Impunity Watch: North America

Man Arrested in Canada for War Crimes

2009-11-08T23:39:47-05:00

By William Miller

Impunity watch reporter, North America

ONTERIO Canada - Jacques Mungwarere was arrested on Friday November 6th and has been charged with violation of Canada’s War Crimes Act. He was arraigned on Saturday in federal court. Mungwarere is the second person to be charged with violating the law since it came into effect.

Mungwarere was charged under the act for his participation in the 1994 genocide of the Tutsi tribe in Rawanda. Police began there investigation when they received a tip from a concerned citizen. Police did not release any information about the person who told them Mungwarere was in Canada or whether the informant was in Canada or in Rwanda.

In a six year long investigation the police interviewed people from Canada, the United States, and Rwanda. Canadian authorities made four trips to Rwanda during the investigation. "We've received very good co-operation from the government of Rwanda, which has provided logistical support particularly in locating witnesses," said Royal Canadian Police Sergeant Menard. "The government of Rwanda did not impede nor did it attempt to influence our investigation."

Menard would not give much information about Mungwarere’s crimes or his status as a citizen. "I can only say that he is a Rwandan national," said Menard. Little has been released about the details of his crimes other that he is being charged for action during the 1994 genocide in Kibuye

Kibuye is a town in Rwanda located near the border between Rwanda and the Congo. Kibuye was not immune from the violence that occurred in 1994 genocide. In 1994 bulldozers knocked down a church killing 2000 Tutsi who were seeking refuge inside.

Menard hinted that there may be a connection between Mungwarere and Desire Munyasa the first person to be tried under the Canadian War Crimes Act. Munyasa was sentenced to life in prison last month after being convicted of seven crimes including murder, rape, and torture. Munyasa was in a different region of Rwanda when he committed his crimes.

The Canadian war crimes act came into effect in 2000. A universal jurisdiction clause allows Canada to charge people under the act for crimes committed in Rwanda. The 1994 genocide there claimed the lives of some 800,000 Tutsi and Hutu moderates. Ron Charlebois, who heads the RCMP's War Crimes division, said "Persons who commit such heinous crimes are not welcome to Canada. We will do everything within our ability, with the resources allocated to us, to ensure that such persons do not enjoy impunity here."

For more information Please See:

Ottawa Citizen - Windsor Man Faces Genocide Charge - 8 November 2009

AFP - Canadian Police Arrest Rwandan Immigrant, Allege Genocide - 7 November 2009

The Canadian Press - RCMP Arrest and Charge Rwandan War Criminal After 6 Year Probe - 7 November 2009

Mexico Charged with Violations of the American Convention for Human Rights

2009-11-06T17:47:24-05:00

By Brenda López Romero
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

Ricardo Ucan Seca (PHOTO: Diario de Yucatan)

YUCATAN, Mexico – Litigators, Raul Lugo Rodríguez and Jorge Fernandez, from the Indigenous Group insist that Ricardo Ucan Seca’s fundamental human rights were violated because he was not provided with defense counsel that spoke in his Indigenous Mayan language during Ucan Seca’s trial. Ucan Seca has been detained in the Social Rehabilitation Center of Merida since 2000. Ucan Seca filed a complaint with the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR) against the Mexican State alleging violations to the American Convention for Human Rights.

The State of Yucatan argued to the IACHR that fourteen judges, both state and federal, determined that Ucan Seca is guilty of Bernardino Chan’s homicide. However, in 2007, the Commission on Human Rights for the State of Yucatan identified irregularities by the defense counsel, Blanca Segovia Ruiz, in Ucan Seca’s trial.

The Honorable Florentín Meléndez of IACHR asked the State to provide documentation to prove that the defense counsel was able to speak Maya when the defense counsel litigated Ucan Seca’s defense. IACHR also requested more evidence of the due process procedures when Ucan Seca was determined guilty by the trial court.

Alejandro Negrin, Executive Director of the Council on Human Rights in Mexico, sought to become a mediator between the State and Ucan Seca, to bring a quicker resolution to the matter since Ucan Seca has been imprisoned for the last ten years. Nonetheless, Negrin testified to IACHR that in Ucan Seca’s case there was compliance with the American Convention for Human Rights and there were no rights violated.

For more information, please see:

Diario de Yucatán - Discrimina el Estado al pueblo – 6 November 2009

Tribuna - Ratifica Gobierno condena a indígena – 6 November 2009

Terra - Gobierno mexicano accede a buscar solución en caso debido proceso a indígena – 5 November 2009

Supreme Court to Hear Case About Juvenile Life Sentence

2009-11-05T20:38:00-05:00

By Stephen Kopko

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, D.C., United States - On November 12, the United States Supreme Court will hear two cases on the issue of whether a juvenile can be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Advocates for the defendants argue that sentencing a juvenile to life in prison without parole violates the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

The two cases the Supreme Court will hear originated in Florida. In Sullivan v. Florida, a thirteen year old was convicted of of armed robbery and rape. In Graham v. Florida, a seventeen year old was convicted of armed robbery. Both defendants had previous prior criminal records at the time they committed their crimes. They were both sentenced to life in prison without parole because of the seriousness of their offenses. Neither of the crimes resulted in death. Florida currently incarcerates seventy-seven out of the one hundred eleven juveniles sentenced to life in prison without parole in the United States for crimes that did not result in death.

Sullivan (left) in 2007 when he was wheelchair-bound at age thirty-one with multiple sclerosis, and Graham (right) in 2002 when he was sixteen-years-old.

Advocates for both Sullivan and Graham will argue that a life sentence without parole for a juvenile convicted of a non-homicidal crime is cruel and unusual punishment. Only ten other countries in the world allow juveniles to be sentenced to life in prison without parole. Only the U.S. and Somalia have not signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which bans the sentence of life imprisonment without parole for children. The attorneys for both defendants also will use scientific and psychological information to show the sentence violates the Eighth Amendment. According to one study, for instance, adolescents and children are more susceptible to peer pressure and focused on short term rewards. Therefore, they should not be subject to the same sentences as adults.

Those arguing against Sullivan and Graham state that the sentences they received may have been harsh but were constitutional. They argue that the sentence is an "essential crime fighting tool" because of the high crime rates of juveniles. For example, according to a 2002 World Health Organization survey, the number of murders committed by U.S. juveniles was comparable to Colombia and Mexico. Supporters of the sentence also argue that it is needed to hold those who committed the crimes responsible.

For more information, please see:

Baltimore Sun - Throwing Away the Key - 4 November 2009

Newsweek - 18 And a Life to Go - 4 November 2009

Washington Post - Supreme Court Will Consider Life Sentences for Juveniles - 29 October 2009

Human Rights Commission Investigates Homicides in Mexico

2009-11-04T22:15:17-05:00

By Brenda López Romero
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

Auntuna Garcia's body (PHOTO: El Universal)

DURANGO, México – Durango Governor Ismael Hernandez Deras has just issued a statement that journalist Bladimir Auntuna Garcia’s killing will be investigated by the Special District Attorneys Office against Aggression to Journalists. The Governor lamented the journalist's death and said that the state government would fully support an investigation of the homicide. Hernandez Deras committed himself to follow up on the results from the DA’s investigation.

Gabriela Gallegos Ávila, President of the World Association for Women Journalists expressed concerns that there was no guarantee that the government would do its job, properly investigate, and bring justice to Auntuna Garcia. Further, Gallegos Avila is worried about the safety of journalists to practice in their fields.

Within the last year alone there have been four journalist homicides in Durango and only two of them have been resolved. In the Tiempo de Durango, a group of communications specialists wrote a joint article to condemn the homicides and to demand the government fully investigate and resolve the murders and safety issues.

Local print, radio, and television reporters agree that the message of Auntuna Garcia’s death is to induce intimidation for journalists in Durango. There was a police leak that the deceased journalist wrote a message before his killing that stated: “this happened for passing information to the military and writing about more than I should, take care of what you write, and do not pass information to anyone or what happens to me can happen to you. Sincerely Bladimir Antuna.”

A print reporter indicated that the message was a warning to journalists. He confided that the criminals were reaching their objective: “to terrorize all those that worked in media communications from reporters to directors.”

The National Comisión on Human Rights (NHCR) denounced the violence against reporters in Mexico and demands the government make an efficient investigation. NCHR will conduct its own investigation.

For more information, please see:

El Universal – CNDH dara seguimiento a crimen de periodista de Durango – 4 November 2009

La Jornada - La PGR atraerá el caso del asesinato de Bladimir Antuna – 4 November 2009

Vanguardia - Inicia CNDH queja de oficio por homicidio de un periodista en Durango – 4 November 2009

U.S. Court of Appeals Denies Relief to Torture Victim

2009-11-03T22:47:07-05:00

By Stephen Kopko

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

NEW YORK, United States - The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled on Monday that a Canadian man cannot sue former United States government officials for civil damages. Maher Arar, a Canadian engineer, claimed that he was held in the United States by law enforcement and then transported to Syria where he was tortured.

In 2002, Arar was apprehended at JFK Airport by law enforcement. U.S. and Canadian officials suspected Arar had links to Al Qaeda. He was held in New York for thirteen days and then transported to Syria. Arar was imprisoned in Syria for one year and claimed he was tortured. He was released in 2003 and returned to Canada. The Canadian government later acknowledged they provided the U.S. with faulty information about Arar's links to terrorism. The government also compensated Arar with ten million dollars.

The U.S. used the practice of extraordinary rendition to detain and then to transport Arar to Syria. Extraordinary rendition is the government policy of transporting suspects of terrorism to other countries for detention and interrogation. The suspects are not charged with a crime or provided with a legal hearing. The policy has been used by U.S. intelligence agencies since the mid-1990s. It was employed by the Bush Administration after the September 11, 2001 attacks as a tool to fight the war on terror.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals wrote that questions regarding extraordinary rendition and the remedies that stem from its usage are legislative questions. It also said the separation of powers would be violated if the Court found an appropriate remedy where one did not exist. Further, the Court stated that if it was to ask questions regarding extraordinary rendition, U.S. foreign relations would be compromised and other countries would be less willing to exchange or cooperate in interrogating terrorists.

In his dissent, Judge Barrington Parker countered the majority's separation of powers argument, writing that the judiciary has the power to hear the case and issue a remedy because of the system of checks and balances. Judge Guido Calabresi wrote that the majority's opinion was in "utter subservience to the executive branch."

For more information, please see:

MSNBC - Appeals Court: Detained Canadian Cannot Sue the U.S. - 2 November 2009

New York Times - Federal Appeals Court Rejects Rendition Suit by Maher Arar - 2 November 2009

USA Today - Court: Victims of 'Extraordinary Rendition' Can't Sue U.S. Unless Congress Approves - 2 November 2009

Canada Plans to Cut Down Refugee Acceptance

2009-11-02T16:32:53-05:00

By William Miller

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

OTTAWA, Canada - Canadian Immigration Minister Jason Kenney said that Canada plans to cut the number of people receiving refugee status next year. Specifically, the plan will target those who make their claim for refugee status after entering the country. The plan expects to give refugee status to between nine and twelve thousand people who filed their claim after arriving in Canada. This is less than half of what was expected in 2006.

Canadian Immigration Minister Jason Kenney (PHOTO: National Post)

Kenney, who promised to unveil a plan for reform before Christmas, has long criticized the current refugee system as being inefficient and ripe for abuse. Canada currently spends 29,000 dollars per claimant and had a backlog of 60,000 claims when Kenney made his promise last month.

The process can take up to five years and provides three stages of appeal in federal court. Kenney called this inefficiency "an advertisement for people to come and abuse the system." He has alleged that the system is commonly abused by what he calls “bogus claimants” who come to the country illegally and receive advice from “phony immigration consultants” on how to cheat the system and gain refugee status.

Kenney has criticized the current plans consideration of those who enter the country illegally, saying "We want to ensure that we don't end up with a two-tier immigration system, one tier for legal law-abiding immigrants who wait patiently to come to Canada the legal way, and another that incentizes (sic) false refugee claimants to come through the back door."

The cuts have been met with criticism from those who fear the plan is insensitive to the hardships prospective refugees are looking to escape. Immigration critic Olivia Chow stated: "Beatings, torture, suffering and even deaths will occur and unfortunately many will be turned away. Canada is no longer a land of hope and compassion."

Canada’s current immigration system accepts a great deal of people seeking refugee status, many of whom enter the country illegally before filing their claim. In 2008, Canada accepted 22,000 refugees many of whom had applied after arriving in Canada. In 2006, tolerance for in-country applications peaked in Canada, with an estimate of between 22,500 and 28,800 applications for refugee status from those already in the country. Just last month, on October 17, Canadian authorities stopped seventy-six Tamil refugees trying to enter the country illegally to escape oppression in Sri Lanka. Those men will be able to apply for refugee status despite concerns that there may be members of the Tamil tigers hiding among them. Tamil tigers are a rebel group currently at war with the government in Sri Lanka.

For more information, please see:

Ottawa Citizen - Immigration Minister Jason Kenney Cuts Refugee Targets for 2010 - 2 November 2009

Ottawa Citizen - Would-be Migrants will Face Tough Scrutiny: Kenney - 20 October 2009

National Post - Refugee System Reforms in Works, Kenny Says - 7 October 2009

Canada Calls for UN Inspectors to Focus on Iran

2009-11-01T19:18:00-05:00

By William Miller,

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

OTTAWA, Canada - A Canadian drafted UN resolution released on Thursday, October 29 sharply criticized Iran for their continuing violations of human rights. Canada has proposed such resolutions before but this resolution is the first to criticize UN Special Investigators for their failure investigate Iran’s atrocious human rights violations.

Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon suggested that this resolution will be the strongest Criticism of Iran’s human rights violations drafted by Canada. Cannon has been historically critical of Iran and led a walkout in protest of Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last month at the UN Delegation.

Canada has emerged as the leader in attacking Iran’s human rights violations and have drafted all resolutions criticizing such violations since 2003. In that year, an Iranian born photojournalist named Zahara Kazemi was arrested, tortured and killed in Iran. The Canadian resolutions stemming from this incident have been unanimously supported by the UN despite persistent attacks on procedural grounds by Iran.

The current resolution will be the first one to criticize inspectors by asking them to focus more intensely on Iran. Past resolutions drafted by Canada have called for Iranian cooperation but have fallen short of criticizing inspectors. The draft specifically mentions inspectors who focus their investigations in areas of human rights such as extra-judicial executions, torture, free speech suppression, persecution of human rights activists, arbitrary detention, and enforced disappearances. Iran has issued a standing invitation to such investigators but has consistently ignored attempts by investigators looking to visit the country and has not filled a single request in four years.

UN inspectors are already facing criticism for not focusing their efforts on countries like Iran and instead placing the majority of their attention on developed democracies. Critics say that developed countries already have the systems in place to deal with violations and that countries like Iran, where the inspectors are truly needed, are left unchecked. Inspector Gay MacDougal was mentioned as one of the unnecessary inspectors. MacDougal focuses on minorities and was investigating Canada as the resolution was being finished. So far fifty percent of the countries visited by McDougal have been mature democracies like Canada.

The resolution specifically accuses Iran of "persistent failure to uphold due process of law rights, and violation of rights of detainees, including defendants held without charge or incommunicado, the systematic and arbitrary use of prolonged solitary confinement, and lack of timely access to legal representation." The resolution also alleges increased discrimination against minorities pointing to the 2008 arrest of Bahai religious leaders who are currently still being held. Other specific examples of human rights abuses mentioned in the resolution include flogging, amputation and stoning.

For more information, please see:

National Post - Of Toronto & Tehran - 30 October 2009

Washington TV - Canada Urges UN Investigators to Focus on Rights abuses in Iran - 30 October 2009

Ottawa Citizen - Canada Unveils UN Resolution Blasting Iran’s Rights Record - 29 October 2009

The Vancouver Sun - Canada Tries to Focus UN Spotlight on Iran’s Human Rights Record - 28 October

Honduran Congress to Determine the Return of Deposed President

2009-10-31T18:19:18-04:00

By Brenda Lopez Romero
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras – An accord was reached after several weeks of confrontation and negotiation between deposed President Zelaya and de facto President Micheletti, and Zelaya’s sudden appearance in the Brazilian embassy in Honduras’ capital, where Zelaya continues to be sheltered.

Zelaya inside the Brazilian embassy (PHOTO: BBC News)

The agreement was signed between deposed Zelaya’s team and the four month long interim government. The accord will create a power-sharing government and calls for the recognition of the controversial November presidential poll that lead to the political unease in Honduras.

There was international condemnation and actions when Zelaya was exiled on 28 June 2009 after a successful coup. Micheletti claimed that Zelaya was removed constitutionally after he attempted to amend Honduras’ Constitution to obtain his reelection. The United States government is lifting its sanction and starting to issue visas once more.

Stephen Gibbs with BBC News believes that the Honduran Congress, who originally voted to remove Zelaya from power, will attempt to bring him back. The Congress must review and approve the signed accord. Congress will start its deliberations after the Honduran Supreme Court provides a non-binding advisory opinion on the agreement’s validity.

For more information, please see:

BBC News - Congress Considers Honduras Deal - 31 October 2009

The Associated Press - Pact to Restore Ousted Honduran Leader in Congress – 31 October 2009

The Washington Post - A Win in Honduras - 31 October 2009

Plaintiffs in Suit Against "Redskins" Logo Receive Expert Support

2009-10-30T19:46:03-04:00

By Brenda Lopez Romero
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, D.C., United States – In September, a group of Native American plaintiffs sought a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court to hear their case against the controversial “Redskins” National Football League team and logo. The plaintiffs seek Supreme Court review of a statute of limitations, laches, that the lower court determined barred their suit. The plaintiffs argue that it does not apply in their case, and even if it did there is precedent for overturning the lower court’s decision.

Plaintiff Suzan Shown Harjo (PHOTO: Indian Country Today)

The plaintiffs won support in amicus briefs from renowned research experts in social science fields specializing in stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. They also have wide legal support from social justice advocates and child psychologists from top universities around the country. The amicus brief filed includes scholarly evidence that there is an “extensive and pervasive” public harm by the use of Indian mascots in professional sports. The experts also wrote to the Supreme Court that “social science research shows that the use of ethnic slurs like ‘redskin’ perpetuates harmful stereotypes and leads to discrimination.” The plaintiffs liken the derogatory term “redskins” with the use of “niggers” against African Americans.

"Can You Imagine?" (PHOTO: Blue Corn Comics)

Further, historians noted that the U.S. government used “redskins” in reference to bounties placed on scalped Indian heads. Psychologists add that Indian mascots damage Native American youth’s self-esteem, feelings of community worth, and limit the aspirations of Native American high school and college students.

The social justice advocate stated in their amicus brief that Indian mascots are regressive because they set back equality in American society. They wrote “either a trademark is disparaging or it is not. And if it is, it should not enjoy the perpetual protections of the United States government.”

The National Congress of American Indians and several other Indian advocacy organizations filed a third amicus brief and argued that the Redskins’ trademark is reproachful to all Native American people and should not have become a registered trademark.

The multidisciplinary amicus brief provide ways for the public and the Court to understand the significance of the case. Richard Guest, a legal expert with the Native American Rights Fund stated “it becomes not just a legal argument, but a moral and psychological one, too.”

For more information, please see:

Indian Country Today - Redskins Litigants Win Support from Psychologists, Justice Advocates – 27 October 2009

Indian Country Today - Redskins Litigants Press Supreme Court Action – 23 October 2009

Berlik Law - D.C. Circuit Upholds Redskins Trademark Victory – 18 May 2009

President Obama Signs Hate Crimes Legislation

2009-10-29T15:27:41-04:00

By Stephen Kopko

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON D.C., United States - On Wednesday, US President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Act expanding the number of groups that are protected under federal hate crimes laws. The legislation extends the previous hate crimes law to include those crimes committed against people because of their gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. It also allows the Justice Department to take control of an investigation if a state fails to implement hate crimes legislation.

The first hate crimes bill was passed in 1968 following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. That law made it a federal crime to target individuals because of their race, religion, or ethnicity. Under the law, judges were granted the authority to impose harsher sentences on crimes motivated by racial animus. The legislation also granted authority to the Justice Department to assist local law enforcement in investigating hate crimes.

In 2007 alone, there were 7,624 reported hate crimes, fifty percent of which were based on race and seventeen percent on sexual orientation. The recent legislation signed by Obama was first introduced in 1998. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate passed differing versions of the bill since that time but it never made it to the President's desk for his signature. Obama stated at the signing that after waiting ten years for the legislation, "we've passed inclusive hate crimes legislation to help protect our citizens based on what they look like, who they love, how they pray or who they are."

The legislation is named for two victims of hate crimes. Matthew Shepard was a gay college student who was murdered and tied to a fence because of his sexual orientation. James Byrd was an African American who was chained to a pickup truck and dragged to death because of his race. The families of both victims were in attendance at the historic signing of the law.

Critics of the legislation believe that it is usurping the power of the states to implement and prosecute violators of their own criminal laws. Forty-five states have hate crimes laws that impose harsher penalties for violators. Proponents of the legislation argue that the expansion of the federal law actually enables states to implement and prosecute their own hate crimes laws and assists those states with limited resources to investigate hates crimes. Judy Shepard, mother of Matthew Shepard, stated that hate crimes legislation provides solace for those minority groups concerned that their government would not provide appropriate protection against bigotry.

For more information, please see:

AP - Obama Hails Expansion of Hate Crimes Legislation - 29 October 2009

Baltimore Sun - A Blow Against Bias - 29 October 2009

Washington Post - Obama Signs Bill Expanding Hate Protection to Gays - 29 October 2009