Subscribe: Untitled
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
france  french  human rights  human  international  police  rights watch  rights  schools  state emergency  state  watch   
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Untitled

Human Rights Watch - Defending Human Rights Worldwide


Protecting Schools from Military Use

Monday, March 20, 2017 - 00:01

Introduction This report collects recent and historic examples of laws, court decisions, military orders, policies, and practice by governments, armed forces, non-state armed groups, and courts aimed at protecting schools and universities from use for military purposes. The examples in this report of law, policy, and doctrine protecting schools and universities from military use should encourage more governments and non-state groups to adopt their own concrete measures to protect students, educators, and the institutions in which they study. width="640" height="360" src="//" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen> Since 2007, the military use of schools or universities has been documented in at least 29 countries with armed conflict or insecurity. Since 2007, the military use of schools or universities has been documented in at least 29 countries with armed conflict or insecurity, according to the Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack, of which Human Rights Watch is a member. That number represents the majority of countries experiencing armed conflict during the past decade. Examples can be found in Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. The military use of schools is therefore a global problem, needing international attention and response. Schools and universities have been taken over either partially or entirely to be converted into military bases and barracks; used as detention and interrogation facilities; for training fighters; and to store or hide weapons and ammunition. Human Rights Watch has investigated the military use of schools in Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic, India, Iraq, Pakistan, Palestine, the Philippines, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria, Thailand, Ukraine, and Yemen. Further information on our research can be found in the annex of this report. Our research has documented how the use of schools for military purposes endangers students’ and teachers’ safety, and can interfere with students’ right to education. *** Protections for education from military interference date back at least to Roman times when Emperor Constantine proclaimed that all professors of literature must be free from the obligation to accommodate or quarter soldiers in order that “they may more easily train many persons in the liberal arts.” For more on historical protections, see chapter 3. 1935: The Roerich Pact between various countries in the Americas states that educational institutions “shall be considered as neutral and as such respected and protected by belligerents.” 1948: The United Nations General Assembly adopts the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, consisting of 30 articles, including that “everyone has the right to an education.” In the following decades, various international and regional treaties and declarations repeat and elaborate on this core right. 1949: The Fourth Geneva Convention lays out protections for civilians during armed conflict, including that    an occupying power—a military force controlling the territory of another country—“shall, with the cooperation of the national and local authorities, facilitate the proper working of all institutions devoted to the care and education of children.” The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), which promotes respect for international humanitarian law and its implementation in national law, has elaborated that this requirement is “very general in scope,” and that occupying authorities “are bound not only to avoid interfering with [the] activities [of schools], but also to support them actively… The Occupying Power must therefore refrain from requisitioning staff, prem[...]

France: Put Rights at Heart of Presidential Campaign

Friday, March 17, 2017 - 03:00

(Paris) – Human Rights Watch has sent 11 key questions about human rights that France’s next president will face to all candidates for the May 2017 presidential election. At a time when universal human rights and the principles of the rule of law are under attack around the world, including in France and other European countries, this initiative aims to encourage candidates to make their positions and policies known to voters on crucial issues. #UrgenceDroitsHumains 11 questions to the candidates for human rights to be at the heart of the presidential campaign. Learn more (in French) Human rights issues have been virtually invisible in the French presidential campaign, but are essential for the country’s future, both in terms of national policy and diplomacy, Human Rights Watch said. “The next president of the French Republic will need to be a guardian of the founding values of democracy and the rule of law, for everyone living on French territory and for France’s relations with other countries,” said Bénédicte Jeannerod, France director at Human Rights Watch. “French voters deserve to know whether those who seek the nation’s highest office are committed to those values and how they intend to defend them.” The questionnaire is divided into four subthemes: human rights in France, Europe, and the rest of the world, and international justice. The first theme covers the protection of fundamental rights and individual freedoms in France while combatting terrorism; the need to tackle racially biased police identity checks; and the protection of the right to asylum. The second addresses France’s role in defending human rights and the rule of law in Europe. The third section addresses the conflict in Syria; the place of human rights in France’s relations with Russia, the United States, and China; the sales of French arms to Saudi Arabia in the context of violations of international humanitarian law by Saudi Arabia in Yemen; and external military interventions of France in the Sahel region. The final section addresses the fight against impunity and international justice. The answers should help give voters a sense of the candidates’ commitment to preserve human rights in their national and international policies, Human Rights Watch said. These commitments will be especially important in a global context of rising nationalism and xenophobia, repression of nongovernmental groups, and large-scale abuses in conflict areas. Related Content Questions to the French presidential candidates The topics covered in the questionnaire are at the heart of Human Rights Watch’s work. The questions are published on a dedicated page (in French) and sent to the candidates through social media via the #UrgenceDroitsHumains (#HumanRightsEmergency) campaign. Candidates’ responses will be made public before the first round of the presidential election.     Here are the 11 questions that Human Rights Watch asked the candidates: When you are president, Will you defend universal human rights values in your national and international policies, in a context of xenophobia, rejection of foreigners and rise of national extremism? In France 1.     Identity checks and police violence  Will you undertake a reform of identity checks and introduce systematic recording of police stops, to fight ethnic profiling by police forces in France? 2.     Counterterrorism What strategy will you implement to lead France out of the state of emergency in place since November 2015, and to ensure respect for fundamental freedoms and the rule of law while combating terrorism? 3.     Asylum How will you ensure that France shows greater leadership within the European Unio[...]

France Should Face up to Azerbaijan’s Rights Record

Tuesday, March 14, 2017 - 06:19

In Paris this week on an official visit, Azerbaijan’s autocratic President Ilham Aliyev has already scored one photo op. Anyone reading yesterday’s Azeri media could see dozens of photos of Aliyev posing with leaders of top French companies, including Airbus, Suez, and Credit Agricole. Expand Azerbaijan's President Ilham Aliyev (L) shakes hands with his French counterpart Francois Hollande as they visit a local French school under construction in Baku, May 11, 2014. © 2014 Reuters Today, President Hollande will receive President Aliyev and host an official dinner at Palais de l’Elysee. Again, Parisian photo ops abound. But amid the flashing cameras, one has to wonder where Azerbaijan’s repression of critics and the jailing of opponents fits in the new relationship between Paris and Baku? In the past few years, Azerbaijani authorities have aggressively gone after the country’s once vibrant civil society, jailing dozens of activists, journalists, and political opponents. It also adopted draconian legislation making it virtually impossible for independent non-governmental organizations to operate. One year ago, as Azerbaijan’s economy started to suffer from falling oil prices, several of those detained on political grounds were released. That was an important first step, but hopes for progress were short-lived. Many of those released face travel bans or obstacles to their activities. Dozens are still locked up on political grounds, including opposition activist Ilgar Mammadov, despite repeated calls by the Strasbourg-based Council of Europe for his immediate release. And more activists have been thrown in jail. Recently, one of the country’s most popular journalists and bloggers, Mehman Huseynov, was sentenced to two years in prison for allegedly defaming the police, in response to his brave public denouncement of the police abuses he suffered. When visiting Paris, Brussels, or other European capitals, President Aliyev hopes to get more business opportunities and investment in Azerbaijan. But he prefers to ignore that the people of Azerbaijan want human rights protections, transparency, and good governance. Those standing up for these values are routinely exposed to attacks and harassment. Yet what more clear message that Azerbaijan’s crackdown cannot be ignored by potential investors than last week’s decision by the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), an international coalition promoting better governance of resource-rich countries, to suspend Azerbaijan – precisely because of its actions against civil society. President Hollande should reject a narrative that only finance and economy matter in Azerbaijan. Human rights should be as central to France’s foreign policy as other topics. Hollande should publicly call for the release of Ilgar Mammadov and all those detained in retaliation for their activism and criticism. A failure to explicitly support human rights principles would be the worst message to those unjustly waiting behind bars. [...]

Breaking France’s Addiction to its State of Emergency

Monday, March 13, 2017 - 06:01

Like an addict, France does not know how to quit its state of emergency even though it has become clear that maintaining it erodes the rule of law and fosters human rights abuses while not keeping the country safer. The February 22 report by the parliamentary commission tasked with monitoring the state of emergency provided yet another reminder that it no longer serves any meaningful purpose. Expand French police and anti-crime brigade (BAC) secure a street they carried out a counter-terrorism swoop at different locations in Argenteuil, a suburb north of Paris, France, July 21, 2016. REUTERS/Charles Platiau The commission president, Dominique Raimbourg, from the governing Socialist Party, noted that activity under the state of emergency has been “greatly reduced” since the last extension. His fellow commission member, Jean-Frédéric Poisson, from the main opposition party Les Republicains, noted that “time that passes erodes the efficiency and nature of the state of emergency.” A French commission of inquiry into the Paris attacks had already concluded back in July 2016 that  the state of emergency had “limited impact” on improving security and any effect it may have had “quickly dissipated.” Human Rights Watch’s own research has found repeated abuses against ordinary people during policing operations under emergency powers. So why is France maintaining the state of emergency despite repeated warnings by its own oversight mechanisms? It is mainly due to confusion by politicians about the purpose of a state of emergency. Many have said that it is justified by an ongoing terrorist risk. This was clearly displayed in December 2016 when Interior Minister Bruno Le Roux justified his request for a fifth extension by saying that “the terrorist threat was at its highest.” Under this reasoning, a state of emergency is needed as long as there is a high security risk. This reasoning is dangerous on many levels. By suggesting that regular laws, procedures, and oversight mechanisms are not sufficient to counter threats, it weakens the premise of the rule of law and relegates it to a luxury for “normal” times. But it also sets the stage for the trap in which France finds itself. French leaders have implied that they will only lift the state of emergency when the security risk has subsided but since they can’t predict the risk of future terrorist attacks, they prefer to maintain it rather than pay a political price if a subsequent attack takes place. So lifting the state of emergency becomes less dependent on security considerations and more on political calculations. This would explain why France’s latest extension was driven by the electoral calendar, punting the issue to the next president and legislature. Call it political procrastination, or perhaps more aptly, political cowardice. This disconnect between its initial purpose and current raison d’être was captured nicely by Sébastien Pietrasanta, a parliamentarian and rapporteur for the commission investigating the state’s response to the November 2015 attacks, who recently noted that “the effect of the state of emergency is fading and yet we extend it…even though the link with terrorism is quite tenuous.” I have seen this logic at play in the Middle East. Egypt and Syria, countries I have worked on for years, maintained their states of emergency for 31 and 48 years respectively. Every time the state of emergency was up for renewal, the country’s rulers argued that the risk was still there or that the timing was not right to lift it. France is not a tin-pot autocracy and its rulers are not despots, but there is a cautionary tale in these experiences. It is time to reframe the debate in France. A continuing state of emergency should not be dependent on the existence of risk – an exogenous measure that cannot [...]

Iraq: Displacement, Detention of Suspected “ISIS Families”

Sunday, March 5, 2017 - 00:00

(Erbil) – Iraqi forces have forcibly displaced at least 125 families said to have familial ties to affiliates of the Islamic State (also known as ISIS), Human Rights Watch said today. Sunni tribal groups (known as the Hashad al-Asha'ri), within the Popular Mobilization Forces (known as the PMF or Hashd al-Sha'abi), which are under the control of Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, and Iraqi soldiers forced the families out of their homes following the passage of a decree issued by local authorities. The families, all from Salah al-Din governorate, are being held against their will in a camp functioning as an open-air prison near Tikrit. The PMF also destroyed some of the families’ homes. “While politicians in Baghdad are discussing reconciliation efforts in Iraq, the state’s own forces are undermining those efforts by destroying homes and forcing families into a detention camp,” said Lama Fakih, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “These families, accused of wrongdoing by association, are in many cases themselves victims of ISIS abuses and should be protected by government forces, not targeted for retribution.” width="640" height="360" src="//" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen> Iraqi forces have forcibly displaced at least 125 families said to have familial ties to affiliates of the Islamic State (also known as ISIS).  In August 2016, the Salah al-Din governorate council passed a decree stating that anyone proven to have been complicit or affiliated with ISIS has no right to return to the governorate. The decree also orders the expulsion of immediate relatives of ISIS-members from Salah al-Din for 10 years to life, and says that they are only allowed to return if they are deemed “safe.” The decree establishes a committee to seize ISIS-affiliates’ property and suspend their, and their families,’ provision cards. Families that kill their ISIS-affiliated relatives, or hand them over to the Iraqi authorities, are exempted. One woman from al-Shakrah village, three kilometers south of al-Shirqat, said that PMF fighters forced her and her relatives from their home on January 7, 2017, because her husband’s brother had joined ISIS. She said that the fighters “forced our whole family of 14 people out and onto the truck. They didn’t let us grab even a change of clothing.” Two women from the village of al-Aithah said that local PMF forces destroyed hundreds of homes with explosives after they retook the area on September 21, targeting not only some of the families they thought to be affiliated with ISIS, but also some families that had fled because of the fighting. Satellite imagery reviewed by Human Rights Watch showed that between September 23 and October 23, 220 homes in the village were destroyed by explosives and fire. View All Share Satellite imagery shows the village of al-Aithah, outside Tikrit, Iraq, before and after the destruction caused by the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF).  Before: © 2017 DigitalGlobe After: © 2017 DigitalGlobe Under the laws of war, parties to a conflict may only attack military objectives. The intentional or wanton destruction of civilian property is unlawful unless the property is being used for a military purpose. Destroying property merely to punish the population is always prohibited. Iraqi federal authorities should investigate any intentio[...]

Urgent Action Needed on Ethnic Profiling in Police Checks in France

Tuesday, February 28, 2017 - 09:01

Almost a month later, the shock and indignation over the brutal violence suffered by a young Black man named Théo at the hands of policemen during an identity check in Aulnay-sous-Bois have not died down. Four policemen have been charged: three of them with assault, the fourth with rape. Expand Police officers perform an identity check and body pat-down of a young man in Paris, France on June 6, 2011. © 2011 Ludovic/Rea/Redux The incident has encouraged other victims of police abuse to come forward and share their experience with the media. It has also drawn attention to an ongoing trial about police violence against another young man, Alexandre, during a police stop in Drancy in 2015. On February 20, the Bobigny Correctional Tribunal asked for the case to be tried in Assize criminal court and for the policeman on trial to be charged with rape rather than aggravated assault. The Bobigny Public Prosecutor’s office opposed revising the charges: the Appeals court of Paris must now rule on the proceedings. The violence against Théo, who lives in the Paris suburbs, has revived the debate on police identity checks that are carried out in a discriminatory and abusive manner against a part of the population. This is not a new phenomenon – it has been extensively documented. For decades, it has been damaging the trust between French youth and the authorities. In 2009, the National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) and Open Society jointly carried out the first scientific study on ethnic profiling by French law enforcement. In 2012, Human Rights Watch showed, in its own investigation, the extent to which recurrent and abusive identity checks targeting minority youth were a significant source of humiliation. In November 2016, the National Consultative Commission on Human Rights (CNCDH) concluded in an opinion that “a body of concurring studies has brought to light the overrepresentation in police stops of young men belonging to visible minorities.” On January 20, 2017, a few days before the assault on Théo, the French Ombudsman once again drew attention to this pervasive phenomenon. His conclusions are enlightening: men between the ages of 18 and 25 who are perceived as black or Arab-North African are 20 times more likely to be stopped by the police than members of the general population. In their case, more than in others, stops are characterized by insults, the use of “tu” (a familiar form of address) and brutality. In a country where equality is one of the three pillars of the Republic, a part of the population feels discriminated against and excluded from society. To do nothing in the face of such a situation is disgraceful and counterproductive. At a time when the issue of security is on everyone’s mind, all citizens, without exception, should be able to feel that police officers are there to keep them safe. For many years, French activists, outraged by this situation, have protested the discriminatory practices of some policemen. Politicians and policymakers should listen to these calls and take action at last, instead of falling back on declarations or symbolic gestures – like President Francois Hollande’s visit to Théo in the hospital. It shouldn’t require a tragedy to reopen the debate on a practice that is perceived as a routine occurrence for so many young men. Tragedies such as the deaths of Zyed and Bouna in 2005, electrocuted as they fled a police stop and hid in an electrical transformer, the death in July 2016 of Adama Traoré as he was taken into police custody, or the alleged rapes of Théo and Alexandre. Yanis, an 18-year old resident of Bobigny, explains it this way: “Théo isn’t one case too many, because this kind of thing happens every day”. Now more than ever, a reform limiting the discretionary power of o[...]

France: Positive Move to Protect Schools

Tuesday, February 21, 2017 - 03:00

(Paris) – French President François Hollande’s announcement on February 21, 2017, that France has endorsed the Safe Schools Declaration is a strong signal to the international community and strengthens the legal protection for children and their education, UNICEF France and Human Rights Watch said today. By endorsing the declaration, a commitment to protect schools in times of conflict, France recognizes the importance of educational institutions to a country’s future. Expand French President François Hollance annonces France's endorsement of the Safe Schools Declaration during the opening of the "Protect Children From War" inter-ministerial Conference co-organized by France and UNICEF in Paris, February 21, 2017. © 2017 Human Rights Watch The decision followed several months of efforts by UNICEF France and Human Rights Watch to raise the French authorities’ awareness of the importance of this declaration to protect children caught up in conflicts. “When troops attack or occupy schools, students and teachers are put in grave danger or are pushed out and deprived of their right to learn,” said Bénédicte Jeannerod, France director at Human Rights Watch. “By upholding its support to this declaration, France can use both its international leadership abilities and its instructions to its own peacekeeping troops to protect students and school staff in conflict zones around the world.” France becomes the 58th country and the first permanent member of the United Nations Security Council to endorse this declaration, opening the way for other countries to do the same. In 2016, Human Rights Watch and UNICEF France carried out communication campaigns to inform and mobilize the general public to support a government move to endorse the declaration. Two films (one by Human Rights Watch and one by UNICEF France) were created and broadcast on social media. width="640" height="360" src="//" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen> Around the world, schools are attacked or being occupied by military forces and armed groups in conflict zones. It endangers the lives of students, their teachers, and denies hundreds of thousands of children their right to education. “Protecting schools can guarantee a better future for a country embroiled in conflict,” said Sébastien Lyon, director of UNICEF France. “Once the fighting is over, having an educated populace and functional education infrastructures can strengthen recovery and rebuilding and improve the chance of keeping the peace.” The announcement of France’s endorsement of this declaration comes at a time when an international conference co-organized by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and UNICEF on protecting children from war is being held in Paris, on February 21. Its aim is to mobilize the attention and efforts of the international community to intensify collective action to prevent and put an end to serious attacks on children in armed conflicts. Currently, one child in 10 lives in a country or zone affected by armed conflict. In recent years, schools have been deliberately attacked in several crises and continue to be occupied, destroyed, and used by armies in conflict zones, depriving many children of their education. Yet, even in conflict, the best interests of the child should be a priority, UNICEF France and Human Rights Watch said. The Safe Schools Declaration is a non-b[...]

How US Intelligence Surveillance May Affect Immigrants

Tuesday, February 21, 2017 - 00:01

Recent reports that the US monitored calls between members of President Trump’s campaign staff and Russian intelligence personnel have renewed controversy about the surveillance powers of the National Security Agency (NSA) and Federal Bureau of Intelligence (FBI), and how those bodies handle the information they collect. But anyone concerned about the scope or legality of the US government’s warrantless intelligence surveillance should also worry about the way these programs may affect the country’s border and immigrant communities. Expand A general view shows part of the Loma Blanca neighborhood as a section of the border fence marking the boundarie with El Paso, U.S. is seen on the background, in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico January 18, 2017.  © 2017 Reuters The US currently has two main “foreign” surveillance powers it can—in practice—use to obtain and sift through information on people within its borders without a warrant. (We do not yet know whether either of these was the legal basis for intercepting the conversations with Trump’s campaign staff).  The first, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, is scheduled to expire at the end of this year, setting the stage for an intense debate in Congress about reforming surveillance. Under Section 702, the NSA (with telecommunications companies’ help) automatically searches virtually all the Internet communications flowing over the fiber optic cables that connect the US to the rest of the world—a practice known as “upstream” scanning.  As of 2015, 26 percent of people in the United States were first- or second-generation immigrants.  Upstream monitoring, as we currently understand it, means that whenever any of these tens of millions of people—or anyone else in the US—sends an email to a friend or family member in another country, the US government is likely searching those communications to see if they contain e-mail addresses or other “selectors” of interest. This kind of suspicionless, warrantless, disproportionate monitoring violates human rights. In addition to Section 702, Executive Order 12333 allows the NSA and other US agencies to vacuum up the communications of US citizens and lawful permanent residents in the course of foreign surveillance. Leaked documents indicate that pursuant to EO 12333, the US has grabbed records of potentially all telephone calls in countries including Mexico and the Philippines. In other words, if you are in El Paso, Texas and have called your mother in Juárez, Mexico, US intelligence agencies probably have a record of your call. They can use this data to map social networks—and share it for law enforcement purposes. The US’ vast warrantless surveillance powers are not only an issue for legal wonks or the technically savvy: they may be affecting people and communities throughout the United States and the world. Congress and the judiciary should regard them as direct threats to both US democracy and human rights. [...]

Theresa May Should Come Clean on UK Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia

Wednesday, December 28, 2016 - 00:00

The admission by the UK government that the Saudi-led coalition used UK-made BL-755 cluster munitions during the armed conflict in Yemen, comes months after Amnesty International and British media outlets reported that these weapons had been used in the country. Unexploded remnants of cluster munitions have proved deadly for Yemenis, killing or injuring at least 85 civilians, including children. After 20 months of war, the British government has finally raised the issue with Saudi Arabia, which responded by vowing to stop using this particular weapon in its ongoing Yemen campaign. But the UK's mea culpa doesn't go far enough, especially as UK officials deny another, much larger accusation - the sale of other weapons, including precision-guided munitions, which the Saudis and their allies have used in unlawful strikes against civilians and civilian structures in Yemen. Expand A UK-manufactured bomb struck storage hangars in Hodaida on January 6, 2016. The hangars stored school furniture, car parts, dry and canned food. Two of them contained production workshops for zinc sheeting and metal fencing grates. © 2016 Priyanka Motaparthy/Human Rights Watch Since March 2015, the UK has approved £3.3 billion in military sales to Saudi Arabia, according to the London-based Campaign Against Arms Trade. Yet in November, the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office concluded, despite considerable evidence to the contrary, that there was no "clear risk" of serious Saudi breaches of international humanitarian law in Yemen. The US government has recently halted a sale of precision munition guidance systems to Saudi Arabia because it saw "systemic, endemic problems in Saudi Arabia's targeting." Why are UK officials not prepared to do the same? Over the course of the war, Human Rights Watch has documented numerous coalition strikes that destroyed homes, markets, schools, civilian factories, and hospitals. During my own most recent trip, I visited a village water drilling site and a prison, both targeted with US-made precision-guided weapons.  Human Rights Watch has also documented how the coalition used US-supplied weapons in some of the war's deadliest strikes, including the horrific October bombing of a funeral hall that killed more than 99 civilians, and a midday strike on a market in Mastaba that killed at least 97 civilians.     Last week, the SNP's leader at Westminster, Angus Robertson, questioned Theresa May on Saudi arms sales and the Yemen conflict, asking her: "What will it take for the UK to adopt an ethical foreign policy when it comes to Yemen?" May responded by saying that when breaches of international humanitarian law are alleged, "we require those to be properly investigated." But Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and numerous media outlets have not only provided evidence of such violations, in some cases personally delivering information to key ministers, but also linked some of these attacks to UK weapons. Cluster munitions are important, but only a small part of the alleged violations. So where do the other "required" investigations stand? May and her government will have an increasingly tough time deflecting such questions and avoiding serious scrutiny. Earlier this month, two Parliamentary committees wrote to foreign secretary Boris Johnson requesting an urgent review of the government's position on arms sales to Saudi Arabia, and an immediate suspension of arms sales, pending a fully independent investigation of possible war crimes. This cannot come soon enough for the Yemeni civilians who have already suffered so much. [...]

China: Secretive Detention System Mars Anti-Corruption Campaign

Tuesday, December 6, 2016 - 00:05

(Hong Kong) – The Chinese government should immediately abolish a secretive detention system used to coerce confessions from corruption suspects. The Communist Party-run system, known as shuanggui, has no basis under Chinese law but is a key component of President Xi Jinping’s anti-corruption campaign. “President Xi has built his anti-corruption campaign on an abusive and illegal detention system,” said Sophie Richardson, China director at Human Rights Watch. “Torturing suspects to confess won’t bring an end to corruption, but will end any confidence in China’s judicial system.” width="640" height="360" src="//" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen> The Chinese government should immediately abolish a secretive detention system used to coerce confessions from corruption suspects. The 102-page report, “‘Special Measures’: Detention and Torture in Chinese Communist Party’s Shuanggui System,” details abuses against shuanggui detainees, including prolonged sleep deprivation, being forced into stress positions for extended periods of time, deprivation of water and food, and severe beatings. Detainees are also subject to solitary and incommunicado detention in unofficial detention facilities. After “confessing” to corruption, they are typically brought into the criminal justice system, convicted, and sentenced to often lengthy prison terms. The report is based on 21 Human Rights Watch interviews with four former shuanggui detainees, as well as family members of detainees; 35 detailed accounts from detainees culled from over 200 Chinese media reports; and an analysis of 38 court verdicts from across the country. While there have been commentaries and analyses on the shuanggui system, the Human Rights Watch report is the first to contain firsthand accounts from detainees, as well as drawing on a wide variety of secondary, official sources. Shuanggui not only further undermines China’s judiciary – it makes a mockery of it. Sophie Richardson China Director, Human Rights Watch The Chinese Communist Party’s Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI) oversees the shuanggui system, to which all of the party’s 88 million members are subject. The CCDI and its lower-level offices, local Commissions for Discipline Inspection (CDIs), typically target government officials, but those detained also include bankers, university officials, and entertainment industry figures, among others. Bo Xilai, a former member of the party’s powerful Politburo, was reportedly held under shuanggui, where he said he confessed under “improper pressure” and was later sentenced to life in prison. The start of a shuanggui investigation is often marked by an individual’s disappearance – family members are given no notification of the person’s detention or location, no information about the alleged infraction, or the length of detention. Detainees have no access to lawyers. Although there are time limits for shuanggui, CDI investigators can seek repeated extensions, permitting detainees to be held indefinitely, often until they confess. Shuanggui facilities are typically rooms in hostels with special features, such as padded walls or a lack of windows, to prevent suicides or escapes. Detainees are guarded round-the-clock by shifts of officials, often put together in a[...]