Human Rights First

Murder of Indigenous Guatemalan Lawyer Fausto Otzín Needs Investigation

2009-11-20T09:03:00.000-08:00

Last month Fausto Otzín, a Guatemalan indigenous human rights lawyer, was found badly injured in a ditch. He suffered multiple machete and stab wounds and passed away shortly after being found. He was only 32 years old and leaves behind a wife and children.

Otzín was a well-known and respected figure in the Guatemalan human rights community. He formerly served as the Executive Director of the Association of Mayan Attorneys and was heavily involved in promoting the rights of indigenous communities and victims of Guatemala's 36-year armed conflict.

The violent attack against Otzín displays troubling signs of an extra-judicial killing. Otzín's body was found with severe signs of suffering close to a military base in the area. Disturbingly, Otzín's death follows the murder of several other Mayan community leaders and was preceded by death threats sent to his telephone.

Take action now to urge Guatemalan authorities to identify and prosecute the individuals responsible for the killing of Fausto Otzín.

Holder Hearing: Stats, Shenaningans and Security Concerns

2009-11-19T08:02:00.000-08:00

By Katie Fourmy, Human Rights First Program Assistant/Office Manager, Government Advocacy

Just days after announcing that he would move the cases of five men accused of involvement in the 9/11 attack to a regular federal court, Attorney General Eric Holder appeared yesterday before the Senate Judiciary Committee for a four-hour hearing filled with stats, shenanigans and security concerns.

Stat Wars: Senators Hatch and Kyl wanted to know just what AG Holder means by, “195 successfully prosecuted,” when he refers to accused terrorists tried in federal courts. We’ll clear it up. In our recent study of 119 terrorism cases with 289 defendants and filed since 2001 in the normal federal court system, Human Rights First found that of the 214 defendants whose cases were resolved as of June 2, 2009, 195 were convicted either by verdict or by a guilty plea. By contrast, the military commissions are a failed system that has secured only 3 convictions. So there’s the stat for you.

Shenanigans: Let’s start with decorum and avoiding shenanigans. In clearing up misinformation that had been circulating since the announcement, Mr. Holder rebutted critics who claim that a federal court trial will give KSM more of a platform to share his ideologies than would a military commission. He reminded us that bringing KSM to face trial in a federal court will require all in the courtroom, not just the defendant, to maintain proper behavior. Let’s hope this will save us the misery of listening to KSM spew all kinds of incendiary remarks… again. We don’t want to relive his first appearance in a military court.

Another shenanigan: Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. Senator Durbin brought up that in 2006, Rudy Giuliani hailed the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui in Eastern Virginia courts, just miles away from the Pentagon, as a “symbol of American justice.” Unfortunately, when AG Holder authorizes a federal trial of a 9/11 suspect, Mr. Giuliani steps out as one of the key opponents to the trial. For a more tongue-in-cheek version of his flip-flopping, check out the Daily Show from Monday night:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Law & Order: KSM

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

Security Concerns: Thankfully, the fearmongering was nearly absent from yesterday’s hearing. It’s about time. I think it’s clear to most now that bringing these suspected terrorists to justice in United States federal courts will not put our citizens in great danger. In fact, it makes us safer. Thirty-two military leaders back AG Holder’s decision, and they remind us that keeping Gitmo open and continuing the system as is only puts us and our armed forces in great danger as we engender more hate and fear.

I’ll end with what I found to be the AG’s most resounding point of the day. When Senator Kyl asked Holder why he thinks that a federal court is the best location for this trial when KSM has already stated that he wants to plead guilty in a military commission and be sentenced to death, Holder’s response was simple. AG Holder’s decisions have nothing to do with KSM and his whims of trial location. “He [KSM] will not select his prosecution venue. I will select it,” asserted the Attorney General.

Next goal: Closing Guantánamo and transferring detainees suspected of crimes for trial before tried and true civilian courts in the United States.

If You Believe Guantanamo Makes Us Safer You Should Have Been Here Today

2009-11-19T07:54:00.001-08:00

By David Danzig, Deputy Program Director of Human Rights First

Cross-posted from Huffington Post

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 11/18/09 - Legal proceedings, such as they are, rumbled to life again today at Guantanamo Bay. Pre-trial issues in the case of Mohammed Kamin, an Afghan man who was captured by the U.S. in Afghanistan in 2003, were heard in a military commission courtroom on a small hill a few miles away from where the more than 200 detainees left at Guantanamo are housed.

The proceedings were a non-event before they even took place, unattended by even a single journalist and unremarked upon by political elites, many of whom spent the week arguing about whether military commissions or federal courts were the appropriate venue for trying alleged terrorists.

Soon after the proceedings were gaveled to order, President Obama, speaking to FOX News in Beijing, said that the detention facility at Guantanamo would not close in January.
"I knew this was going to be hard," the President said referring to an executive order he signed on January 22 ordering the detention facility to be shut within a year but "technical issues" as well as "politics" got in the way of closing the facility. He stated that he anticipates the facility will be closed at some point next year.

Many of the President's political opponents have taken to the airwaves this week to laud the use of military commissions as the only sure-fire way to provide justice for those who are accused of terrorism.

Meanwhile back at the commission proceedings, it was business as usual - meaning that the judge spent more than two hours covering legal issues that have virtually no precedent in military commissions. But despite the hard work, it was hard to say that justice in Kamin's case was any closer at hand.

Commission proceedings, since their inception, have been hampered by confusion about the rules, a lack of transparency, and other procedural hurdles. Today was no exception.

Trying a Man No One Has Heard Of

Mohammed Kamin is, in the words of his defense attorney, "someone who almost no one in the western world has ever heard of."

When Attorney General Eric Holder announced on Friday that the five men charged with conspiring to plan the 9/11 attacks would be moved to federal court, there was no mention of what would be done with Kamin.

It was unclear how - if at all - a Department of Justice-led review of detainees held at Guantanamo might impact the case against Kamin. No one had bothered to tell his lawyer.
"The fact that we are standing here in this courtroom today suggests that we are going to proceed to military commissions," Navy Lt. Cmdr. Richard Federico, the military attorney charged with defending the Afghan detainee, said uncertainly at the beginning of the proceedings today. "That would be my assumption too," chipped in Judge Thomas Cumbie.

There is a making-it-up-as-we-go feel to these proceedings which is inevitable for a system of trials for which the Congress, courts and executive keep changing the rules. For example, there was discussion today of a new pre-trial hearing date in December in the Kamin case.

But officials said that the new rules for the military commission proceedings - which the Department of Defense needs to alter to conform with reforms passed by Congress on October 29 - have yet to be released by the Department of Defense. Officials with the Office of Military Commissions at Guantanamo acknowledged today that they have not even seen a draft set of the new rules.

Any rulings issued in connection with today's hearing or in the court's next hearing on this case (scheduled "on or around" December 16) may have to be re-litigated when the new rules are released, further delaying a date when the Kamin case might reach a verdict. Kamin has been held for more than six years without any meaningful judicial review.Other problems unfolded as the hearing moved into its second hour.

Basic discovery information has yet to be passed on to the defense. For example, the defense told the court today that they still have yet to receive many of the accused's statements.
The prosecution, more than 1.5 years into formal legal proceedings against Kamin, recently provided an interrogation log which shows that he has been interrogated 17 times, yet summaries and/or transcripts of what was said at those meetings have only been provided to the defense for four sessions. "This is elemental stuff," Federico told the court.

Two Guys Not on Google

Captain Clay West, who acts as co-defense counsel, raised yet another thorny issue: two Afghan men who initially interrogated Kamin can not be found by the U.S. government for questioning. West suggested that these men, who were on the U.S. payroll, may have "softened up" Kamin and they ought to be questioned by investigators to determine what role any abuse may have played in subsequent statements.

Government prosecutors shot back that they were doing everything they could to find the two men. "Its not like we can put their names in Google," said Air Force Captain Jeremy McKissack, a prosecutor. Judge Cumbie suggested that so much time had passed since Kamin was captured, "they might be dead."

"The government has worked five years to charge this case," West said. "The government should suffer for not trying this case sooner, not Mr. Kamin."

There were other questions too. After all, as Federico explained, it was his "ethical responsibility" to pursue every avenue he can to defend his client.

Is material support for terrorism, the charge under which Kamin is to be tried, a charge that will stand up under appeal? Federico told the judge that, in his opinion, it probably would not - even the Attorney General's office expressed similar doubts before the latest Military Commissions Act became law - and argued that he ought to be able to make his case to the "convening authority" who has the power to choose who to prosecute.

Providing "support" for terrorism, as opposed to actually committing terrorism, has not traditionally been considered a violation of the laws of war, Federico argued, and it would be a waste of resources to try a case that is likely to be overturned. The judge promised to consider the motion.

It didn't stop there.

What should be done about a system that was designed - according to rule - to try "enemy combatants" when a new administration now calls detainees like Kamin "unprivileged belligerents?" Federico says this is not accounted for in the rules. Are changes necessary? Federico says that this alone is enough to dismiss the case.

And on and on. All of these issues have to be litigated. Memos have to be written. Motions filed. Hearings convened.

Almost every issue breaks new ground. Kamin elected not to attend this hearing. He has skipped every pretrial motion. The judge warned that there may come a time when it is necessary to "forcibly extract" him from his cell and make him attend hearings. But it is not clear when that time will come. Or who will decide. More memos. More unchartered territory.

This is the state of play with a military commission system that was put in place in 2006 and overhauled just a few weeks ago. New rules are being put in place while detainees are being tried. Changes are inevitable and as the clock continues to run, it becomes harder and harder to convene a trial that is seen to be timely and fair.

This is what it takes to build a legal record and develop a complex legal system. It's fascinating for lawyers to watch. But it is not the way a sophisticated country should be managing justice.
There is another option.

Thankfully the federal judicial courts are already prepared to handle the most complex terrorism cases. Since 9/11 the federal system has reached a verdict on 195 cases, finding more than 90 percent of alleged terrorists guilty.

For those of us who have seen the Guantanamo system of military commissions operate, it is hard to believe that any politician would argue that what we have here is what we need. Especially when a system of justice, with a proven track record, stands by, ready to do the job.

Congress Trying to Put Up a Roadblock on the Path to GITMO's Closure

2009-11-18T14:09:00.000-08:00

Not a week after the Attorney General announced that suspected 9/11 perpetrators will face justice in New York federal courts, House Republicans are aiming to block these trials, and are trying to make their case as Mr. Holder appears in a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

We need to push through these obstacles and stay on course! Yesterday, we had a big victory in the Senate when Senators blocked an effort, to restrict criminal prosecutions of suspected terrorists. Momentum is on our side - but we have to keep up the pressure!

Call your representative today to let him or her know you support using our federal courts for terrorism trials. Click here to find the number of your representative's office and to read more.

Panel Discussion on Guantanamo, with three retired military leaders and Human Rights First

2009-11-18T14:00:00.000-08:00

On Thursday, November 18, Human Rights First will be leading a discussion on how best to restore America’s global reputation and keep the United States safe in a post-Guantánamo Bay world. The panel is free and open to the public – we’d love to have you there!

Co-Hosted by Human Rights First and the Human Security Law Program at William & Mary Law School in Williamsburg, Virginia, the panel will feature three of the country’s most distinguished retired military leaders. The panelists are among the retired military officers who stood behind President Obama on his second day in office as he signed the Executive Orders banning torture and ordering the closure of the Guantanamo detention facility by January 2010.
Read the media advisory for details.

Unjustly detained Colombian human rights activist to face trial, US Aid to Colombia key to ending arbitrary detention of activists

2009-11-18T13:55:00.000-08:00

Cross-posted from The Hill's Congress blog, and from Huffington Post:

All signs pointed to the release of Carmelo Agamez Berrio, a well known Colombian human rights activist, who has been unjustly detained for almost a year in Sucre. He had been appointed a new prosecutor and senior Colombian justice officials had raised concerns about due process rights violations in his case. However, in a surprising twist last week, the 28th antiterrorism prosecutor in Bogota issued a resolution formally bringing to trial the specious investigation against Agamez.

Carmelo Agamez is Technical Secretary of the Movement of Victims of State Crimes (MOVICE) in Sucre department. He was detained in November 2008 charged with consorting with right-wing paramilitary leaders. Agamez has devoted his career to documenting human rights violations and exposing alleged links between local public officials and paramilitaries. Given his strident opposition to paramilitary groups, it is implausible that he has also been consorting with them. The case against Agamez has been marked by a series of inconsistencies and violations, which both a court and the Prosecutor General of Colombia have publicly recognized.

In May 2009, the Superior Tribunal of Sucre found that the prosecutor breached Agamez's due process and defense rights by failing to inform him of the charges against him. According to Agamez’s defense, the arrest warrant against him was not authorized and his house was raided without a warrant. The charges against Agamez are based on the uncorroborated testimony from two discredited witnesses alleging that Agamez participated in a paramilitary meeting on an unspecified date. Neither of the witnesses are impartial: was recently detained after Agamez and MOVICE publicly exposed his alleged links to paramilitaries, while Agamez was involved in the arrest of the second witness’ brother and cousin. Many other witnesses have testified that Agamez did not participate in the meeting in question, while still another witness recanted her testimony explaining that the prosecutor had induced her to falsely impugn Agamez.

In July 2009, the Colombian Prosecutor General issued a formal resolution, in which he repeatedly cited concerns about the lack of impartiality in the investigation against Agamez by international human rights organizations such as Human Rights First. In the resolution he ordered a criminal investigation of Sucre prosecutor Rodolfo Martinez Mendoza for alleged corruption in connection with his baseless prosecution of Agamez.

It is inconceivable, after such serious concerns were raised by senior Colombian justice officials, that Agamez’s case could make it to trial. The new prosecutor has done so without offering any additional evidence of Agamez's guilt nor addressing the evidentiary and due process concerns raised by senior justice officials.

It is crucial for the United States government to take a stand regarding this issue and demand that justice be served. Members of Congress and the US embassy in Colombia should raise their concerns about this case with the Colombian government and urge the Colombian Prosecutor General to take a strong stand regarding this injustice by immediately dropping the charges against Agamez.

Unfortunately, Agamez's unjust detention is just one emblematic example of a much bigger problem: the extensive use of malicious criminal investigations and trumped-up charges to silence human rights activists in Colombia. This widespread nature of this problem was documented in a recent report by Human Rights First, In the Dock and Under the Gun: Baseless Prosecutions of Human Rights Defenders in Colombia.

Given that the United States provides Colombia with approximately $40 million in justice and rule of law aid, the US can and must be a part of the solution. The Congressional Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission has recognized this by holding two hearings this year related to the arbitrary detention of Colombian activists. Members of Congress, the State Department and the Department of Justice should all urge the Colombian Prosecutor General to issue a resolution to delegate a unit of his office to coordinate the review of all investigations against Colombian human rights defenders, which would immediately close all specious cases.

Moscow Murder Underscores Dangers for Russian Activists, Journalists

2009-11-17T10:55:00.001-08:00

The brutal murder of 26-year-old anti-fascist activist Ivan Khutorskoi in Moscow yesterday is yet another reminder of the dangers faced by activists and journalists in Russia. Read our press release. These execution-style murders have become all too common in Russia, and rarely are those responsible found or held accountable.

Human Rights First has frequently voiced concerns about the attacks on racial and ethnic minorities in the Russian Federation, where there has been a dramatic upsurge in violent hate crimes in recent years. People like Khutorskoi, antifascist activists opposed to racist violence, have also been frequent targets in violent attacks. Just a few months ago, on June 28, 2009, assailants used knives and air pistols in a murderous attack on another antifascist activist, Ilya Dzhaparidze. Read more about our work in Russia, and more broadly on hate crime across Europe and North America.

Khutorskoi's murder happened on the same day that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) released its annual report “Hate Crimes in the OSCE Region – Incidents and Responses,” concluding that hate crime is still a significant problem throughout a region that includes 56 countries in North America, Europe, and the former Soviet Union. To compliment the intergovernmental report, U.S. international rights groups Human Rights First (HRF) and Anti-Defamation League (ADL) issued a reaction paper that highlights the failure of many of the OSCE states to fulfill commitments to combat the problem.

China Can Deny Sudan Access to its "Tools of War"

2009-11-16T14:27:00.000-08:00

Cross-posted from Huffington Post

By Julia Fromholz
Director, Human Rights First's Crimes Against Humanity Program

President Obama has a full agenda for his current trip to China: climate change, energy, North Korea, Iran, and human rights are just some of the topics on the White House's list. Given the influence of his hosts in Beijing on the Government of Sudan, President Obama should take this opportunity to discuss not only the Chinese government's domestic human rights abuses but also its role in human rights crises overseas--specifically in Sudan.

China is by far the largest known provider of small arms, small arms parts, and ammunition to Sudan. Chinese-manufactured arms and ammunition were recently singled out as "prominent" by the Panel of Experts investigating violations of a United Nations arms embargo imposed on Darfur in 2005. In addition, an earlier expert panel noted the January 2007 arrival in South Darfur of three Chinese A-5 "Fantan" ground attack jets, which were manufactured by the Nanchang factory in China and reportedly delivered to Khartoum in 2006.
According to the government of Sudan's own reported figures, from 2004 to 2006, Sudan purchased ninety percent of its small arms from China, and from 2003 to 2006, this amounted to over $55 million worth of small arms. Moreover, Chinese arms sales continued after the United Nations imposed an embargo on arms transfers to Darfur in 2005.

The Chinese government has protested that its sales of arms and ammunition to Khartoum are licit, as the U.N. arms embargo, imposed by U.N. Security Council Resolution 1591, is commonly read to bar transfers of arms and ammunition only into Darfur. However, the embargo also requires the Government of Sudan to request and receive authorization from the U.N. Sudan Sanctions Committee before transferring arms into Darfur. Sudanese government officials have plainly stated their refusal to comply with that obligation. Furthermore, the Darfur Panels of Experts have repeatedly reported both violations of the embargo by the Government of Sudan and the presence of Chinese-manufactured arms in Darfur. The Chinese government therefore cannot be unaware of the possibility that weapons sold to Sudan will end up being used in Darfur.

As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote in a letter to Human Rights First in March of this year, "We believe that the Chinese government needs to abide by the spirit as much as the letter of UN Security Council Resolution 1591 (2005) and subsequent resolutions. The Chinese government also should prevent Chinese companies from selling weapons to Khartoum. In order to bring an end to hostilities in Darfur, we must effectively deny all combatants access to the tools of war."

While China is not the only country exporting arms to the Government of Sudan, no other country has more influence in Khartoum, thanks to Chinese government investments in Sudanese infrastructure, oil industry, and military training. As Secretary Clinton stated in her letter, "As Sudan's largest export partner and greatest source of foreign investment, China is in a position to exert pressure on Khartoum to resolve the conflict in Darfur and implement the Comprehensive Peace Agreement."

China's sales of arms and ammunition help sustain the conflict in Darfur and undermine international efforts to end it. In his meetings with President Hu Jintao and other Chinese officials, President Obama should press for specific steps that will help lead to the peace in Darfur that both countries seek. President Obama should take up the spirit and letter of Secretary Clinton's words by pressing for an immediate suspension of all arms and ammunition transfers by China to Sudan, as well as a commitment by the Chinese government not to obstruct enforcement of the arms embargo. Help us send him this message - urging him to raise the problem of Chinese arms sales to Sudan in his meetings with President Hu Jintao and others, today.

Victory for the Rule of Law: an analysis of decision to move 9/11 defendants to federal courts

2009-11-16T07:30:00.000-08:00

By Human Rights First Senior Associate Sahr MuhammedAlly, cross-posted from Foreign Policy's AfPak blog:

The Obama administration's decision to move the trials of the five Guantanamo detainees accused in the 9/11 conspiracy -- including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- from the discredited Guantanamo military commissions and into federal civilian courts to face justice is a victory for the rule of law. Eight years later, the United States is finally bringing justice to the victims of the 9/11 attacks in a forum that is legitimate and credible. But the Justice Department should go further and try all detainees at Guantanamo in federal civilian courts, not military commissions.
I have observed several military commission hearings in Guantanamo including the arraignment of the 9/11 defendants in June 2008. What I saw in every hearing was a second-class system of justice that made up rules as it went along, used unfair evidentiary standards for defendants, and subjected some detainees to ill-treatment and abuse. At the June 5th arraignment of the September 11 defendants I recall thinking that should trial in the military commissions system continue, the American justice system will be as much on trial as the defendants' alleged crimes. But with the announcement that the cases will be transferred to federal courts, the government has recognized the need to shift the focus from the legitimacy of the judicial process to the validity of the actual accusations against the detainees.

Federal courts have a long and impressive track record of prosecuting complex terrorism cases while upholding due process and protecting national security. In a comprehensive study of 119 terrorism cases with 289 defendants, Human Rights First found that of the 214 defendants whose cases were resolved as of June 2, 2009, 195 were convicted either by verdict or by a guilty plea. By contrast, only three have been convicted in the broken military commissions. (For the full reports, see In Pursuit of Justice: Prosecuting Terrorism Cases in the Federal Court (2008) and In Pursuit of Justice Update (2009)).

Although the cases of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi Binalshibh, Waleed bin Attash, Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi, and Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali will be tried in federal courts, the administration is still pursuing prosecution of a number of individuals via military commissions, including the suspected planner of the USS Cole bombing in Yemen in 2000, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. And though new reforms to the military commissions include some improvements over previous laws, they still fail to provide many of the fundamental elements of a fair trial. For instance, military commissions continue to permit the admission of coerced testimony obtained at the point of capture; they use an overly broad definition of who can be tried before military commissions that includes juveniles and those not accused of engagement in hostilities; and they permit defendants to be tried ex post facto for conduct not considered a war crime at the time it was committed. Military commissions thus retain the possibility of unfairness and their continued use perpetuates the damaged legacy of Guantanamo.

The Justice Department made the right decision to transfer the cases of the 9/11 attacks to New York courts for prosecution. But by dividing detainees into different categories --those able to be tried in federal courts and those who will face military commissions -- the administration is sending a message that there is not enough evidence to try some detainees in federal courts and that those detainees deserve a second class system of justice that cuts corners. All Guantanamo detainee cases should be tried in federal courts. Only by pursuing this route can the United States return to a system of justice that upholds American values and laws and makes a clean break from the shameful era of Guantanamo.

Debate on Trying Terrorists

2009-11-16T07:13:00.000-08:00

Jim Benjamin, one of the co-authors of Human Rights First's In Pursuit of Justice reports, participated in a debate on the best way to try terrorist suspects, in the New York Times' Room for Debate.

He draws on his research to underline the excellent track record of federal courts:

I recently co-authored a study of the experience of federal courts in
adjudicating terrorism cases. The data we collected shows that federal-court
terrorism prosecutions have generally yielded just, reliable outcomes that have
not undermined our national security.

The list of convictions includes not only the trial of Omar Abdel Rahman in
1995, but also of Ramzi Yousef, Zacarias Moussaoui, Jose Padilla, John Walker
Lindh and Richard Reid, to name just a few. Not all cases have been perfect, but
the outcomes, by and large, have been accepted around the world and have
consigned the convicted terrorists to spend many decades or the rest of their
lives in the obscurity of federal prison.

On courts, as a proven system vs. new legal structures:

One of the great strengths of the federal courts as a venue for prosecuting
terrorists is that they have actually worked, as evidenced by the long list of
successful terrorism prosecutions over the past 20 years.

By contrast, proposals to create a new national security court raise
practical and legal questions and offer, for the foreseeable future, the
prospect of constitutional uncertainty and legal wrangling. The prior
administration tried and failed to create novel legal structures to handle
terrorism cases.

Read the whole debate, including the Glenn Sulmasy's perspective.

Due Diligence in Darfur

2009-11-13T07:02:00.000-08:00

By Ann-Louise Colgan

Perpetrators of atrocities in Darfur--like anywhere else--are dependent on at least indirect support from other countries. The goods and services outside governments provide, including arms and ammunition, affect the ability of all parties to continue to engage in the conflict. But because their actions are one step removed from the atrocities, they command inadequate pressure from the international community. Earning even less pressure are corporations that supply resources used in the commission of mass crimes. These third parties are an under-used lever for responding to the crisis in Darfur, and their actions should be the focus of new efforts by U.S. and international policymakers who seek to interrupt the violence in that region.

China's behind-the-scenes role in Darfur has attracted attention for a number of years, both as the leading supplier of arms to the Sudanese government and the major recipient of Sudan's oil. Despite this public attention, a recent report by a U.N. team of experts provides still further evidence that China remains the point of origin for many of the arms and ammunition flowing into that region. Serious pressure on Beijing by U.S. officials--specifically on the point of halting weapons transfers to a country where grave crimes are taking place--is long overdue.

But while China and other states have been identified as the source for arms that fuel the Darfur conflict, the role of corporations has received less scrutiny to date. The recent U.N. report seizes on this angle, noting how heavily dependent the parties to the conflict are on consumable goods--including fuel and transportation, as well as ammunition--for maintaining their fighting capacity. The ready availability of these products not only enables the belligerents to continue the violence, it simultaneously reduces their incentive to negotiate a difficult but necessary peace for the future of Darfur.

It goes without saying that companies based half a world away are not wholly responsible for insecurity in Darfur. But their enabling role raises an important question about corporations' obligations to institute due diligence procedures to ensure that they avoid contributing to human rights abuses. Because, according to the latest U.N. report, atrocities continue to be perpetrated against civilians in Darfur, and because the direct role of the Sudanese government in this crisis is known, companies who operate in that country should be alert to these realities.

Manufacturers of military materiel should be especially mindful of the embargo, of the end-use of their products, and of their potential to sustain the conflict. But there is a broader set of industries involved here, too.

Take, for instance, a company that manufactures 4x4 trucks, which are then mounted with heavy weapons and used to transport combatants and launch violent attacks against civilians. The truck company likely did not intend that its vehicles be used in this manner, but it and its distributors may not have taken every possible measure in its power to avoid this. Similarly, a communications company whose equipment is later instrumental in the coordination of attacks against civilians may not have intended or foreseen this use, but neither may it have sufficiently stringent safeguards in place to ensure its products are not used to facilitate atrocities. Companies such as these should take extra steps to monitor the risks and should apply stricter controls where necessary to ensure their products are not used in the commission of crimes against humanity.

A focus on the enablers of the violence in Darfur is no panacea, to be sure. But the role of these actors in providing necessary ingredients to the ongoing commission of atrocities provides an opening, at a minimum, to establish a due diligence obligation that can affirm respect for human rights and international law.

Especially when prodded by loud and negative public opinion and by threats of governmental regulation, corporations have shown willingness to respect codes for socially responsible conduct in many contexts. Adopting new guidelines in atrocity situations could make a real difference in a place such as Darfur. U.S. policymakers should also seek opportunities to apply such standards to states and individuals that provide the means to perpetrate and sustain crimes against humanity. By tackling these practical connections, the U.S. will find new levers to stem the violence against civilians in Darfur and beyond.

Refugees Defined as Terrorists: Human Rights First report featured in Washington Post

2009-11-12T08:08:00.000-08:00

Read the Washington Post article featuring our report released yesterday - Denial and Delay - on refugees affected by overbroad terrorism bars in immigration policies.

Senior Counsel and Deputy Director of our Refugee Protection Program, Anwen Hughes, was also interviewed on Power Breakfast from Capitol News Connection this morning.

U.S. antiterrorism laws causing immigration delays for refugeesMore than 18,000 people affected since 2001, report says

By N.C. Aizenman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 12, 2009

U.S. antiterrorism laws are being applied so strictly that thousands of refugees who fled persecution in their home countries and appear to pose no threat to the United States have had their asylum and immigration applications denied or indefinitely delayed, according to a report released Wednesday.

The study, by Human Rights First, a nonpartisan organization based in New York and Washington, documented cases in which people have been inexplicably labeled terrorists.
Sachin Karmakar, a Bangladeshi advocate for the rights of religious minorities, was recently granted asylum after facing political and religious harassment. But his application for permanent residency faces indefinite delay because he took part in his nation's successful struggle for independence in 1971.

A teenage girl who was forced to become a child soldier at 12 in the Democratic Republic of Congo and who faces threats for speaking out against her captors has had her asylum application snagged on the grounds that during the period she was kidnapped, she was a member of a terrorist group.

A refugee from Burundi, whom Human Rights First identified only by his first name, Louis, was detained for 20 months, although an immigration judge thought he qualified for asylum because he had provided "material support" to a terrorist organization when an armed rebel group robbed him of $4 and his lunch.

The report found that more than 18,000 refugees and asylum-seekers have been affected since 2001. Of those, at least 7,500 cases remain unresolved. Most involve people already in the United States who have filed for permanent residency or are trying to bring over family members. The Department of Homeland Security has placed their cases on indefinite hold rather than deporting those involved.

However, an undetermined number of people in similar circumstances who, for technical reasons, are pursuing their cases in immigration courts are at risk of being deported.

The report's author, Anwen Hughes, found that efforts by Congress and the Bush and Obama administrations to address the issue by creating a waiver system have moved at a glacial pace and continue to leave out huge categories of immigrants.

"It's been a very slow and unworkable process," Hughes said. Meanwhile, she said, "for a lot of people, the delay is not harmless. We have clients who are here but whose wives or children are stranded in very difficult, dangerous situations."

Brandon Prelogar, special adviser for refugee and asylum affairs in the Department of Homeland Security, is scheduled to speak about the issue on a panel in Washington on Thursday. He could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

The current situation is rooted in legal provisions dating to 1990. However, the Patriot Act of 2001 considerably expanded the scope of those affected by barring entry to refugees and asylum-seekers who were supporters not only of terrorist groups designated or listed by the State Department but also of "undesignated terrorist organizations." The term can be applied to almost anyone who has used force in self-defense against a military regime that does not permit peaceful opposition.

Immigration officials have broadened the provision even further by applying it retroactively to organizations that no longer exist or that renounced violence decades ago.

Those caught in the net have included members of Afghan militias that fought against the Soviet invasion with U.S. support; groups that fought the ruling military junta in Burma; virtually every Ethiopian and Eritrean political party past and present; the South Sudanese armed opposition movement that, after years of civil war, is the ruling party of an autonomous area; and the main democratic opposition party in Zimbabwe, whose leader has been praised by President Obama for his courage in standing up to that nation's strongman.

Although the government has offered waivers in some cases, the law continues to entangle even people who engaged in nonviolent activities on behalf of undesignated terrorist organizations -- such as giving speeches, distributing fliers or offering medical care -- or who provided minimal contributions, such as taking food to a relative in jail.

Hughes said that other immigration laws prohibit entry to immigrants who have violated human rights or are a danger to the United States. She said she hopes the report will persuade Congress to remove the "undesignated terrorist organization" provision from the law.

Legitimate Refugees Being Redefined as "Terrorists"

2009-11-11T10:01:00.000-08:00

Since 2001, U.S. immigration policy changes intended to protect the United States from terrorists are hurting thousands of legitimate refugees who pose no threat to the United States. A new Human Rights First report, Denial and Delay, offers a series of recommendations to fix this serious problem. Read our press release.

At the heart of this report are the stories of innocent men, women and children whose paths to asylum, permanent residence, or family reunification have been blocked. Their stories underscore the need for swift and comprehensive action to fix the overly broad immigration provisions that were intended to protect the United States from terrorists, but have instead been applied to, among others, peaceful political activists, children abducted by rebel armies and forced into combat, doctors who provided medical care to wounded people in accordance with the Hippocratic oath, and those who fought against the armies of repressive governments in their home countries, some of whom fought alongside U.S. forces.

A young man from South Sudan who was resettled in the United States as a refugee after escaping from a Sudanese rebel army who had abducted him as a child and held him for a month at a training camp was denied permanent residence a year and a half ago on the grounds that he had "received military-type training" from a ‘terrorist organization." His case was later reopened but remains on hold.
A young girl kidnapped at age 12 by a rebel group in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, used as a child soldier, and later threatened for advocating against the use of children in armed conflict, has been unable to receive a grant of asylum, as her application has been on hold for over a year because she was forced to take part in armed conflict as a child.
A man who was granted asylum after fleeing persecution in Afghanistan over 20 years ago has yet to be granted permanent residence because he carried supplies as a child for a mujahidin group fighting the Soviet invasion in the 1980’s. This has been deemed "material support to a terrorist organization" under the 2001 USA PATRIOT Act. The mujahidin group in question dissolved years ago, and its former leaders have been key U.S. allies in post-Taliban Afghanistan.
The asylum application of a woman from Ethiopia has been on hold for over three years because she took food to her son when he was arbitrarily detained for political reasons in a jail where prisoners were not fed. The son was involved in the political wing of a group DHS considers to be a "Tier III terrorist organization." But the mother was not, nor had she ever supported the group in any tangible way.
A refugee from Burundi was detained for over 20 months in a succession of county jails because the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the immigration judge who decided his case took the position that he had provided "material support" to a rebel group when armed rebels robbed him of four dollars and his lunch.
An Oromo woman from Ethiopia was granted asylum several years ago based on the persecution she suffered there due to her peaceful activities as a member of the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF). For those activities she was jailed without charges, beaten, whipped, and stomped on. She was also raped by one of her interrogators. She believes it was as a result of this rape that she became infected with HIV. In early 2008, this woman was denied permanent residence based on the same political activities she had described in her application for asylum. Her daughter, still a minor, received a denial letter stating: "You are he child of an inadmissible alien. For that reason, you are inadmissible . . . " The family’s applications were later reopened, but remain on hold a year and a half later.
A refugee from Somalia has been denied asylum, and has been held for over a year in an immigration jail, because militants who kidnapped him forced him to stand in the middle of a road holding a gun in his hands for a little over a day. This young man had never held a gun in his life and does not know if the one he was given even loaded; he only took it after another captive, a cousin of his who refused to do the same, was shot in front of him. Nothing happened during the hours he stood in the road. This young man is not sure what the point of his presence there was, but believes that his captors were using him as a human decoy, to be an easy target for enemy gunfire in the event of any fighting. The abuse that he suffered has been deemed "material support" to the armed group that kidnapped him.
A mother from Cameroon was granted asylum based on her peaceful political activism for the rights of Cameroon’s English-speaking minority. Her petition to bring her children to join her in the U.S. was placed on hold based on DHS’s determination that the Southern Cameroons National Council (SCNC) should be considered a "Tier III" group. By the time DHS indicated it was reconsidering its assessment of the SCNC, one of her children had died of illness.
A Sri Lankan refugee who paid ransom to his own kidnappers still has not received a waiver of the "material support" bar after over four years in immigration proceedings. As a result he has remained separated from his wife even as conditions in their home country deteriorated dramatically. He himself spent the first two and a half years of his time in the United States in immigration detention, and now, two years after his release from those jail-like conditions, is still forced to wear a large, uncomfortable, and humiliating ankle bracelet.
An Ethiopian father of five who has been living in the United States for six years and who was granted asylum by the immigration court over three years ago has been jailed for over four months, after the decision to grant him asylum was reversed based on a later Board of Immigration Appeals decision that applied the immigration law’s overly broad definition of a "Tier III terrorist organization." The immigration judge, upon reconsidering his case, found that this man, whose own political activities were peaceful, had suffered torture in Ethiopia, that he would face a probability of further torture if he were deported there, and that he was eligible for asylum but for the "material support" bar. But there is no process in place to consider people in his situation for "waivers" of the material support bar if their cases are in immigration court proceedings, and he remains in immigration custody.

Read more about how we can help these victims of overbroad immigration policies in the report and its summary.

U.S. Must Lead U.N. to New Action on Darfur

2009-11-10T11:57:00.000-08:00

By Julia Fromholz, cross-posted from Huffington Post:

Three weeks ago, the Obama administration announced its comprehensive policy toward Sudan, relying on both incentives and pressures to move that country toward peace. The clearest manifestation of the policy to date--renewal of U.S. economic sanctions--was distinctly unilateral. Because progress in Sudan will be elusive without the multilateral action President Obama consistently emphasizes, the administration should seize an immediate opportunity to lead a collective response to new evidence of human rights abuses in Darfur.

On November 5, the United Nations Security Council released the annual report of the independent, expert team charged with monitoring the Council's arms embargo on Darfur. Ninety-four pages of evidence of blatant, continuing violations of international law are now in the public record. This report follows five others, investigated and written by similar teams over the past four years.

Some officials and commentators argue that the multilateral sanctions on Sudan are ineffective. They neglect to mention, however, that those sanctions have never been enforced. Instead, the countries charged with enforcing the embargo--those states that comprise the U.N. Security Council--have failed to act on the last five expert reports on violations of the arms embargo, thereby allowing violations to be committed with no risk of punitive consequences. Because some violators named in the report sit on the Security Council, votes are difficult to gather and vetoes hard to avoid. But making headway against human rights abuses in Darfur and the climate of impunity that exists due to previous inaction will be impossible without the leadership of the United States to overcome tough political challenges.

Despite some apparent internal dissension over the summer, the Obama administration has recently displayed unambiguous vigor in the realm of sanctions. On October 27, President Obama extended the unilateral economic sanctions originally imposed a dozen years ago, stating that "the actions and policies of the Government of Sudan continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States . . . ."

When introducing the Administration's policy toward Sudan, Secretary Clinton noted that the conflicts in Sudan present "an opportunity for the international community to help steer Sudan along a path that can lead to stability and security . . . ." Her emphasis on the obligations of the "international community"--not the U.S. alone--was echoed by General Scott Gration, President Obama's Special Envoy to Sudan. He asserted that "success requires frank dialogue with all parties in Sudan, with the regional states and international community."

Even before the most recent U.N. expert panel report was published last week, the U.S. government missed an opportunity to focus attention on the future of multilateral sanctions: the mandate of the expert panel was renewed without discussion. Security Council member states abdicated their responsibility by failing to publicly acknowledge and discuss the reasons the sanctions have not been effective. Renewing the panel's mandate simply papers over the problem: it allows the Security Council to appear to take action to enforce the embargo, while in fact avoiding the difficult and contentious work of garnering support to punish violators.
At the roll-out of the administration's Sudan policy, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice warned those who refused to take steps toward peace: "There will be significant consequences for parties that backslide or simply stand still. All parties will be held to account." Three weeks in, the Administration should seize this opportunity to ensure that Ambassador Rice's words do not ring hollow.

As the Administration's new policy on Sudan makes clear, no single silver bullet can resolve the many problems in that country. But leading an effort to enforce United Nations sanctions--starting with immediate action on the new report providing detailed evidence of violations thereof--would show that the Obama Administration is serious about pursuing multilateral action on matters of principle, even in tough political contexts.

The Tide is Turning in the Fight to Close Guantanamo

2009-11-06T08:21:00.000-08:00

By Human Rights First's Sharon Kelly, cross-posted from Huffington Post:

Yesterday, a heated debate took place on the Senate floor over an amendment proposed by Senator Lindsey Graham that would have prevented the 9/11 defendants from facing justice in U.S. federal courts. It did not pass. In a major victory for our campaign to close Guantanamo (link) the Senate rejected this attempt to derail Guantanamo’s closure and prevent the United States from rebuilding our reputation.

The voices of dozens of retired military leaders, experienced prosecutors, correctional officers, and committed activists who all want to see Guantanamo swiftly closed – and understand that our institutions are up to the job of dealing with terrorist suspects -- is starting to break through and be heard by Congress. As we await the announcement of President Obama’s plan to close Guantanamo, we can be hopeful that the tide of fear-mongering that has muddied this debate is being to ebb.

Victories like this take work. Last night on the Senate floor, Senator Patrick Leahy pointed to the bipartisan declaration signed by 120 prominent Americans including former Members of Congress, high-ranking military officials and judges, that Human Rights First partnered with the Constitution Project to organize. As today’s Wall Street Journal noted, “Hours after the petition’s release, the Senate rejected an amendment that would have barred prosecuting Guantanamo inmates in federal court.”

Also yesterday, Human Rights First travelled to Michigan where a debate has been underway over whether Guantanamo detainees will be sent to the Standish prison facility. Two retired military leaders who travelled there with us had their message of support for closing Guantanamo appear in an op-ed published in the Detroit Free Press. Most importantly, this victory took the help of people all across the country. Within hours of sounding the alarm, thousands took action, sending messages to their Senators letting them know that they opposed this destructive amendment.

Join us in this important effort to make sure Guantanamo is closed. You can sign up to help and stay informed on our website and on Facebook.

Colombian Award Winner Gonzalez interviewed in the Huffington Post

2009-11-05T14:38:00.000-08:00

Gabriel Gonzalez, one of the winners of Human Rights First's annual Human Rights Award, was featured in the Huffington Post today.

Thanks in large part to thousands of activists who urged the State Department to grant him a visa in time, Gonzalez was able to come to New York to receive the award, and go to D.C. for meetings on the Hill, and with Diane Tucker, the author of this article. Tucker describes his trip here, to receive our award and conduct advocacy, but also what he can expect upon return to Colombia:

Last week in Manhattan, veteran journalist Tom Brokaw presented the 2009 Human Rights Award to Gabriel Gonzalez, a young activist who opposes the inhumane treatment of Colombian prisoners. The thoughtful young man then flew home to Colombia, where he is charged with being a terrorist and faces seven years in prison.

Call it one heck of an identity crisis for Gonzalez, or better yet, call it "same old, same old" in Colombia, where the difference between "hero" and "rebel guerrilla" can be a matter of opinion, and all too often a matter of life and death. Last year, 11 human rights workers were murdered in Colombia. So far this year, at least nine have been killed, despite increased government protection.

Watch the video we showed at our awards dinner:

Read more about Colombian defenders and what Human Rights First is doing to help.

Italian Court Decision: an interview with Gabor Rona

2009-11-05T07:03:00.000-08:00

Human Rights First's International Legal Director Gabor Rona discusses the implication of the Italian court ruling on extraordinary rendition. Check it out!

Courts, not Military Commissions, for Guantanamo Detainees

2009-11-04T11:48:00.000-08:00

Andy Worthington refers to Human Rights First's In Pursuit of Justice reports in an article in Truthout about military commissions today, reminding:

As Lawyers at Human Rights First have been explaining for many years - most recently in an update to their report, "In Pursuit of Justice: Prosecuting Terrorism Cases in the Federal Court" - in the last 20 years, federal courts have handled approximately 135 real-life terrorism prosecutions, and have secured convictions in over 90 percent of those cases. When the updated report was issued in July, Elisa Massimino, Human Rights First's chief executive officer, explained, "Politicians have spent eight years trying to reinvent the wheel when it comes to prosecuting terrorism and that approach has failed miserably. This report makes clear that the best way forward is to rely on our existing legal system. Its track record of successfully prosecuting criminals, safeguarding national security, and addressing the complex legal issues of our time is unmatched."

Read the whole article here, and join our Guantanamo campaign if you want to make sure the prison is closed on time!

Human Rights First Gives Obama a B, overall, in Foreign Policy

2009-11-04T11:33:00.000-08:00

Human Rights First's Communications Director Sharon Kelly contributed to a Foreign Policy piece that collected grades for President Obama's performance over a range of issues. Below is her excerpt from the article.

Grade: B

On interrogation policy: A.

President Barack Obama took swift and decisive action by shutting down the CIA's "enhanced interrogation" program and mothballing secret prisons on his second full day in office. In August, his Task Force on Interrogations seconded that strong step by deciding that the Army interrogation manual should be the single standard for all agencies of the U.S. government.
These actions allowed the United Sates to begin to rebuild the respect that is so essential to successfully meeting the complex challenges that we as a nation face. Achieving energy security, protecting the environment, combating global terrorism, quelling insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq -- these are all issues that require collaboration with allies and a strategy to win goodwill around the world. As Gen. Charles Krulak and Gen. Joseph Hoar -- commandant of the Marine Corps from 1995 to 1999 and commander-in-chief of U.S. Central Command from 1991 to 1994, respectively -- recently wrote: "If Americans torture and it comes to light -- as it inevitably will -- it embitters and alienates the very people we need most."

An A on interrogation is important for the whole report card.

On Guantánamo: B or incomplete.

Obama was off to a strong start when he announced last January that Guantánamo Bay's prison would close within a year. The administration has less than three months to go and Members of Congress and the public are still anxiously awaiting a plan specifying what will happen to the detainees housed there.

In its defense, the administration inherited a real mess and has since confronted a concerted campaign of fear mongering led by former Vice President Dick Cheney. In the face of real logistical issues and made-up scare tactics, Obama's recent comments at the United Nations reaffirming his commitment to swiftly close the facility were encouraging.

There's no reason for delay. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Gen. David Petraeus, and other experts have stated that Guantánamo's existence has undermined our national security interests. The most comprehensive study of terrorism cases prosecuted in U.S. courts demonstrates that our justice system is up to the job of prosecuting these complex cases -- at least 195 terrorists have been convicted since the September 11 attacks. The American Correctional Association has declared that Americans have nothing to fear from terrorists incarcerated in U.S. prisons.

If the administration's plan puts faith in our strong institutions, this grade could be raised to an A. Opting for unlimited detention without charge would undermine the progress made so far.

On Afghanistan: B- or incomplete.

More needs to be done to guarantee that -- when United States forces pick up someone in Afghanistan and detain him as a possible security threat -- there are mechanisms in place to challenge that detention. Until this happens, U.S. detention policies will be at odds with its counterinsurgency goals in Afghanistan: we'll be spending money on schools and roads to win over the population and then undermining our investment by holding people unfairly.

The Obama administration has made some improvements. In September, the Pentagon announced new procedures for the 600 detainees being held in Bagram and Gen. Stanley McChrystal unveiled reforms for both U.S. and Afghan prisons that focus on rehabilitation and skills training aimed at preventing the radicalization of prisoners. He announced that the "desired endstate" for all detention operations -- including Bagram -- would be the transfer of those responsibilities to the Afghan government once it has the capacity to run these systems in accordance with international and national law.

The devil is in the details. Even under the new procedures, which are similar to the discredited combatant status review tribunals in Guantánamo, there are concerns about detainees' ability to review and challenge the evidence against them and produce their own evidence, including witnesses, without the assistance of legal representation. Ultimately, it remains to be seen whether the reforms will resolve the underlying problems of arbitrary and indefinite detention. More can be done to prevent mistaken captures, gather evidence during capture (to promote fair criminal prosecutions in Afghan courts) and increase the capacity of the Afghan authorities to take responsibility for detention and prosecution.

The Defense Authorization Act, and Military Commissions vs. Federal Courts

2009-10-30T08:29:00.000-07:00

A Washington Independent article discussing the consequences of the Defense Authorization Act passed Wednesday, and the continued use of military commissions. It rightly compares the track record of our federal courts vs. military commissions, in prosecuting terrorism cases, citing Human Rights First In Pursuit of Justice reports:

A study conducted by former prosecutors for Human Rights First, for example, found that civilian federal courts had successfully prosecuted more than 214 terrorism cases since September 11, 2001. Prosecutors won 195 convictions, and successfully handled the challenges of unavailable witnesses, classified evidence, undercover informants and other complexities that arise in terrorism cases, the report found. By contrast, the military commissions created by President Bush after the 9/11 attacks and subsequently authorized by Congress tried only three cases.

We should use our federal courts. Join our Guantanamo campaign to get more involved.

Obama Signs the Hate Crime Bill into Law! What's Next?

2009-10-28T14:36:00.000-07:00

By Paul LeGendre, cross-posted from Huffington Post

Ten years ago this month, Wyoming college student Matthew Shepard was brutally attacked and murdered because he was gay. A year before Matthew's murder, James Byrd. Jr. was kidnapped, beaten, and stripped naked by three white supremacists, who chained him by the ankles to a pickup truck and dragged his body for three miles. These tragedies reawakened American consciousness about hate crime and sparked debate far beyond U.S. borders.

Today, President Obama signed into law the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crime Prevention Act, critical legislation that strengthens existing U.S. laws by extending federal hate crime protection in cases where the victim was targeted because of their sexual orientation, gender, disability, or gender identity. The new law -- which the U.S. Attorney General Holder called a "civil rights issue that is clearly a priority" -- will also permit federal authorities to assist local governments in hate crime investigations and increase their capacity through training programs.

This much-needed step to enhance the government's response to hate crime at home will play an important role in enhancing US leadership on combating hate violence globally. This is already happening.

Secretary of State Clinton recently underlined the importance of combating hate crime, at the launch of the State Department's 2009 Report on International Religious Freedom by proclaiming that the best antidote to religious intolerance is "a combination of robust legal protections against discrimination and hate crimes, proactive government outreach to minority religious groups, and the vigorous defense of both freedom of religion and expression."

Together, President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and other members of the administration must be prepared to carry and promote this message overseas, in countries where governments are not responding adequately to violence motivated by religious intolerance, racism and xenophobia, sexual orientation and gender identity bias, or other similar manifestations of intolerance. In many parts of the world, governments are failing to take hate violence seriously by bringing the perpetrators to justice.

As the United States begins the work of enacting this important new bill, Human Rights First is encouraging the government to also demonstrate continued international leadership in multilateral organizations, advocate measures to combat hate crime in bilateral relationships, and expand efforts to support civil society organizations, by taking the following steps:

-Raising violent hate crime issues with representatives of foreign governments and encouraging, where appropriate, legal and other policy responses, including those contained in Human Rights First's ten-point plan for governments to combat violent hate crime. Talking Helps!

-Offer appropriate technical assistance and other forms of cooperation, including training of police and prosecutors in investigating, recording, reporting and prosecuting violent hate crimes as well as translation of Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) materials on hate crimes. Peer tutoring works!

-Ensuring that groups working to combat all forms of violent hate crime have access to support under existing U.S. funding programs, including the Human Rights and Democracy Fund and programs for human rights defenders. Money is needed!

-Maintain strong and inclusive State Department monitoring and public reporting on racist, antisemitic, xenophobic, anti-Muslim, homophobic, anti-Roma and other bias-motivated violence -- including by consulting with civil society groups as well as providing appropriate training for human rights officers and other relevant mission staff abroad. Reporting matters!

Today is a day to welcome the president's signing the Hate Crime Prevention Act into law and to congratulate all those who worked for more than a decade to make this happen. It is also an important moment to recall the global nature of hate violence. While not losing sight of the challenges at home, we call on the U.S. to enhance its global leadership role by working to ensure that hate violence is met with a vigorous response everywhere.

Matthew Shepard Hate Crime Bill Passes Congress, Awaits Signature

2009-10-26T09:48:00.000-07:00

At the end of last week Congress passed a bill that has been over ten years in the waiting, extending hate crime protection to gays. The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act expands the current law to include crimes based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability, and is a major step forward in terms of criminal enforcement and prevention for hate crimes against LGBT persons and the disabled. Read the AP story.

This is a victory to celebrate. As President Obama prepares to sign the bill into law, Human Rights First is prepared to continue this crucial fight abroad - where hate crime protection is all-too-often insufficient or inexistant. In a few of our target countries, homosexuality itself is still a crime.

Read about our work on hate crime, and particularly with regard to LGBT persons.

Advances on Guantánamo

2009-10-22T11:11:00.000-07:00

Two advances on Guantánamo this week:

Despite intensive fear mongering on Capitol Hill, the Senate passed a homeland security appropriations conference report this week that, although it places some restrictions on transfers, allows for transfers for trial in U.S. civilian courts. The President is expected to sign the bill soon.
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the case of the Chinese Uighur detainees who cannot be repatriated to China because of the risk of torture or other abuse, and who the Defense Department concedes do not pose a threat to the United States.

Although these are important steps forward, the battle is far from won - there are still restrictions in the bill, and some lawmakers continue to put up roadblocks to trying terrorists in the U.S. civilian justice system. For example, last week, Senator Lindsey Graham introduced an amendment on a bill that would prohibit funding trials of alleged 9/11 conspirators in U.S. courts.

Senator Graham's amendment is at odds with the recommendations of senior retired military leaders who advise that the use of civilian courts to try the 9/11 alleged conspirators is in the best interest of U.S. national security. Click here to read a letter to President Obama from four retired military leaders, admirals and generals, urging him to seek prosecutions in civilian courts.

Write your representatives to let them know that you support closing Guantánamo - they need to know that public support is behind it!

Take Action on Sudan

2009-10-22T10:30:00.000-07:00

On Monday, President Obama's Administration announced its new and long-delayed policy on Sudan. On paper, the policy covers many useful bases. But it will be nothing more than empty words unless the Administration puts some serious pressure on the Sudanese government. Fortunately for the Administration, a ready-made pressure point is available immediately: an opportunity to ensure discussion and action at the United Nations on new evidence of violations of the arms embargo on Sudan.

One of the goals of the new Sudan policy is achieving "a definitive end to conflict, gross human rights abuses, and genocide in Darfur," in part by encouraging and strengthening initiatives for ending violent conflict.

The four-year-old U.N. arms embargo has never been enforced. Arms and ammunition continue to flow into Darfur, fueling violence against civilians. This makes the parties to the conflict less inclined to negotiate a peace settlement and undermines the authority of the U.N. Security Council. Special Envoy Gration needs to face this reality head-on-he should take the arms embargo seriously and use it as an effective tool to bring pressure to bear on Khartoum and its allies.

A new report by the U.N. Panel of Experts on Sudan-the group monitoring the arms embargo-is due out soon. Like past reports, it will likely detail numerous violations to the embargo. It must prompt action to hold accountable those who refuse to respect this international law.

Human Rights First has been drawing attention to the arms issue for well over a year, including by briefing the U.N. Sanctions Committee at the end of last year. But more progress must be made. Help us send a clear message to the Administration as it implements its new strategy - the U.N. arms embargo on Sudan must be enforced!

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, and U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan, Scott Gration, should ensure that discussions of the Panel of Experts report at the Sanctions Committee are thorough and detailed, and that there are consequences for those who have violated the embargo. Write them today to let them know that you're paying attention!

Respecting freedom of expression, while combating discrimination and intolerance: HRF Congressional Testimony

2009-10-22T08:45:00.000-07:00

Check out testimony below made by Human Rights First's Tad Stanhke, at the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission Hearing yesterday on the Implications of the Promotion of “Defamation of Religions.”

In his testimony, Tad outlined ways for the U.S. to advance respect for freedom of expression while combating racial and religious discrimination and intolerance:

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify at this timely hearing.
Human Rights First has long opposed international recognition of the concept of defamation of religions as well as efforts to create internationally binding obligations to guarantee against defamation of religions. The concept of defamation relates to religions as a whole rather than the rights of individuals to be protected from racism, racial and religious discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. Efforts at the United Nations to prohibit defamation threaten protections for the universal rights to freedom of expression and freedom of thought, conscience and religion. At the national level, UN experts and other human rights monitors have found that laws prohibiting blasphemy, religious defamation, injury to religious feelings and incitement to hatred can be abused by governments and others to target individuals for the peaceful expression of political or religious views, thus stifling debate and dissent. These abuses exist in some of the same countries whose governments are the strongest proponents of the defamation concept.

At the same time, Human Rights First, through its Fighting Discrimination Program works to combat bias motivated violence, in particular racist, antisemitic, xenophobic, anti-Muslim, homophobic and related violence in Europe, North America and the former Soviet Union. We have developed a set of concrete recommendations for governments to confront such violence. We have also proposed steps that can be taken by international institutions and the U.S. government, as part of its foreign policy, to promote a stronger response by governments. Human Rights First does not advocate restrictions on speech as part of this program.

Our research shows that violence targeting members of ethnic and religious minorities is a serious and growing problem in Europe, where most governments have been slow to respond. Muslims are one group among many who have been targeted for violence. While attacks on Muslims may often be motivated by racist or ethnic bias, intolerance is increasingly directed at Muslims expressly because of their religion. Muslim places of worship and women wearing the hijab are particularly vulnerable targets. These violent attacks are taking place in the context of a climate of hostility towards Muslims and those perceived to be Muslim. There is a longstanding strain of political discourse in Europe – worsened in recent years – that has projected immigrants in general and Muslims in particular as a threat not only to security but also to European homogeneity and culture.

For many years, the United States and European countries have generally failed in their efforts to defeat proposals promoting the defamation of religions concept at the UN. Now is a good time to take a fresh look at the strategy to achieve that goal.

In that regard, I would like to make three points and then offer some recommendations:

1. The next six months provide a unique window of opportunity for the U.S. government to begin to turn the tide against defamation of religions at the UN; the failure to do so could result in a major setback.

There is a glimmer of positive momentum. Provisions on defamation of religion were dropped from the draft outcome document of the Durban Review Conference. The United States is now on the Human Rights Council, and this seems to have had, at least for now, a positive impact on the environment there. Also, at the Council session earlier this month, the United States worked with Egypt to pass by consensus a resolution on freedom of expression that – although it has one or two problematic elements – is nevertheless an improvement from the resolution passed in 2008, as the latter recognized “abuses of the right to freedom of expression that constitute acts of racial or religious discrimination.”

Despite this small measure of momentum, it is very clear that the issue is not going to go away. Defamation remains a priority for the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). Defamation proponents remain a formidable force, with well-resourced and experienced diplomats focused on advancing their cause wherever they can. Indeed, the defamation issue will come up in one guise or another at numerous UN venues over the next several months, including:

The Ad hoc Committee on the Elaboration of Complimentary Standards, meeting now through October 30 in Geneva, where there is a serious proposal on the table to draft an international convention on the prohibition of incitement to racial and religious hatred.

The current session of the UN General Assembly, where we expect the OIC to introduce, as they do each year, a Resolution on the Defamation of Religions; under current conditions, the United States probably does not have the votes to defeat the resolution.

The Human Rights Committee, the body that reviews state compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), is preparing a draft General Comment to guide States Parties in the implementation of the right to freedom of expression; the draft may be released at the session meeting this month, or the Committee’s next session in March.

The Human Rights Council, where Defamation of Religions will be considered again in March.

A proposal by the High Commissioner for Human Rights to hold regional seminars on incitement to violence, discrimination and hatred; this proposal was endorsed by the outcome document of the Durban Review Conference.

Thus, the battle in opposition to the defamation of religion concept will need to be waged vigorously on several fronts simultaneously.

2. The U.S. government must become more central to the debate in order to successfully oppose threats to free expression under the guise of prohibitions on defamation of religions or of expansive interpretations of the obligation to prohibit incitement.

Virtually all other countries – both allies on the defamation issue and opponents – have viewed the United States as marginal to the defamation of religions debate. The United States is considered an outlier because of its robust First Amendment protections against restrictions on speech; most other countries allow restrictions on speech as a matter of law that are not permitted in the United States. The United States has also entered a reservation to article 20 of the ICCPR, which requires states to prohibit advocacy of national, racial and religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence. Under U.S. law, incitement to violence can be prohibited only under certain very narrow circumstances.

Opposition to defamation of religions on the basis of its incompatibility with the First Amendment or even with existing international human rights norms has not carried the day. Continuing with this approach will likely not yield better results. Although the United States should not abandon these principles, and should not under any circumstances accept language that violates them, additional approaches should be tried.

3. The United States should promote recognition of the problem of hostility and intolerance faced by members of ethnic, religious and other groups, as well as the experience gained in this country from confronting it without restricting freedom of expression; doing so can help to reframe the debate on defamation of religions and undercut support for limitations on free speech.

As noted above, members of several minority communities in Europe face a climate of hostility and intolerance. This problem exists in many other parts of the globe as well. At the international level, the U.S. government should be promoting stronger responses by all governments to serious manifestations of hostility and intolerance, which occur in numerous countries, including the United States.

All governments can do more to respond to bias motivated violence, including by working with affected communities to investigate and prosecute those responsible for such violence as well as by ensuring that police and prosecutors have the tools and the training to do the job. Laws and policies to combat discrimination should be adopted and enforced. In addition, responses to other acts of hatred and intolerance – responses that do not involve restrictions on speech – should be identified and promoted. The rich experience of civil society groups in the United States in working together across racial, ethnic and religious lines, as well as working with law enforcement and political leaders at all levels of government can provide examples of best practices. Government officials and political leaders should be pressed to speak out more often and more forcefully to condemn acts of hatred and intolerance, especially when committed by their colleagues.

These efforts should encompass all forms of bias, and not only religious intolerance. While promoting best practices, the U.S. government should continue to highlight the human rights violations that occur as a result of abuses of laws prohibiting blasphemy, religious defamation, injury to religious feelings and incitement to racial and religious hatred.

Recommendations

To advance respect for freedom of expression while combating racial and religious discrimination and intolerance, we make the following recommendations:

The State Department should be encouraged to deploy the resources necessary across the relevant UN bodies to confront efforts to advance the defamation of religion concept and expansive interpretations of the obligation to prohibit incitement. The goal should be to develop and deploy an experienced cadre of diplomats at both the political and working levels that can focus and operate effectively in different UN venues on these issues.

Senior U.S. officials should raise these issues not only at the UN, but also in capitals in the course of bilateral relationships with key countries.

The U.S. government should promote internationally an active program to combat all forms of bias-motivated violence, as specified in the attached recommendations.

The U.S. government should also develop and advance a set of best practices on combating acts of hostility and intolerance without restricting freedom of speech, and should invite American civil society groups, Members of Congress and state and local officials to share their experiences in this regard.

The State Department should continue to support the efforts of the UN Special Rapporteurs on Freedom of Religion or Belief, on Freedom of Expression, and on Combating Racism to document human rights violations by states in the enforcement of national laws to prohibit blasphemy, religious defamation, injury to religious feelings and incitement to racial and religious hatred, discrimination and violence.

A Ten-Point Plan for Combating Hate Crimes

Acknowledge and condemn violent hate crimes whenever they occur. Senior government leaders should send immediate, strong, public, and consistent messages that violent crimes which appear to be motivated by prejudice and intolerance will be investigated thoroughly and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Enact laws that expressly address hate crimes. Recognizing the particular harm caused by violent hate crimes, governments should enact laws that establish specific offenses or provide enhanced penalties for violent crimes committed because of the victim’s race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, mental and physical disabilities, or other similar status.
Strengthen enforcement and prosecute offenders. Governments should ensure that those responsible for hate crimes are held accountable under the law, that the enforcement of hate crime laws is a priority for the criminal justice system, and that the record of their enforcement is well documented and publicized.
Provide adequate instructions and resources to law enforcement bodies. Governments should ensure that police and investigators—as the first responders in cases of violent crime—are specifically instructed and have the necessary procedures, resources and training to identify, investigate and register bias motives before the courts, and that prosecutors have been trained to bring evidence of bias motivations and apply the legal measures required to prosecute hate crimes.
Undertake parliamentary, inter-agency or other special inquiries into the problem of hate crimes. Such public, official inquiries should encourage public debate, investigate ways to better respond to hate crimes, and seek creative ways to address the roots of intolerance and discrimination through education and other means.
Monitor and report on hate crimes. Governments should maintain official systems of monitoring and public reporting to provide accurate data for informed policy decisions to combat violent hate crimes. Such systems should include anonymous and disaggregated information on bias motivations and/or victim groups, and should monitor incidents and offenses, as well as prosecutions. Governments should consider establishing third party complaint procedures to encourage greater reporting of hate crimes and conducting periodic hate crime victimization surveys to monitor underreporting by victims and underrecording by police.
Create and strengthen antidiscrimination bodies. Official antidiscrimination and human rights bodies should have the authority to address hate crimes through monitoring, reporting, and assistance to victims.
Reach out to community groups. Governments should conduct outreach and education efforts to communities and civil society groups to reduce fear and assist victims, advance police-community relations, encourage improved reporting of hate crimes to the police and improve the quality of data collection by law enforcement bodies.
Speak out against official intolerance and bigotry. Freedom of speech allows considerable latitude for offensive and hateful speech, but public figures should be held to a higher standard. Members of parliament and local government leaders should be held politically accountable for bigoted words that encourage discrimination and violence and create a climate of fear for minorities.
Encourage international cooperation on hate crimes. Governments should support and strengthen the mandates of intergovernmental organizations that are addressing discrimination—like the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, and the Fundamental Rights Agency—including by encouraging such organizations to raise the capacity of and train police, prosecutors, and judges, as well as other official bodies and civil society groups to combat violent hate crimes. Governments should also provide a detailed accounting on the incidence and nature of hate crimes to these bodies in accordance with relevant commitments.