in Myanmar has threatened to adopt a tougher policy on camp closures by warning the Myanmar government that it will withdraw support in the Rakhine state to evade collusion with the government in a “policy of apartheid” for Rohingya Muslims.

In a threatening letter, dated June 6, by UN resident coordinator Knut Ostby, the UN, along with its humanitarian partners, conveyed the decision to eliminate support “beyond life-saving assistance” in Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) camps “closed” by the government unless “tangible progress [is] made on the fundamental issue of freedom of movement”.

Ostby accentuated the importance of these fundamental changes to occur as the current policy by the Myanmar government “risks entrenching segregation” and a complicity in abuses if international agencies continue to provide assistance.

“The government plan to build permanent housing on or next to the camps makes it very clear that the apartheid-like separation will be permanent and therefore crosses a red line for continual support to the camps,” senior UN official in Myanmar explains.

For seven years, UN agencies have been involved in helping displaced Muslim communities in the unruly Rakhine state. Their role, however, has recently been heavily criticised as “glaringly dysfunctional”, especially in “failing to see and warn the world about what was clear to many long before August 2017” according to Asia’s deputy director of Human Rights Watch (HRW), Phil Robertson.

The “ethnic cleansing” in the Rakhine, Shan and Kachin states in 2017  killed an estimate of 25,000 people and forced more than 800,000 to flee to Bangladesh in order to escape the military’s mass killings, gang rapes, child assaults and widespread arson. 

While the criticism on the “systematic failure” of the UN is largely focused on the leadership of former resident coordinator of Myanmar, Renata Lok-Dessallien, of supposedly understating the realities in Rohingya, the UN has highlighted that their failure is a result of bigger internal issues within the UN system and Myanmar community.

“Without question, serious errors were committed and opportunities were lost in the UN system following a fragmented strategy rather than a common plan of action,”  former Guatemalan foreign minister and UN ambassador Gert Rosenthal wrote in an internal review.

Also read: Reuters Reporters Jailed in Myanmar Released After 500 Days in Prison

In attempts to effectively work with the Myanmar authorities in 2017, the UN conducted regular meetings with the Myanmar government to ensure the resettlement of the displaced Rohingya and Kaman Muslims. Promises to close the dismal IDP camps and rehouse the uprooted people into houses near their original villages were made by the Buddhist government. 

The commitment to these promises, however, was severely lacking as UN reports revealed that the living conditions for the relocated Rohingya remain virtually unchanged, with their “basic services”, “livelihood opportunities” and fundamental human rights, almost entirely denied.

Also read: Myanmar Grants Early Release to Soldiers Jailed for Killing Rohingya Muslims in 2017

Evidently, Ostby’s threat is a result of the failure in the discussions for camp closures with the Myanmar government over the past year. On a number of occasions, the government even refused to meet with Ostby due to their disapproval of his tenacious opinions on certain human rights issues.

Their delay and resistance of the renewal of his contract as the UN resident coordinator has urged him to step down. He is said to be replaced by Ola Almgren, the current resident coordinator of the Philippines.

Soe Aung, deputy minister of social welfare, relief and resettlement, claims that Ostby’s letter demonstrated more of a “willingness and readiness of UN Agencies to support the Myanmar government in implementations towards reintegration in camp closed site” than a threat to the government.

Amidst these discussions, Rohingya Muslims continue to face egregious abuses both within and outside Myanmar with little or no access to basic needs and a serious restriction on their freedom of movement.

Amnesty India Calls for Speedy Resolution of Manipur Extra-Judicial Killings

The statement says progress in the case has stalled and that families of victims are facing harassment.

New Delhi: The Indian chapter of the global human rights organisation Amnesty International has issued a statement asking that the investigations into extra-judicial killings in Manipur be conducted swiftly and without reprisals to victims.

“It is time that Manipur Chief Minister N Biren Singh walks the talk by ending delays and ordering prompt and independent investigations into reports of threats and harassment,” said Likhita Banerji, researcher and campaigner, Amnesty India.

Last year, the office of the high commissioner at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) also issued a statement calling for “urgent progress” of the investigations into these encounter killings. “We are extremely concerned that the delay appears to be deliberate, undue and unreasonable, and we condemn this lack of progress,” said UN experts.

The cases in question pertain to a public interest litigation being heard in the Supreme Court, brought by the Extra-Judicial Execution Victim Families Association Manipur (EEVFAM). In 2012, this group highlighted about 1,528 cases of alleged “fake encounters” or extra-judicial killings and asked for investigations.

In the seven years since, the case has seen no prosecution of any officers of the Indian army, paramilitary or police who may have been involved in the killings.

In 2017 and 2018, the Supreme Court issued two historic orders in connection with the litigation. The first one said if the Indian armed forces use “excessive force,” they will have to be investigated and prosecuted. The second order directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to lead the inquiry into the killings, followed by prosecution.

While the case was regularly heard in court through 2017 and 2018, it has slowed down in the last few months. One reason could be the two petitions brought by members of the Indian army, claiming that the Supreme Court cannot monitor these investigations. They said only the Central government can give the sanction to investigate or prosecute.

Also Read: Supreme Court Slams Claim That Manipur Fake Encounter Probe Will ‘Demoralise’ Army

Amnesty India’s statement says that progress in the case has stalled. Around 18 police officials have been accused in the three cases being investigated by the CBI. But their lawyers told the court that the government will have to give permission for prosecution and the courts have agreed.

This is concerning if it is used as a delay or stalling tactic: “There is no timeline for the government to respond to requests for sanction,” says the Amnesty statement. In fact in one case, the government is yet to reply to a request for prosecution made in July 2018.

Amnesty India also raises attention to the fact that many of the victims’ families are facing reprisal for pursuing justice, even though in 2018, Manipur’s chief minister met with Amnesty India and assured that he would take care of the issue.

For example, some witnesses’s homes have allegedly been repeatedly visited by ‘suspicious’ people. Others have allegedly been harassed and intimidated even during court hearings in Manipur.

Amnesty India organised a tribute to Manipur’s human rights defenders on fake encounters last year.

Another global body, Human Rights Watch (HRW), has also been issuing periodic statements to draw attention to the slow pace of investigations. Last year, it also highlighted the harassment faced by family members of victims and EEVFAM activists. In 2008, an HRW report quoted one of Manipur’s top cops saying of encounter killings, “These fellows must be eliminated.”

UN experts from the Human Rights Commission have also recently issued a statement about extra judicial killings in Uttar Pradesh. They have written to the Indian government with information about at least 15 cases of killings and about 59 other potential cases.

Myanmar Government Using ‘Abusive Laws’ to Punish Critics: Human Rights Watch

Freedom of expression has been deteriorating since Suu Kyi’s administration came to power in 2016, with prosecutions creating a “climate of fear” among journalists, the rights group said.

Yangon: Myanmar‘s government under Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi has used repressive laws to prosecute peaceful critics, dashing hopes that its first democratic leader in decades would safeguard free speech, Human Rights Watch said on Friday.

Freedom of expression has been deteriorating since her administration came to power in 2016, with prosecutions creating a “climate of fear” among journalists, the rights group said in its report, ‘Dashed Hopes: The Criminalization of Peaceful Expression in Myanmar’.

“Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy promised a new Myanmar but the government still prosecutes peaceful speech and protests and has failed to revise old oppressive laws,” Linda Lakhdhir, Asia legal adviser at Human Rights Watch and the report’s author, said in a statement.

A government spokesman could not be reached for comment.

The military governments that ruled Myanmar for decades placed severe restrictions on free speech. Reforms undertaken by the quasi-civilian administration that came to power in 2010, including the abolition of censorship, had “positive implications for speech and assembly”, HRW said.

However, the Suu Kyi-led government had made “only marginal changes” to oppressive legislation and continued to use “overly broad, vague and abusive laws” to prosecute peaceful speech and assembly, it said.

Myanmar free speech group Athan, whose report was quoted by HRW, said some 140 cases had been filed since 2016 under the Telecommunications Act, at least half of which involved prosecution for peaceful speech.

Parliament made some amendments to Section 66(D) of the Act, which punishes anyone who “defames” someone using a telecommunications network with up to two years in prison, but rejected calls to repeal the provision.

Reporters were especially vulnerable to prosecution and attacks, HRW said, with threats coming from authorities as well as nationalists and militant supporters of the government or army.

“The result has been a climate of fear among local journalists,” the HRW report said.

Laws criminalising defamation, the Official Secrets Act, the Unlawful Associations Act, the 1934 Aircraft Act, and section 131 of the Myanmar Penal Code have all been used against journalists in recent years.

Reuters reporters Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo were sentenced to seven years in prison in September 2018 under the colonial-era Official Secrets Act. They had been working on an investigation into the killing of ten Rohingya Muslim men and boys in Rakhine State.

“Aung San Suu Kyi’s government has had a real opportunity to abolish the tools of oppression used by the military juntas, but has instead used them against peaceful critics and protesters,” Lakhdhir said.

“It’s not too late to reverse course and take steps to fully protect speech and assembly in Myanmar,” she said.

Saudi Arabia Arrests More Women’s Rights Activists: Human Rights Watch

Activists and diplomats have speculated that the new wave of arrests may be aimed at appeasing conservative elements opposed to extending rights to women.

Riyadh: Saudi Arabia detained two more women’s rights advocates earlier this month and imposed a travel ban on several others in an ongoing crackdown in the conservative Muslim kingdom, Human Rights Watch (HRW) said on Wednesday.

The arrests, just weeks before the much-hyped lifting of a decades-old ban on women driving, have revived criticism of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s approach to ambitious reforms as part of his push to diversify the world’s top oil exporter’s economy.

Women walk past a poster of Saudi Arabia’s King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud during Janadriyah Cultural Festival on the outskirts of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, February 12, 2018. Credit: Reuters/Faisal Al Nasser

The powerful young heir apparent is trying to open up the kingdom by easing strict social rules, but reforms hailed as proof of a new progressive trend have been accompanied by a crackdown on dissent, souring that image.

Activists and diplomats have speculated that the new wave of arrests may be aimed at appeasing conservative elements opposed to reforms and that it may be a message to activists not to push demands out of sync with the government’s own agenda.

HRW said the authorities had arrested writer and activist Nouf Abdelaziz on June 6 after she expressed solidarity with seven activists detained in May.

Mayaa al-Zahrani was arrested after she reportedly posted a letter online that Abdelaziz asked her to make public in case of her arrest, HRW said, adding that both women are being held incommunicado.

Many of those detained in May were women who previously campaigned for the right to drive. The authorities accused them of suspicious contacts with “enemies overseas” and said more suspects were being sought.

In total around 12 prominent activists have been detained since May, according to their associates, drawing expressions of concern from the UN human rights office. Some were later released.

Those still in detention include Loujain al-Hathloul, Eman al-Nafjan, and Aziza al-Yousef plus the men Ibrahim al-Modaimeegh, Mohammad al-Rabea and Abdulaziz al-Meshaal.

A government communications office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“The Saudi government appears determined to leave its citizens without any space to show even rhetorical support for activists jailed in this unforgiving crackdown on dissent,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at HRW.

“Nouf Abdelaziz and Mayaa al-Zahrani’s only ‘crime’ seems to be expressing solidarity with their fellow imprisoned activists.”

Prince Mohammed has won praise at home and abroad for his modernisation efforts, but he has also provoked unease with shock moves including an anti-corruption purge last year, when scores of royals and top businessmen were detained at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Riyadh. Most were freed after reaching settlements with the government.

(Reuters)

UN Body Seeks India’s Response to Charge of Complicity in Abduction of Dubai Princess

The princess was sent back to the UAE after the yacht she was travelling in was allegedly forcibly boarded by the Indian Coast Guard in international waters.

Thiruvananthapuram: The action of the Indian coast guard – apparently with authorisation from Prime Minister Narendra Modi – in forcibly boarding a US-registered vessel in international waters off the Goa coast, abducting a woman  and handing her over to United Arab Emirates commandos – has come under international scrutiny with the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) writing to the government of India seeking an explanation for the woman’s disappearance.

The woman – Sheikha Latifa, daughter of Dubai ruler and UAE prime minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum – went missing on March 5, 2018, some 50 kilometres off the coast of Goa, with French-US national former spy Hervé Jean Pierre Jaubert, and a third person, Tiina Jauhiainen, a long-time friend of Latifa, while they were on a US-flagged yacht, the Nostromo.

In a message she recorded before setting sail, Latifa said she was fleeing the UAE because she no longer wished to be oppressed by her father.

Toby Cadman from Guernica 37, the law firm representing the princess and her two friends, told The Wire that given the unlawful abduction, arbitrary detention and  suspected torture of Sheikha Latifa, Guernica 37 International Justice Chambers has invoked the special procedures of the OHCHR, specifically the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Inhumane and Degrading Treatment requesting their urgent and immediate intervention.

“And now, the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance (WGEID) has transmitted the urgent communication, filed by Guernica 37 IJC, to the UAE and India in order to provide them the opportunity to respond to the allegations concerning their involvement in Latifa’s enforced disappearance and arbitrary detention and to provide justification for a joint-military operation that culminated in an unprovoked attack on a US-flagged yacht in international waters, the unlawful abduction, arbitrary detention and ill-treatment of all those persons on yacht,” Cadman added.

Asked what response they had received, if any, from either India or the UAE, the WGEID secretariat in Geneva told The Wire, “The proceedings of the WGEID are confidential and we cannot disclose information on the individual cases.”

According to Radha Stirling, CEO of the NGO Detained in Dubai and the last person who talked to the princess before she went missing, the Dubai royal was fleeing her father and trying to migrate to the US via India. This plan was reportedly put to an end by Indian forces acting upon a request from the UAE.

In a message she recorded prior to fleeing Dubai in March in what turned out to be a doomed attempt to reach the US via India, Latifa described the details of her detention in the UAE, her abuse, her earlier kidnapping as well as the kidnapping of her sister. She also said that she feared for her life.

“She instructed me that her messages ought to be publicly released if she hadn’t managed to flee the UAE for the world to learn about her ordeal suffered at the hands of what is clearly an autocratic and controlling regime,” Stirling told The Wire.

In her 40-minute-long video, Latifa states “I have left the United Arab Emirates, but I am not out of danger’.

Her account from recordings that have been independently verified appears to describe a system of abuse that requires international intervention.

“In her last [message] Sheikha Latifa appeared to be highly distressed and in a state of panic,” Stirling said. The messages were sent by WhatsApp as armed men, said to be from the Indian Coast Guard, boarded the yacht.

She said, “Radha please help me, there are men outside. I heard gunshots.”

“Latifa was panicking and described how the Nostromo was under attack with men attempting to board. She said she was hiding with her friend and had heard several gunshots,” Stirling told The Wire.

On March 5, following the events of the previous evening, and with no further contact from Latifa, Stirling wrote to the Metropolitan Police in London.

Radha Stirling’s letter to the UK Metropolitan Police.

“The purpose of the letter was to report both the princess and Jaubert are missing so that inquiries could commence,” Stirling added.

The UK Metropolitan Police have confirmed that they have referred the matter to the UK National Crime Agency and Interpol to investigate. 

David Haigh, a British lawyer and partner at Detained in Dubai, himself a victim of torture in the UAE and currently pursuing a criminal complaint against the UAE, said, “When Princess Latifa put her trust in us and appointed Radha and I at Detained in Dubai to represent her and protect her in her bid for freedom from torture and abuse, it was clear to us that an application to the United Nations special procedures branch was an essential step in seeking to achieve this.”

The Princess’ message to Detained in Dubai.

“We are fortunate to have a close working relationship with the renowned Guernica 37 International Justice Chambers and were able to secure Toby Cadman’s attendance at the UN in Geneva within hours of Princess Latifa going missing. The United Nations and the international community are to whom we must look, when unelected dictators seek to position themselves above the law. No one is above the law and we look forward to the United Nations acting rapidly to ensure that Latifa is free and safe and able to live her life as she, and no one else, chooses,” Haigh added.

Meanwhile, quoting Jauhiainen, Human Rights Watch (HRW) said that Indian Coast Guard participated in the raid in coordination with UAE authorities.

“On Sunday 4th March 2018 as night fell we what were off the coast of Goa, India when we were attacked by Indian secret service and military, including the Indian Coast Guard.” Tina said, “Around 15 men came onboard fully masked, in armoured black clothing, with machine guns and laser sights. They used what was some kind of gas that filled the boat was smoke. It was the most terrifying experience of my life, The Indian men had their laser sights on me and Latifa and they were telling me they would shoot me and kill me. I was thrown against the floor, stood on and found myself in a pool of blood. At this point I thought they had killed Hervé and I thought I was next. They told me again and again that they would kill me and held me on the edge of the boat, threatening to push me into the sea. We were cuffed and forced to lie down.”

After the operation, which ended with the Indian coast guard handing over the Nostromo to UAE military personnel – all of this in international waters – the latter sailed the boat back toward the UAE, with Latifa, Jauhiainen, Jaubert, and the crew locked below deck.

After four days, they were transferred to a UAE naval vessel, and three days later arrived back in the UAE.

“State security officials took me to a facility that her captors described as a secret State Security Department detention centre for people who represent a ‘threat to national security’,” Jauhiainen said.

Following several long rounds of interrogation, during which Jauhiainen said her interrogators threatened her repeatedly with the death penalty and solitary confinement, she said she admitted to actions she did not commit, such as sending out the video of Latifa.

After another four days of solitary confinement, according to HRW, “interrogators told [Jauhiainen] they would release her if she videotaped a confession and signed several documents where were in Arabic that she could not read, which she did.”

Princess Latifa’s UAE identity card.

Jauhiainen said she later signed what she thought to be a non-disclosure agreement written in English banning her from speaking about the interrogation and Latifa.

On March 22, Jauhiainen said the UAE authorities allowed her to return to Finland, but they kept her computer and various other items from the boat. She said they allowed Jaubert and the crew to leave the country on his boat around the same time. In interviews to Mid-Day, BBC and other media platforms, Jaubert has said unequivocally that the Indian Coast Guard had boarded his yacht.

UAE influencing Interpol

Stirling also raised questions about Interpol, alleging that the UAE had leveraged a donation of $50 million to abuse the Interpol system.

“[The UAE authorities] routinely report individuals to Interpol over frivolous matters that do not fall within Interpol’s mandate, and frequently use the international policing organisation as an auxiliary tool for debt collection,” she said.

For example, the UAE reported a French national, Christian Elombo, to Interpol and sought his extradition on a false charge of kidnapping, after he was released from an Omani jail for allegedly driving Latifa inside Oman. They later dropped their demand.

“They have also reported Jaubert to Interpol, although they themselves released him from custody, essentially as revenge against his having spoken out about everything that happened,” Stirling said, adding that this sort of habitual abuse of Interpol is damaging to the organisation’s credibility.

Rejimon K. is a Panos Fellow journalist and a migrant rights activist for the last one decade with Migrant Forum in Asia. He is currently an India-Arab Gulf Senior Investigator at Equidem, which probes workers rights all over the world. He is also a fellowship advisor for Ethical Journalism Network and a media resource person for International Labour Organisation.

Note: This article was edited at 2:18 pm on May 23 to add the response received from the WGEID Secretariat in Geneva.

UN Declines Independent Inquiry Over Yemen Abuses

The UN’s decision disappointed activists, who had called for an independent probe to investigate air strikes, especially by the Saudi-led Arab coalition.

 

A man inspects a damaged house destroyed by a Saudi-led air strike in old Sanaa city, Yemen, September 24, 2016. Credit: Reuters/Mohamed al-Sayaghi

A man inspects a damaged house destroyed by a Saudi-led air strike in old Sanaa city, Yemen, September 24, 2016. Credit: Reuters/Mohamed al-Sayaghi

Geneva: UN Human Rights Council on Thursday declined to set up an independent inquiry into abuses in Yemen, instead calling on a national inquiry to investigate violations by all sides, including the killing of civilians and attacks on hospitals.

The move disappointed activists, who, along with the UN high commissioner for human rights, had called for an independent probe, especially into air strikes by a Saudi-led Arab coalition backing the Yemeni government.

The UN blames the coalition strikes for 60% of some 3,800 civilian deaths since March 2015.

The alliance has been fighting the Iran-allied Houthi movement in Yemen since March 2015 after the group took over the capital and forced the internationally recognised and Saudi-backed President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi into exile.

The Yemeni National Commission of Inquiry reports to Hadi.

“For now Saudi and its allies, like the US, have shown they can still block efforts at the UN to ensure accountability for war crimes in Yemen,” Salma Amer, UN advocacy officer at the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies said in a statement.

The 47-member rights council adopted a resolution brought by Arab countries that asks the UN to provide “substantive technical assistance and advice, including in the areas of accountability and legal support”.

This should enable the Yemeni probe to “complete its investigatory work concerning allegations of violations and abuses committed by all relevant parties in Yemen“.

Senior UN officials had seen the Yemeni issue as a test of the council’s credibility after it also backed away a year ago from launching an independent inquiry.

“The resolution provides the commissioner a clear mandate to send more investigators to Yemen, vigorously investigate abuses by all sides and report publicly,” said John Fisher of Human Rights Watch. “Saudi Arabia’s aggressive lobbying against a full international investigation shows why the country should be suspended from the council and should not be re-elected.”

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, said last month that the national probe lacked impartiality as it focused on alleged violations committed by Houthi rebels and forces loyal to former President Ali Abdullah Saleh and had not worked in pursuing perpetrators.

EU withdrew a stronger Dutch-led text hours before the Arab resolution was adopted by consensus. Britain, an ally of Saudi Arabia, had blocked the Dutch-sponsored draft within the EU, a UN official said on condition of anonymity.

The Dutch resolution would have sent a UN fact-finding mission to Yemen to report back on violations in March 2017.

EU delegation said the amended Arab resolution was a “reasonable compromise text and EU could support the resolution”.

(Reuters)