Author: Communication Department

Thomas Unger joined the Board of TRIAL International in May 2018. A lecturer at the Geneva Academy, he has over 15 years of experience in the field of international justice. What triggered his interest? What are the challenges ahead? And how to stay optimistic in an age of skepticism?

 

TRIAL International: Where does your interest in international justice come from?

Thomas Unger: I was a student in the 1990s, a golden period for international justice. The field was just emerging, with the creation of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the first talks around the International Criminal Court, etc. It was new and exciting, far more dynamic than more traditional areas of the law. I wanted to be a part of it!

My interest also takes roots in my personal history. My Austrian family was siding with the Nazis, and the more they tried to conceal this fact, the more I found myself questioning that heritage. This matter has also taught me not to see things in black and white: my grandmother was a victim of sexual violence at the hand of the Russian Army. My father was the product of this crime. It is crucial to remember that victims can also be perpetrators, and that this does not only apply to countries of the global south, but also happened in Europe. Violations that happened generations ago have a direct bearing today. They don’t just disappear. We need to deal with them.

 

You have worked for international organizations, NGOs and governments alike. Which did you most enjoy, and why?

Each experience has been enriching in its own way and, taken jointly, they have given me a realistic vision of what each actor can contribute to the fight against impunity. You also need to understand how each institution work in order to make a change. Nevertheless, my heart and passion lies with civil society and academia.

Personal agency is very much reduced within governments or international organizations: they are hierarchical and bureaucratic, and their actions sometimes fall short of their promises. Civil society, on the other hand, is more content-driven. Because it has a bottom-up approach, it allows for greater creativity and freedom. Academia and education generate ideas and contribute to cultural shifts, they are decisive as a driver for a better future.

 

Yet NGOs have little leverage and rely on States’ goodwill… isn’t that discouraging?

There are ups and downs, and of course I feel the frustration at times. But civil society has the crucial role of giving us vision. NGOs dare to imagine a world where justice is accessible to all. It may never become reality, but keeping alive that perspective, that dream is key to achieving change. And along the way, very concrete – if not always spectacular – battles are won.

I find this balance of realism and utopia at TRIAL International. On the one hand, it has solid legal expertise, bringing about real change in victims’ lives. On the other hand, it shares its vision of a fairer world to a wide audience. When people hear of criminals facing prosecution, they are inspired and want to join in!

 

You are also a Board member at TRIAL International. What challenges might the organization come across?

TRIAL International has expanded very quickly and very rapidly. It is highly positive, but I have witnessed first-hand the damage a sudden growth can do to an organization. We must therefore prioritize, strategize and plan carefully so we are not overwhelmed by the rapid change. Sustainability also stems from strong management, which is often overlooked in the non-profit sector. These may be very down-to-earth recommendations, but they are how TRIAL will stay a leader in its field and continue to inspire others.

 

To Permanent Representatives of Member and Observer States of the United Nations Human Rights Council, Geneva, Switzerland

Excellencies,

Ahead of the 39th session of the UN Human Rights Council (“HRC” or “the Coun­cil”), we, the undersigned national, regional and international civil society organisations, write to urge your delegation to support a resolution renewing the mandate of the UN Commission of Inquiry (CoI) on Burundi.[1] Such a resolution should also ensure continuity for the work of the CoI through continued adequate resourcing of its secretariat, including its crucial investigative and evidence-gathering work.

The renewal of the CoI’s mandate is critically important to improve the human rights situation in Bu­rundi, and it offers the Council a number of practical and effective advantages. Among other things, it would allow the Council to:

  • Avoid a monitoring gap, which is all the more important given the Burundian Government’s ongoing refusal to cooperate with the Office of the UN High Com­missioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and to sign a new Memo­randum of Under­standing regarding its presence in the coun­try;[2]
  • Ensure the continued documentation of human rights violations and abuses ahead of the upco­ming elections of 2020, through testimonies of victims, wit­nesses, human rights defenders, and other actors ope­ra­ting in and outside of the country;
  • Ensure ongoing public reporting and debates — while the African Union’s observers continue to monitor the human rights situation in Burundi despite a number of limitations imposed by the authorities, its findings are not publicly reported. Interactive dialogues at the Coun­cil provide the only regular space for public reporting and debates on human rights developments in the country; and
  • Enable the CoI to continue to highlight under-addressed aspects of the crisis — for instance, the Com­mis­sion has stressed the importance of dedicating more attention to violations of economic, social and cul­tural rights.

At the Council’s 36th session (September 2017), the CoI informed the HRC that there were “reasonable grounds to believe that serious human rights violations and abuses have been committed in Burundi since 2015,” and that some of the violations may constitute “crimes against humanity.” At the 37th and 38th sessions of the Council (March and June-July 2018), the CoI described a political, security, econ­omic, social and human rights situation that has not improved since September 2016. In March 2018, the Com­mission’s Chairperson, Mr. Doudou Diène, stressed that the situation in the country con­tinued to deserve the Council’s “utmost attention.” In October 2017, the International Criminal Court (ICC) autho­rised an investigation into crimes committed in Burundi since April 2015. A pre­liminary exam­ination of the situation had been opened in April 2016.

The constitutional referendum that was held on 17 May 2018 was marred with violence and repression, with arbitrary arrests, beatings and intimidation of citizens cam­paigning for a “no” vote.[3] In the Com­mission’s words, as of June 2018 “human rights violations, among which extrajudicial executions, enforced disap­pear­ances, acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment […], facilitated by a conti­nuing environment of threats and intimidation,” continue unabated. The CoI added: “The fact that several missing peo­ple have not been found and that unidentified bodies continue to be discovered in various parts of the country gives reason to fear the continuation of practices consisting of getting rid of the bodies of people arrested sometimes by individuals in police uniform or identified as agents of the National Intelligence Service (SNR) or the Imbonerakure.”[4]

Since it became a member of the Council, on 1st January 2016, Burundi has delivered multiple state­ments that have made clear its refusal to cooperate with human rights monitoring and investigation bodies and mechanisms. The Government has repeatedly launched attacks, which have sometimes des­cen­ded to a personal level, against the High Commissioner, UN officials, and inde­pendent experts. With no basis or evidence, it has publicly questioned the independence, competence, professionalism, inte­grity and legitimacy of High Commissioner Zeid and his Office, and has threatened, stigmatised, and exer­cised reprisals against human rights defenders and civil society organisations.[5] Burundians who have sought protection outside of Burundi have been subjected to harassment and persecution, including by members of the National Intelligence Service (SNR) and Imbonerakure.

Members of the CoI continue to be denied access to Burundi. Furthermore, at the time of wri­ting, the Burundian authorities have withdrawn visas from the team of experts mandated by HRC resolution 36/2, despite the fact that the latter was adopted at Burundi’s own initiative, with its sup­port and the support of members of Burundi’s own regional group. Burundi’s action in this regard clearly violates its Council membership obligations.

Recalling the letter a group of civil society organisations wrote in Sep­tember 2017,[6] we urge the Council, consistent with its mandate to address situations of violations of human rights, in­cluding gross and systematic violations, to pave the way for accountability by renew­ing the mandate of the CoI to enable it to continue monitoring human rights deve­lopments in the country, docu­menting viola­tions and abuses, and publicly reporting on the situation.

We thank you for your attention to these pressing issues and stand ready to provide your delegation with further information as required.

 

Sincerely,

 

Action des chrétiens pour l’abolition de la torture – Burundi (ACAT-Burundi)

Amnesty International

Assistance Mission for Africa

Association Burundaise pour la Protection des Droits Humains et des Personnes Détenues (APRODH)

Association for Human Rights in Ethiopia (AHRE)

Centre for Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)

CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation

Coalition burundaise pour la Cour pénale internationale (CB-CPI)

Coalition burundaise des défenseurs des droits de l’homme (CBDDH)

Collectif des avocats pour la défense des victimes de crimes de droit international commis au Burundi (CAVIB)

Community Empowerment for Progress Organisation South Sudan (CEPO)

DefendDefenders (the East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project)

Eritrean Law Society (ELS)

Eritrean Movement for Democracy and Human Rights (EMDHR)

Forum pour la Conscience et le Développement (FOCODE)

Forum pour le renforcement de la société civile au Burundi (FORSC)

Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect (GCR2P)

Human Rights Concern – Eritrea (HRCE)

Human Rights Institute of South Africa (HURISA)

Human Rights Watch

Information Forum for Eritrea (IFE)

International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)

International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)

International Federation of Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture (FIACAT)

International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)

International Youth for Africa

Ligue Iteka

Mouvement des femmes et des filles pour la paix et la sécurité (MFFPS)

National Coalition of Human Rights Defenders – Kenya

National Coalition of Human Rights Defenders – Uganda

Pan Africa Human Rights Defenders Network

Reporters Sans Frontières

Réseau des citoyens probes (RCP)

SOS-Torture

Tanzania Human Rights Defenders Coalition (THRDC)

The Ecumenical Network for Central Africa (ÖNZ)

TRIAL International

Union burundaise des journalistes (UBJ)

World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT)

 

[1] See its webpage: www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/CoIBurundi/Pages/CoIBurundi.aspx

[2] See the UN Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights’ statement at the Council’s 37th session (OHCHR, “Introduction to country reports/briefings/updates of the Secretary-General and the High Commissioner under item 2,” 21-22 March 2018, www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=22875&LangID=E, accessed 20 July 2018).

[3] FIDH and Ligue Iteka, “A forced march to a Constitutional Referendum,” May 2018, www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/report_burundi_may2018_referendum_on_constitution.pdf (accessed 27 July 2018).

[4] OHCHR, “Oral briefing by the members of the Commission of Inquiry on Burundi to the Human Rights Council,” 27 June 2018, www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23274&LangID=E (accessed 20 July 2018).

[5] See DefendDefenders, “Headlong Rush: Burundi’s behaviour as a member of the UN Human Rights Council,” www.defenddefenders.org/publication/headlong-rush-burundis-behaviour-as-a-member-of-the-un-human-rights-council/ (accessed 25 July 2018).

[6] “Renewing the Mandate of the Commission of Inquiry on Burundi and Ensuring Accountability for Serious Crimes,” 19 September 2018, www.defenddefenders.org/press_release/hrc36-renewing-the-mandate-of-the-commission-of-inquiry-on-burundi-and-ensuring-accountability-for-serious-crimes/ (accessed 30 July 2018).

An initiative proposes that the Swiss Constitution should prevail over international law. A scenario with potentially disastrous consequences for human rights, which TRIAL strongly opposes.

The initiative provides, inter alia, the possibility for Switzerland to ignore decisions issued by the European Court of Human Rights. This institution is described by its detractors as “foreign justice”, but on the contrary constitutes a safeguard against State arbitrariness, and ensures compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights.

If the initiative were voted, Switzerland would waive its main international human rights instrument. In doing so, it will deprive its citizens whose rights have been violated by the highest national authority of a final judicial avenue.

Philip Grant, Director of TRIAL International, is outraged: “We have defended victims in Bosnia, Congo, Nepal and elsewhere for years. At this moment, they must think we are crazy: ‘You have patiently built a system that guarantees and protects your freedoms, and now you want to get rid of it?’ International conventions protect us. To renounce them comes down to renouncing our rights and attacking our freedoms. ”

To oppose this initiative, TRIAL International has joined the Comité romand : non à l’initiative anti-droits humains (No to the anti-human rights initiative), which calls on the Swiss to vote NO on 25 November 2018.

More information about the campaign (in French)

Tonight, the High Military Court of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (HMC) has confirmed the condemnation of all 11 accused in the Kavumu case. The first instance judgment had seen them condemned for rape as crimes against humanity – a decision now confirmed by the country’s highest military instance.

TRIAL International welcomes the HMC’s decision, which goes to proving the solidity of the case. It is particularly satisfied with the lifelong condemnation of the provincial politician Frederic Batumike – a historical precedent in DRC. This decision shows that nobody is above the law, regardless of their social or political status.

“The highest military jurisdiction in the DRC has sent a clear and welcome message against impunity” says Daniele Perissi, Head of TRIAL International’s DRC program. “It thereby invites the authorities to apply the law in the broadest way possible, reinforcing a strong and fair justice system, accessible to all.”

Karen Naimer, Director of the Program on Sexual Violence in Conflict Zones at Physicians for Human Rights, shares this conclusion: “This case demonstrates the importance of supporting national processes, which constitute the first and primary avenue for justice, including for international crimes such as those committed in Kavumu.”

Civil society united on the frontline

This trial has been made possible, among other things, by the mobilization of the Congolese and international civil society. They brought together their expertise to draw the attention of the national authorities and present a strong case in court.

TRIAL International has supported the victims of Kavumu since 2015, as a member of the Task Force for International Criminal Justice in South Kivu. In this framework, the NGO has contributed to the legal support of victims and their families, notably through the documentation of crimes and the elaboration of the judicial strategy.

In cooperation with the organization Physicians for Human Rights and the Hospital of Panzi, TRIAL International has also organized medical exams and recorded psychological interviews of the young victims.

The Congolese State is not civilly liable

Sadly, the HMC has failed to recognized in its verdict the failure of the Congolese state to protect civilians. The civil parties, assisted by TRIAL International, had invoked that measures to stop the crimes and prosecute the authors were widely insufficient. The judges have not, unfortunately, followed this argument.

“We are disappointed with this decision: regardless of who the mass crimes are committed by, the responsibility of the State is central. It is all the more important to reiterate this in the DRC, where numerous crimes are committed by militia and non-State groups”, explains Daniele Perissi.

Additionally, the HMC has confirmed the reparations granted to victims in the first decision. A positive point, but failing to cover all their needs such as access to medical care. Reparations are all too often left out of criminal proceedings, in DRC and elsewhere.

In spite of these shortcomings, the verdict of the Kavumu case constitutes a strong beacon of hope for all the victims of atrocities in Eastern DRC.

 

 

Read the judgement of the High Military Court (in french only).

In April 2018, the United Nations recognized the arbitrary detention of Nepali citizen Sarita Sharma. Helena Rodríguez-Bronchú Carceller, Head of Nepal program at TRIAL, narrates her harrowing story.

I first met Sarita in 2014 in Kathmandu. While I spoke about proceedings before the Human Rights Committee, she kept smiling at me. I had read her case file and wondered what there was to smile about.

I have met with her since, together with her husband Bijay and their two children Bishram and Basanta, on several occasions. Sarita and her family are nothing like stereotyped “victims”. As a reunited family, they now enjoy the second chance life gave them.

Despite the language barrier and the few encounters, I can affirm that Sarita is one of the strongest women I have ever met. She fights for justice and for acknowledgement of the atrocities that the armed conflict brought along. Her resilience inspires me.

 

Arrested for her brother’s beliefs

In 2003, at the height of the Nepali civil conflict, Sarita, a mother of two, was arrested on the only grounds that her brother was a Maoist leader.

In the Royal Nepal Army barracks of Maharajgunj, she was kept handcuffed and blindfolded for days on end. Routinely interrogated, beaten and tortured, her captors threatened to rape her. She was even forced to hear how her brother was being tortured next room.

 

A mother separated from her children

For the first months of her detention, Sarita’s husband had no idea where she was. He launched numerous legal procedures and contacted several authorities to try to locate his wife, only to be faced by denial.

Sarita’s children, then aged 5 and 8, not only missed their mother: they were also kept away from their father for a month. The school’s principle, acting on the authorities’ orders, refused to release the children to Sarita’s husband.

After they returned home, Sarita’s husband and children had to stand recurrent visits, sometimes even at night-time, of soldiers to their apartment.

 

Secret notes

After 8 months in captivity, Sarita’s health deteriorated to the point that she was sent to the hospital. It was there that she fortuitously walked into an old friend. With her help, she was able to send a note to her husband. She informed him of her whereabouts but begged him not to share the information publicly, for fear of reprisals.

The family now knew where she was, but her arbitrary detention continued. Three months after receiving the note, in desperation, Sarita’s husband shared the letter with the Maoist’s student association. Following the release of the note, Sarita was harshly interrogated and severely beaten for one entire week.

In early 2005, Sarita found a new ally in the person of the prison’s cook, who agreed to deliver letters to her husband. Their correspondence lasted until the following June, when the Supreme Court ruled her detention unlawful and ordered her release.

 

Denial and inertia

For the next 8 years, the Sharma family sought justice for the physical and psychological torture they had been through. In spite of all their efforts, the authorities never came close to investigating the case.

With TRIAL International’s help, the case was taken to the Human Rights Committee (HRC). In April 2018, it recognized that Sarita had been a victim of enforced disappearance, and that her rights to procedural guarantees and to a family life had also been violated.

The quest for justice now continues, as HRC decisions require domestic involvement to be enacted.

Read more about the campaign to bring Real Rights to conflict victims

 

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION OF JURISTS AND TRIAL INTERNATIONAL

MEDIA ADVISORY
20 July 2018

 

The legitimacy and viability of the government of Nepal’s draft “Bill to Amend the Act on Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons, Truth and Reconciliation, 2014” must be questioned due to the lack of a meaningful consultation process, and serious shortcomings when evaluated against international law and standards, Amnesty International, the International Commission of Jurists and TRIAL International said today in their preliminary comments on the draft bill.

While welcoming certain aspects of the draft bill, the three international human rights organizations identified weaknesses in the draft bill from an accountability perspective that, if not addressed, will contribute to impunity. This is especially true when it comes to the failure to address the demand for reconstituting the current transitional justice commissions, ensure punishment proportionate to the gravity of the crimes and a need to comply with not just the “letter” but also the “spirit” of decisions by Nepal’s Supreme Court.

Amnesty International, the International Commission of Jurists and TRIAL International called on the government of Nepal to heed the concerns of victims of the conflict-era human rights abuses by embarking on an effective and transparent consultative process that meets the “reparative principle of victim satisfaction”.

“There are critical flaws in the amendment related to accountability for crimes under international law, including crimes against humanity; in relation to sentencing, … and in relation to the overall architecture of the transitional justice process, which must strike a balance between the four pillars of truth, justice, reparations, and measures to avoid repetition of past crimes,” the briefing says.

The organizations also expressed concern about the lack of meaningful consultation with the victims’ community, and urged the government to ensure that the draft bill is responsive to the self-identified needs of victims and civil society.

The briefing also calls on the international community to heed “the lessons of history regarding transitional justice” and read carefully each provision within the context of the law as a whole and in relation to the broader reality on the ground – including a lack of demonstrated willingness to bring all those suspected of criminal responsibility to justice in fair trials.

“The removal of the inclusion of crimes against humanity and the lack of an explicit reference to war crimes demonstrates a weakening commitment to stand against “crimes against humanity” and war crimes, principal crimes under the Rome Statue of International Criminal Court (ICC) and customary international law” the briefing says.

Read the full analysis (in English) 

Dr. Briony Jones is an Associate Professor in International Development at the University of Warwick (United Kingdom), a Senior Researcher at swisspeace and a Board member at TRIAL International. She explains how her background in social sciences has shaped her vision of post-conflict justice.

“As far as I can remember, I have always wanted to be an academic. The desire to push back boundaries and be challenged drove me to pursue research on violence, reconciliation and peacebuilding. My current research looks into perceptions of transitional justice, how people experience it subjectively on a personal, political and sociological level.

Transitional justice is a complex, multi-layered process that goes well beyond legal proceedings. It touches upon concepts of social contract, citizenship, democracy, representation… It is therefore unsurprising that it is sometimes met with resistance or skepticism.

This resistance has traditionally been seen as a negative, but I think of it as a normal part of the process and it can even be constructive. Post-conflict justice processes are driven by a minority of people holding power, often abiding to mainstream narratives. There should be a space for alternative narratives and dissenting voices too. If we stop seeing them as threats and start paying heed, they have the potential to make transitional justice stronger, more credible and more efficient.”

 

Academia and NGOs have a lot to learn from each other

“After a few years in a purely academic position, I developed a research unit on Dealing with the Past at swisspeace in Bern. This led me to work more closely with legal practitioners and UN Rapporteurs, and I found the dialogue between academics and legal workers highly stimulating. It was with this positive experience in mind that I applied to join the Board of TRIAL International: NGOs and academia have a lot to learn from each other.

As a non-lawyer, I think I can add an original perspective to the Board. I may not bring concrete legal expertise to the table, but I hope to broaden the conversation as well as tightening the bonds between TRIAL International and European research centers.”

 

Overcoming the crisis of legitimacy

“International justice is undergoing a severe crisis of legitimacy. To overcome this skepticism, NGOs need to put their legal work into a broader political context. As well as litigating cases, questioning their own assumptions and perceptions on transitional justice is key to remaining as open and collaborative as possible, including with actors with a different perspective.”

 

An op-ed by Philip Grant

Today marks 20 years since the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) was adopted. The ICC receives significant media coverage all over the world, yet its action arises from a far more discreet process: everything starts with unknown individuals determined to bring about change. On this anniversary, let’s celebrate the role of civil society in international justice!

Being closest to the ground, NGOs are often the first to report international crimes and collect testimonies from survivors. Without their help, few victims would be able to reach out to the competent jurisdictions – be it for lack of information or resources, or out of fear of reprisals. These civil society organizations are thus the eyes and ears of the judiciary. Thanks to them, crimes are reported, the first pieces of evidence are gathered, victims are defended, and authorities are held accountable.

Once the proceedings have been initiated, NGOs maintain a fundamental role in investigations and in the representation of victims, especially when the courts are distant – geographically and culturally – from the crime scene.

 

Years of fighting behind each decision

In difficult contexts such as Burundi, DRC and Mexico, NGOs battle on the front line, with all the associated safety risks. Several examples in recent months have shown how crucial collaboration between organizations is in achieving justice for victims.

In countries where conflicts have been over for a long time, such as in Nepal and Bosnia and Herzegovina, NGOs are often the only actors to keep supporting victims. Confronted with inert authorities, they often fight against amnesia and indifference.

Finally, we must remember that civil society is at the root of the first permanent international criminal body. The Coalition for the International Criminal Court brings together thousands of organizations fighting for the universal ratification of the Rome Statute and the incorporation its provisions into the law of member states. These NGOs also help the Court gather evidence and ensure that victims and witnesses are informed of the proceedings and their rights.

 

Determined individuals behind each NGO

But we can analyze the dynamics even further: non-governmental organizations are themselves made up of individuals. Ordinary people whose power to act does not arise from a position of influence, but from the conviction that everyone can be a driver of change.

Justice will not come from above but from our individual and collective efforts, here and now. And we can all, at our level and with our abilities, contribute to it.

 

You too can act now!

  • If you have 1 minute, sign up to our newsletter
  • If you have 5 minutes, watch and share this series of victim testimonies
  • If you have 10 minutes, take a selfie with the hashtag #JusticeMatters, #GlobalJustice or #JusticeHasNoBorders and share this photo on our Facebook page
  • You can also make a donation to TRIAL International or become a volunteer.

 

On 2 February 1982, Syrian government forces, including the Defense Brigades, attacked the city of Hama to crush opponents to the regime who had taken up arms.

For almost a month, civilians were trapped into their city, unable to get any help, food, supply, nor electricity… Civil casualties ranged from 10’000 to 40’000, depending on the sources.

Hamid Sulaiman, a Syrian artist born in Damascus, is one of the “young dreamers of the Arab spring”. He was not yet born when Hama 82 massacre took place, but it still resonates with him like “a ghost of terror”. Forced to flee Syria in 2011, he settled in Paris where he recently published his first graphic novel based on his experience.

 

Read Hamid Sulaiman’s full interview, dotted with personal drawings

Read TRIAL International’s pending case on Rifaat Al-Assad’s and his implication in the Hama massacre