Human rights news analysis - August/September 2022

Tuesday 26 July 2022

Afghanistan: Global outcry at ‘institutionalised, systemic oppression of women'

Ruth Green, IBA Multimedia Journalist

Ten months after Taliban forces seized Kabul, Afghanistan is still reeling from the chaotic events of last year’s US withdrawal. Afghans now make up one of the world’s largest refugee populations. Almost half of those left behind in the country face acute hunger.

The UN Security Council will debate this week whether to extend travel bans on high-ranking Taliban members in response to the group’s ongoing oppression of women. Since the withdrawal, Taliban leaders have banned women from many areas of employment, reneged on pledges to reopen schools for all girls and re-introduced face veils for women in public settings.

The severity of the situation facing women in Afghanistan is incontrovertible, UN High Commissioner, Michelle Bachelet, told the most recent session of the UN Human Rights Council on 15 June. ‘Let me be clear: what we are witnessing today in Afghanistan is the institutionalised, systematic oppression of women,’ she said. ‘I call on the de facto authorities to honour their commitment to women’s rights, to urgently create a meaningful dialogue with Afghan women, and to listen to their voices.’

Attacks on women have grown exponentially since the Taliban takeover. In January and February 2022, the Armed Conflict Location and Event Project recorded the highest number of incidents of political violence targeting women since it started monitoring the country in 2017. The Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack identified at least 11 reported incidents of attacks against educators in Afghanistan in 2021. Several events, including threats, killings and abductions, specifically targeted female educators or those providing education to girls.

I worry about the brave people – the judges, the interpreters, all the people who were at risk – who were not getting the attention that they deserve because of special treatment being given to a particular group

Lord Peter Goldsmith
UK Attorney General 2001–2007

Lord Peter Goldsmith, who served as the UK's Attorney General from 2001–2007, says he’s appalled by the crackdown on women’s rights since last August. ‘I remember when I was in the Cabinet, one of the things that we thought we were doing was actually protecting women's rights,’ he says. ‘We knew what the problem with the Taliban in Afghanistan was and we thought that was the right thing to be doing. To see the way it's come back, denying education, denying rights, making women – I want to say second-class citizens, but it seems to me it's worse than second class – they really are down the pecking order.’

Federica D’Alessandra, Deputy Director of the Blavatnik School of Government's Institute for Ethics, Law, and Armed Conflict and member of the IBA Human Rights Institute’s Council, says the Taliban’s ongoing efforts to suppress girls’ education should trigger alarm. ‘Depriving Afghan girls of such a sacred right is an unacceptable violation of international law and all states must ensure they pursue all legal and political avenues available to them,’ she says. ‘The international community has both a legal and a moral obligation to stand up for the rights of Afghanistan's women and girls.’

A recent report published by the UK House of Commons’ Foreign Affairs Committee heavily criticised the ‘arbitrary and chaotic approach’ of the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s (FCDO) evacuation in August 2021 and its failure to prioritise women and other vulnerable groups. The report, ‘Missing in action: UK leadership and the withdrawal from Afghanistan’, called on the UK government to ‘commit to a serious strategy for future engagement with Afghanistan.’ It said failure to do so ‘would abandon women and girls in the single biggest reversal of rights in a generation.’

Goldsmith points to concerns raised in the report over the decision-making process for prioritising evacuees, including allegations that the UK Prime Minister himself played a role in ensuring the evacuation of staff and animals from the Kabul-based Nowzad animal charity was prioritised over vulnerable and at-risk groups trying to flee the country.

Goldsmith says the Nowzad case speaks volumes about the UK government’s approach. ‘Resources were being diverted – so now it’s said and it was suspected at the time – to the process of dealing with an animal charity rather than individuals,’ he says. ‘Many people will say animals are just as important as people, but I worry about the brave people – the judges, the interpreters, all the people who were at risk – who were not getting the attention that they deserve because of special treatment being given to a particular group.’

Responses by other global powers have also drawn criticism but Goldsmith believes credit must be given to those, both inside and outside government, who worked tirelessly during the evacuation and in its aftermath. However, the UK’s mishandling of the evacuation will continue to mark a particular stain on its ‘balance sheet of international action’, he says. ‘It was an abdication of the responsibility that the United Kingdom had towards the people who assisted in the work in Afghanistan and an abdication of the responsibility towards people like the brave judges there who've been trying to uphold the rule of law.’

A spokesperson for the FCDO says that over 15,000 people were evacuated from Afghanistan as part of Operation Pitting in August 2021. ‘We carried out a thorough review to learn lessons from our withdrawal from Afghanistan and have drawn on many of the findings in our response to the conflict in Ukraine, including introducing new systems for managing correspondence and increasing senior oversight of our operational and diplomatic response,’ said the spokesperson. The FCDO denies allegations of the Prime Minister’s involvement in authorising any individual evacuations last August.

A Home Office spokesperson confirmed that around 4,000 individuals from Afghanistan have been brought safely to the UK since last August. The government says it is already working with over 300 local authorities across the country to house the individuals. Since June 2021, over 6,000 people have been moved or are in the process of moving into homes.

The Home Office says the Afghan Citizens’ Resettlement Scheme (ACRS), which replaced the previous Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy scheme in January, will provide up to 20,000 Afghan women, children and others at risk with safe and legal routes to resettle in the UK.

Image credit: timsimages.uk/Adobe Stock


New IBA podcasts include spotlight on SLAPPs and interview with Martyn Day

The IBA has recently published three Global Insight podcasts. The first, SLAPPs – Lawfare against justice, explores growing concerns over the use of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), an intimidation tool frequently used to silence journalists, activists, critics and other public watchdogs. Discussing the issues are Gill Phillips, Director of Editorial Legal Services at The Guardian; Charlie Holt, legal counsel at Greenpeace International; and Dario Milo, a media law expert at Webber Wentzel in Johannesburg.

The second, Abortion rights: the fall of Roe, was released shortly after the US Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion in the case Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Now, states will be able to restrict and ban abortion at any point during pregnancy.

When the majority opinion in the case was leaked in May, Global Insight spoke to four experts about the impact of the decision and its wider repercussions. Speaking on the podcast are Risa Kaufman, Director of US Human Rights, Center for Reproductive Rights; Akila Radhakrishnan, President, Global Justice Center; Mark Stephens CBE, Co-Chair, IBA Human Rights Institute; and Matt Kaiser, Vice-Chair, IBA Criminal Law Committee, and a partner at KaiserDillion.

The third podcast is an interview with Martyn Day, co-founder of the law firm Leigh Day, who reflects on some of his most important cases. These include taking on the UK Ministry of Defence over allegations of British Army mistreatment of civilians and detainees. He also discusses environmental and corporate accountability issues, as well as addressing the scrutiny he faced for alleged professional misconduct over the handling of Iraq War Claims – allegations that were ultimately dismissed.

...

Day shares the human stories behind the cases and discusses his drive to hold the powerful to account, explaining why he ‘enjoys the battle’.

Listen to the podcasts here:

SLAPPs – Lawfare against justice, Abortion rights: the fall of Roe and Interview with Martyn Day.


IBAHRI reflects on key takeaways from 50th session of UNHRC 

...

From 11 June – 8 July 2022, the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) participated in the 50th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). Following the UNHRC session, the IBAHRI outlined its contributions, interventions and side events. The IBAHRI conducted interventions in countries including Belarus, Iran and South Sudan and released statements on topics such as sexual orientation and gender identity, freedom of expression and migration and trafficking.

The IBAHRI participated in the Interactive Dialogue with the High Commissioner with an oral intervention calling on the international community to support Ukraine and to coordinate on legal avenues of justice and reparations, including the establishment of an ad hoc tribunal for the crimes of aggression.

The IBAHRI also participated in the urgent debate about the current situation of women in Afghanistan with a statement expressing concerns at the deterioration of the rule of law in the country after the Taliban re-seized power in August 2021. 

In an oral intervention during the Interactive Dialogue with the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, the IBAHRI emphasised increasing and alarming trends towards attacking lawyers and the legal defence and the association of lawyers with their clients or clients’ causes, noting heightened threats where cases were politically sensitive.


eyeWitness file urgent appeal to UN regarding extrajudicial killings in Nigeria

In June, eyeWitness to Atrocities (eyeWitness) and partners filed a joint urgent appeal to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, citing grave concern over a series of killings carried out as part of the ongoing conflict between certain herder and farming communities in Nigeria’s Middle Belt region.

eyeWitness, a project of the IBA, has developed an app that documenters can use to capture potential evidence of crimes in a verifiable format to be sent directly to those investigating the crimes. Footage from the app has been submitted by eyeWitness, in conjunction with the International Committee on Nigeria, Reverend Canon Hassan John and the Bwaatiye Community Development Association. The appeal also includes witness accounts, open-source material and notes from documenters detailing the crimes. With many of the attacks taking place in isolated villages, the app has been invaluable in allowing documenters to collate data despite issues with poor internet and mobile connectivity.

Almost 5,000 photos, videos and audio files have been analysed by eyeWitness’ legal team, and show the indiscriminate murder of civilians including women, children and the elderly. Anna Gallina, eyeWitness’ Associate Legal Adviser, said that ‘the incidents outlined in [the] urgent appeal amount to clear violations of the right to life, protected under the Nigerian constitution and international human rights law’.


IBAHRI: statements on the death penalty

The IBAHRI has released three statements regarding the application of the death penalty in Belarus, Kazakhstan and Myanmar.

The statement on Belarus condemns amendments to the country's Criminal Code that expands the application of the death penalty. The legislative amendments follow a series of non-lethal acts of alleged sabotage on the Belarusian railway to obstruct supplies to Russian forces in Ukraine.

IBAHRI Co-Chair, and Immediate Past Secretary General of the Swedish Bar Association, Anne Ramberg Dr Jur hc, stated: ‘We strongly condemn the amendments to the Criminal Code of Belarus, which extend the imposition of capital punishment to attempted acts of terrorism. International human rights law does not permit the use of the death penalty for non-lethal or vaguely defined crimes.’

The statement on Kazakhstan commends the Republic of Kazakhstan for its ratification of the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR-OP2), which aims at the abolition of the death penalty without reservation. This entered into force on 24 June 2022 and effectively abolishes the use of the death penalty in the country.

Mark Stephens CBE, IBAHRI Co-Chair commented: ‘The IBAHRI welcomes Kazakhstan’s decision to fully abolish the capital punishment. There are several reasons for abolition including that when wrongful convictions occur, they cannot be reversed.’

In a statement on Myanmar, the IBAHRI condemns the rise in death sentences in the country following the February 2021 military coup and a recent junta announcement. In this statement, the junta announced that it will execute four people, including two prominent opponents of the regime: former opposition lawmaker Phyo Zeya Thaw and activist Kyaw Min Yu, known as ‘Ko Jimmy’. The military has charged them with treason and terrorism and sentenced them to death following closed-door military trials. Since the coup, military tribunals have reportedly sentenced 114 people to death under martial law, including 41 in absentia.


IBA calls for investigation of North Korea’s Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un 

The IBA War Crimes Committee and the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea (HRNK) have published a new report, ‘Inquiry on Crimes Against Humanity in North Korean Detention Centers’. The report is a result of a multi-year inquiry and was launched on 27 June at a hybrid in-person/online event.

This report found there is reasonable basis to conclude that Supreme Leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-un, and other North Korean officials should be investigated for crimes against humanity committed in the country’s detention centres.

The report follows a hearing on 4 March 2022, during which four renowned international judges – Navanethem ‘Navi’ Pillay from South Africa, Dame Silvia Cartwright from New Zealand, Silvia Fernandez from Argentina, and Wolfgang Schomburg from Germany – heard in-person testimony from North Korean experts. Their testimony included accounts of the relentless persecution and murder of Christians, summary executions, rape, forced abortions and infanticide. A sworn affidavit from Tae Yong-ho, former Deputy Ambassador of North Korea to the United Kingdom and one of the country’s highest-ranking defectors, informed the report alongside that of 25 North Korean escapees.

Those potentially liable for crimes against humanity, as referenced in the report, include Kim Jong-un at the apex of the North Korean regime, as well as high-level officials and lower-level guards.

Read the report.

...

IBAHRI urges UK government to apply Magnitsky Sanctions against Sudan coup leaders  

The IBAHRI has called for the UK’s All-Party Parliamentary Group on Magnitsky Sanctions to apply targeted sanctions against General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (known as ‘Hemedti’) in Sudan.

The IBAHRI’s call for sanctions under the UK’s Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020 follows reports of the killing of at least 100 protesters and allegations of sustained human rights violations in Sudan since the military coup of October 2021.

General al-Burhan is the Commander-in-Chief of the Sudanese Armed Forces and de facto head of the caretaker government, while Hemedti leads the Rapid Support Forces, a paramilitary group.

An IBAHRI briefing submitted to the Parliamentary Group includes details of General al-Burhan’s dissolution of Sudan’s government, imposing a state of emergency, alongside subsequent allegations that include widespread violence against civilians.

Anne Ramberg, Co-Chair of the IBAHRI, says that ‘we must go beyond rhetoric in demonstrating our support to those exercising their right to self-determination’.

Read the full news release.

Right to protest: UK reintroduces controversial policing proposals

Joanne Harris

The UK government used the Queen’s Speech in May to reintroduce a number of measures intended to police disruptive protests, via a new Public Order Bill.

The measures were initially part of the UK Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts (PCSC) Bill. However, earlier this year the House of Lords succeeded in significantly watering down that legislation. The Lords objected particularly to proposals including prison sentences for protestors ‘locking on’ to structures and ‘serious disruption prevention orders’ designed to stop those previously convicted of a protest-related offence from carrying out another.

As these elements had not been debated in the Commons, they were thrown out – although the bulk of the PCSC Act received Royal Assent in late April.

During the Bill’s second reading in the House of Commons, the UK Home Secretary Priti Patel said it was necessary legislation to take pressure off the police and reduce rising spending on policing protests.

The Public Order Bill re-introduces the criminal offence of locking on to other people, objects or buildings; introduces a new criminal offence of obstructing major transport works and ‘key national infrastructure’, including airports, railways, printing presses, and oil and gas infrastructure; extends stop-and-search powers for police to search for and seize articles suspected to be used for protest-related offences; and brings back the concept of serious disruption prevention orders.

‘The worrying thing is the fact that it’s gone through, been kicked out and is going through again [which] is probably a sign that they’re determined to push it through,’ says Tom Wainwright, a barrister at Garden Court Chambers and a specialist in protest law. He describes the legislation as ‘draconian’.

A Home Office spokesperson told Global Insight that the Bill will ‘stop significant disruption caused by a small minority of protestors who relentlessly interfere with national infrastructure and cause misery to law-abiding members of the public.’

‘The Bill backs the police to prevent such disruption happening in the first place, instead of being torn away from their communities where they are needed to prevent serious violence and neighbourhood crime,’ added the spokesperson.

The Bill will deter the ordinary punter from going on a protest, not deal with the issues that the government purport to be worried about

Raj Chada
Head of Criminal Defence, Financial Crime and Regulatory, Hodge Jones & Allen

Mark Stephens, Co-Chair of the IBA’s Human Rights Institute, says ‘It’s difficult to see how this Bill is compliant with basic human rights standards.’

He adds that governments need ‘really good, compelling reasons’ to limit the right to protest.

‘Disruption isn’t a reason, because the whole point of protests is to disrupt and to make your point peacefully,’ he says.

Human rights and protest lawyers say the Bill is likely to contravene Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) – namely, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and association.

The UK government acknowledges that the proposed legislation does cross over with the ECHR, but says the Bill is pursuing ‘various legitimate aims’, including preventing disorder and crime, which are necessary in a democratic society.

The charity Justice, which opposes the Bill in its entirety, said it would give the police ‘carte blanche’ to target protestors, who could find themselves targeted in a similar way to how protesters are targeted by authorities in Russia and Belarus.

The proposals have been made after several years of rising levels of disruptive protests in the UK, particularly by the environmental groups Extinction Rebellion (XR) and Insulate Britain. The latter hit the headlines last year when they blocked motorways and major London streets to highlight the need to insulate Britain’s homes.

Five Insulate Britain protestors were jailed after breaching injunctions intended to stop them from protesting. Meanwhile, hundreds of others are awaiting their day in court.

Raj Chada, Head of Criminal Defence, Financial Crime and Regulatory at Hodge Jones & Allen, says the number of prosecutions for protest-related offences at present is ‘beyond anything I’ve seen in the last 15 years’, with courtrooms being set aside specifically to hear them.

Chada says that should the Bill become law, the number of cases needing to be heard will just rise. He and Wainwright also note that the fact many protestors are already facing charges means the police already have ways of targeting protests – a point echoed by the Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper when the Bill was read a second time.

Human rights experts say the proposals will not achieve the aim of ending disruptive protests, either.

‘I don’t think it will stop the committed activist. They conduct actions well aware of what the potential risks may be but believe their action is justified,’ says Chada.

‘What it will stop is those who go to the occasional protest. It will deter the ordinary punter from going on a protest, not deal with the issues that the government purport to be worried about,’ he continues.

Stephens agrees, and says that restricting disruptive but peaceful demonstrations will make committed activists think that the only possible next step would be violent protests.

‘What the government are trying to do is effectively turn protestors into criminals or terrorists,’ he adds. ‘Much of the legislation is based on terrorism law; that’s not a useful template.’

If the Bill becomes law, the challenge of handling its effects will be picked up by the court system. Previous cases have debated the right of disruptive protest – some finding for the protestors, some not.

‘The courts will have to balance a welter of case law that talks about how to deal with protestors with legislation introduced by this government that says you should be tougher,’ Chada says.

At this point, the Bill looks likely to succeed, having passed the second reading stage in late May.

Wainwright says that Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights may be able to force through some changes. But he adds that ‘The problem is with this government is that they don’t listen to the HR committee, they don’t particularly listen to views expressed in protest.’