An Op-Ed by Valérie Paulet

Despite his acquittal, the trial of Colonel Kumar Lama in the United Kingdom goes to proving the relevance of universal jurisdiction.

In 1961, Adolf Eichman was arrested in Argentina and subsequently convicted in Jerusalem. To many, this was considered the first universal jurisdiction case: the prosecution of international criminals, wherever the crime took place and regardless of the nationality of the suspects or the victims. This historical milestone was followed by others: the arrest of Augusto Pinochet and the convictions of Pascal Simbikangwa and Hissène Habré, to name but a few.

In September 2016, the United Kingdom (UK) closed its second trial on universal jurisdiction cases: that of Colonel Kumar Lama. The Nepalese Colonel was arrested in early 2013 during a personal visit to the United Kingdom. He was indicted for the alleged torture of two detainees during the civil conflict in Nepal.

Mr. Lama’s trial started on 24 February 2015 at London’s Old Bailey. After a rather complicated trial, he was finally acquitted of all charges for lack of evidence.

Does this acquittal represent a step backwards for international justice? Certainly not, for at least three reasons.

The UK walked the talk

Firstly, the case of M. Lama demonstrates how seriously the United Kingdom takes its obligation to investigate and prosecute torture allegations. The Metropolitan police service, with the support of local NGOs, sought evidence with a thoroughness that has so far escaped Nepal.

Sufficient financial means were also allocated to the inquiry, despite criticism from some domestic parties. The case of Faryadi Sarwar Zardad (2005) had already proved the United Kingdom as a strong promoter of universal jurisdiction, ready to invest human and financial resources to bring these cases to justice.

Taking diplomatic risks

Secondly, the UK took a diplomatic risk by arresting M. Lama, which is rare enough to be saluted. Indeed, the Colonel was not only serving in his national army but also in the UN Peacekeeping mission in South Sudan.

All too often, States renounce prosecuting eminent figures to preserve their diplomatic relations. As recently as 2015, Spain dropped its Tibetan genocide case under the pressure of the Chinese government. It even restricted its national legislation to make sure they would not face more political hazards.

France had also followed this path in 2014, allowing the head of the Moroccan secret services to leave the country despite his indictment for torture.

A way to justice

Thirdly, M. Lama’s case showed many victims what universal jurisdiction is: a way to justice. Ten years after the Peace Agreements, Nepal has not opened a single trial for the countless claims of torture lodged before its courts.

This trial sends a strong signal to Nepal and to other countries in post-conflict transition, where justice can be traded off for a hasty (and superficial) national reconciliation. For victims in Colombia, Salvador, Chad and elsewhere, the case of M. Lama proves that there are fewer safe havens for war criminals than ever before – and that is exactly what universal jurisdiction is about.

Valérie Paulet, Trial Watch Coordinator

Thousands of Bosnian war victims have yet to receive justice. For some of them, justice is simply unaffordable.

The Bosnian State does not provide free legal counsel for all victims, effectively making access to proceedings a privilege reserved for those who can afford it.

“The absence of a national scheme offering free legal aid puts an unreasonable economic and logistic burden on the survivor’s shoulders.” explains Selma Korjenic, Head of TRIAL’s BiH program.

For the last year, TRIAL International has been advocating for free legal aid for victims in criminal proceedings. In August, the organization sought to amend the Bosnian law in that sense. The answer from the authorities is still pending.

“Creating the sense that justice is achievable”

Until the State meets its obligations, NGOs and cantonal institutes alone offer free counsel for victims in national procedures. Unfortunately, few are trained to file compensation claims in criminal proceedings, resulting in few victims accessing reparations.

For this reason, TRIAL International has held a workshop for victim representatives on how to successfully file a compensation claim in criminal proceedings. This is part of a broader effort to diffuse its expertise and best practices on reparations for wartime survivors.

While compensation money can be useful to cover legal fees or otherwise improve the victims’ lives, the sole award of compensation is the most valued reward: “It creates the sense that justice is achievable”, said Miroljub Radomirović, junior legal associate and participant to the training.

An interview with Guy Mushiata, Human Rights expert in the DRC

TRIAL: Once again, the DRC is making the international headlines. What are your impressions of the current situation?

Guy Mushiata : The context is extremely tense due the uncertainty surrounding the delayed presidential elections. The political situation has reached a dead-end and the human rights situation is far from ideal. Over the last few months, four international researchers investigating the human rights situation have been expelled. The risk of violence is very real. One can only hope that the on-going national dialogue*, though non-inclusive, will find a favourable outcome, ease people’s minds and guarantee every person’s fundamental rights.

What difficulties do you face in your everyday work?

The lack of political will is prevalent, but we are also faced with a multitude of structural and logistical problems. The province of South Kivu, where TRIAL International operates, is larger than Switzerland. The villages where the abuses occur are very remote; travelling to those locations can take days and entail security challenges.

Working with the victims also requires a lot of patience. They are often traumatised and fear retaliatory measures. We must approach them with care a slowly develop a bond. The network we have on location is essential in establishing these trust relationships.

How do the victims react when you talk about justice?

They are usually doubtful at first. Impunity is so widespread that they do not believe they can get any justice against their persecutors, especially when they are in the national forces or in an armed group. However, our experience proves that their role is crucial to the proceedings. In the Bolingo case, for instance, the Court would probably have dismissed the case if it had not been for the victim’s testimony. It is important for them to be agents in the proceedings and to tell their story in their own words. This also encourages other victims who remain on the side-lines to come forward.

Almost two years after TRIAL’s offices opened in Bukavu, how has your mission evolved?

Since we arrived, we have established partnerships with local and international actors in the field, such as MONUSCO, UNDP, victims’ associations, lawyers’ networks etc. This has enabled us to work complementarily with other organizations, focusing on TRIAL International’s unique legal expertise. We are increasingly thought-after and must now chose which cases to defend.

What are the priorities for the program now?

We want to continue working on a national level. Of course, we will still refer cases to the African Commission or the United Nations if required, but changes must come from within the DRC: judges, lawyers, civil society and other local actors have a crucial role to play. For example, the lawyers that we trained can now assist the victims of gross violations of human rights on their own. It is highly gratifying to see the expansion of these good practices.

* The national dialogue brings together representatives of the political majority, part of the opposition and of civil society to seek solutions to the current political crisis stemming from the presidential elections, initially scheduled for November 2016.

A recent decision of the Committee against Torture confirmed that States must do much better than vague promises to uphold their obligations.

When a human rights complaint is filed before an international mechanism, most States claim that the applicant has failed to exhaust domestic remedies (that is, try all legal avenues at the domestic level) and that the case should hence be declared inadmissible. The State usually argues that investigations are ongoing and that had the applicant waited a bit longer, he or she would have received justice.

Other formalistic arguments are often invoked, for instance that investigations on human rights violations could only be launched if a complaint is formally lodged before domestic judicial authorities. However, there are many reasons that may prevent a victim from doing so, from material obstacles to fear of reprisals. In some cases, even when the applicant does tries to report a violation, authorities refuse to register the report or do not acknowledge receipt through a stamp, later pretending that the complaint was never lodged.

These arguments are so often invoked that if the Committee against Torture (CAT) accepted them, its workload would dry up and the victims’ quest for justice and redress would be doomed.

In a case brought before the CAT by TRIAL International and its partner NGO, Morocco pulled exactly those tired old strings. The Committee responded* with a resounding reminder that lip service to ending torture is not enough to escape its scrutiny.

Formal complaints are not a prerequisite

Firstly, the CAT clarified that a formal complaint from the victim, Omar N’Dour, was not required for the authorities to initiate investigations. Since there were reasonable grounds to believe that he had been subjected to torture (he showed a judge and a prosecutor the marks on his body), Morocco was under the obligation to thoroughly investigate his allegations, regardless of procedural considerations.

Moreover, M. N’Dour was tortured in custody, meaning that the events lay wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities. The Committee reminded Morocco that in such cases, proving the occurrence of the crime does not rest on the victim alone. Authorities cannot simply wave the allegations away, but must provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of their own.

Effective relief for the victim

Finally, Morocco’s judicial remedies, though existent, did not meet the Committee’s standards of efficiency. Over six years after the crime, no investigation has ever led to the identification of the perpetrators. The CAT declared that this was a reasonably long time for the victim to seek justice and redress and a higher level.

This is the CAT’s second decision on the subject concerning Morocco and comes as a strong reminder that it is high time for the State to live up to its promises: prompt, independent, impartial, thorough and effective investigations must be launched and those responsible must be prosecuted and sanctioned. Procrastination or formal excuses will not be accepted and the CAT will not refrain from assessing the responsibility of the State.

* This decision only regards the admissibility of the complaint. In the next months, arguments on the merits will be submitted by the parties and the CAT will then subsequently issue its decision on the alleged violations themselves.

Imagine having to renounce your own security to claim what is rightfully yours. This is the fate of numerous of victims in BiH who must chose between obtaining reparations and keeping their identity protected.

In many cases, wartime victims are referred to civil courts at the end of a criminal trial in order to claim reparations – with a few noticeable exceptions. In other words, not only must the criminal be found guilty. In most cases, an additional civil court must then decides how much will paid back to victims, when and how.

This shift from criminal to civil proceedings is all but anecdotal: the financial and psychological strain of starting a fresh legal battle is considerable for victims.

Moreover, while victims can chose to remain anonymous in criminal trials, civil proceedings provide no such protection. As a result, survivors of rape and other war crimes must see their names revealed and live in the fear of retaliation and stigma. As a result, many victims are discouraged and chose to give up their right to reparation.

Moving the lines

To address this loophole, national experts have gathered on 9 September to draft a set of amendments to the Law on Civil Procedure and the Law on Enforcement Procedure. The draft legislation will then be submitted to parliamentary procedure.

These amendments demand that after criminal trials, victims of war crimes have continuous protection of identity in civil and enforcement proceedings.

Chaired by TRIAL International, the working group is composed of:

Adrijana Hanušić Bećirović (Senior Legal Adviser),

Antonović Zvjezdana (judge at the Court of BiH),

Džumhur Jasminka (Human Rights Ombudswoman),

Kapetanović Maja (legal expert),

Šehić Nedžla (lawyer specialized in wartime victims representation),

A representative of the Center of Legal Assistance for Women Zenica.

Nepalese colonel Kumar Lama has been acquitted of the charges of torture he faced in the United Kingdom.

On 6 September 2016, after a 3-years legal battle, the UK Crown Prosecution Service decided against re-trying M. Kumar Lama after a jury failed to reach a verdict last August. The former colonel of the Nepalese army has been cleared of all charges.

This outcome is a disappointment for the victim who had brought evidence on the torture he endured, but also for countless Nepalese victims of torture seeking justice and the NGOs defending them.

Kumar Lama was the first serving security officer to be arrested and tried outside Nepal for crimes committed during the 1996-2006 civil war, under the principle of universal jurisdiction.

Silver lining

Nevertheless, the fact that a senior foreign military figure was arrested and prosecuted in a third country is a significant step forward. TRIAL International welcomes the United Kingdom’s commitment to its international obligations and hopes that this precedent will soon be followed by more universal jurisdiction cases – be there on Nepal or other countries.

This case is also an opportunity to call on Nepal to end impunity for suspects of international crimes. It is high time the State met its obligations to investigate cases of torture and enforced disappearances.

Read TRIAL International’s annual report on universal jurisdiction

Learn more on TRIAL International’s actions in Nepal

The trial for the massacre of Mutarule opened on 12 August 2016 and has been the theatre of tensions, resulting in delays in the mobile court hearings.

No less than 92 victims have taken part in this trial of titanic proportions. In the dock, two FARDC commanders and one Barundi leader, suspected of war crimes and crimes against humanity. They could be criminally liable for their own actions or that of their subordinate. Out of the four others individuals initially indicted, two are dead and two will be judged in a separate procedure.

High-tension hearings

From day one, the TRIAL-led coalition of lawyers representing victims has be confronted with a challenge: the Commander of the FARDC regiment implicated in the Mutarule attacks had been barred by the prosecution from the list of indicted and presented as a simple witness. Shortly after the Court had decided put him back in the dock, following 3-days of intense debate, the Commander was found dead in front of his house. Hearings have since carried in an extremely tense atmosphere.

Key questions remain unanswered

The attacks on Mutarule have taken place in a long-running ethnic conflict in the Ruzizi valley. The question of genocide was therefore mentioned by both the Court and the parties during hearings. Will the accused indeed face charges of genocide? That is uncertain, as the burden of proof for such crime is extremely high, and Congolese courts rarely retain them. Should the Court decide to do so, its decision would constitute a key precedent.

Another question yet to be answered is the qualification of the conflict as a non-international armed conflict. The Court’s judgment on the point will be crucial: without this qualification, no war crime charges could be retained.

In spite of all these difficulties, the trial of Mutarule constitutes one more step towards fighting mass atrocities committed in Eastern Congo.

An op-ed by Helena Rodríguez-Bronchú Carceller

“It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.” – Voltaire

As in any other civil war, people murdered, tortured, raped and made their fellow countrymen disappear, during the decade-long armed conflict between the State security forces and the Maoist insurgents (1996-2006) in Nepal.

Ten years of fragile peace and endless discussions followed, about how the needed transitional justice process should look like. Still today, disagreements between – and among – victims, political parties, the international community and civil society outnumber the common settled points.

How to tackle rampant impunity is one of those disagreements. While most victims’ movements and international actors call for more accountability, the political parties –some of which were involved in the conflict – are seeking ways to avoid it.

Neither the Supreme Court overruling the amnesty provision from the 2014 TRC Act nor the United Nations making clear that the prohibition of amnesties was a red line for their support of the process were enough, apparently: the amnesty debate is still today very much alive in the country, and regular declarations from political actors on the matter fuels it even more.

Equating impunity – a situation where criminals are generally not held accountable or punished – and amnesty – a legal tool to exempt criminal accountability – is a dangerous over-simplification. Impunity is indeed fostered by amnesty rules, but it can also be promoted through many other means. Nepali political parties know it and boast of their commitment not to seek amnesty, leaving aside debates over others of their ploys to avoid accountability.

Hindering changes in legislation is the first one. Torture, enforced disappearance and use of child soldiers will remain unpunished as long as they are not reflected as a criminal offence in national legislation, and as long as the possibility of applying these rules retroactively is not in place. Similarly, legal provisions are needed to overcome the applicable statute of limitations: the well-known 35-day limitation for registering rape complaints, but also the 20-year limitation for cases of murder, which is starting to bar early cases. Furthermore, in order to reflect the magnitude of the crimes at stake, criminal definitions of “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity” need to be incorporated into Nepali legislation.

A flawed transitional justice process also contributes to nurture impunity. Concerns over the two transitional justice Commissions created in 2015 are too numerous to be listed here. Numerous incidents were reported during the period to register complaints: security threats; interference from political parties and security forces; accessibility challenges for inhabitants of remote areas, people with disabilities, the elderly and non- Nepali speakers; lack of awareness and understanding about the process or the Commissions’ mandate; and no confidential reporting setting… among many others.

Leaving aside the ensuing victims’ distrust, the fact is that some victims simply could not register their complaint. Others were unable to provide an appropriate account of their cases, preparing the ground for the Commission’s withdrawal of cases “with insufficient evidence” and barring non-registered cases from any legal remedy in the future. Moreover, the Commission has only six months of mandate left. Looking at its scarce resources and working pace, it is difficult to fathom how the Commission will give a satisfactory response to the 60’000 victims who have registered their complaints. Attempting to mainstream all conflict-era cases to two dysfunctional bodies can also be understood as a strategy to foster impunity.

A Special Court is still to be created, but what would its role and regulations mechanisms concretely be? Would rules of command responsibility be applied? Would military jurisdictions play any role in this process? Key questions for the promotion of accountability that remain, not only unanswered but too little discussed by main stakeholders. The path of transitional justice in Nepal is still a long and rocky road.

Helena Rodriguez-Bronchú Carceller, Head of Nepal Programme
@Helena_RBC

An Op-Ed by Gabriella Citroni

40 years of struggle against enforced disappearances have resulted in meaningful progress, but the phenomenon remains on the rise.

In the late seventies, the relatives of disappeared people in Latin America started a campaign to prevent and eradicate this crime. In this context, the Argentinean National Commission on the Disappearance of Persons gave them reason in 1984 when it published its final report, entitled “Never again!”, highlighting the imperative to avoid any repetition of such a tragedy – whereby thousands were subjected to enforced disappearance. Since then, several truth commissions across the world used the same title for their final reports and “Never again!” became the rallying cry of civil society against enforced disappearance.

As we celebrate the International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances today, exactly how far have we gone to prevent and eradicate this practice?

Encouraging signs from States and international bodies

Undeniable progress have recently been witnessed, such as States strengthening their domestic legal framework: Peru enacted its Law on the Search of Disappeared Persons, to finally make light on the fate and whereabouts of the thousands of disappeared during the 1980-2000 conflict. Efforts to adopt comprehensive legislation on this crime are also underway in Tunisia and Mexico.

After years of civil society advocacy, the Supreme Court of El Salvador declared unconstitutional the 1993 amnesty law granting impunity for human rights violations in the 1980-1992 conflict. This historic verdict paves the way for accountability and revived the hope of victims and their families.

Other States have improved their institutional structures, setting up support mechanisms for relatives of the disappeared. In Nepal, the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons was finally established and is expected to uphold the rights to truth, justice and reparation of victims and their families, blatantly ignored since the end of the armed conflict in 2006. In Mexico, a Specialised Unit for the Investigation of Crimes against Migrants and a Transnational Mechanism of Search of Missing Migrants will for the first time address the abuse suffered by migrants, including enforced disappearance.

International bodies are also paving the way forward. In March, the United Nations Committee on Enforced Disappearances (CED)adopted its first decision ever and took position on yet under-explored issues, such as State obligations when a prisoner is transferred from one place of detention to another, and the rights of their relatives to be informed on the detainee’s whereabouts and on the progress of the investigations.

Often too little, always too late

All aforementioned examples are important and welcome achievements. Not one of them, however, addresses the root of the problem: the commission of enforced disappearances in the first place. Despite our efforts, enforced disappearances are still on the rise. In the last three years, the number of urgent actions registered before the CED jumped from 4 to a staggering 294. The United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances is overwhelmed with new cases virtually every day.

It is high time for domestic authorities and the international community to adopt new strategies and implement existing instruments not just to redress, but to prevent these abuse. Unless States live up to their responsibilities and make this issue their first priority, ‘Never again!’ will remain two wishful words and there will be no ground for celebration on the International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances.

Gabriella Citroni, Senior Legal Advisor

Burundi must put an end to ethnic violence and the use of force against protesters, and report in October on its fight against impunity, the United Nations Committee Against Torture (CAT) concluded after a special review of the country.

In its Concluding Observations, the Committee called on Burundi to ensure the protection of citizens belonging to the “ethnic minority” by refraining from any public statement that could exacerbate ethnic tensions or incite hate. It called on Burundi to ensure its security forces used non-violent methods to control protests, and to drop any reprisals against dissenting civil society members.

It also urged the State to conduct impartial investigations into any allegations of killings, enforced disappearances and sexual violence at the hand of its security forces and the Imbonerakure militia. Finally, the Committee demanded the investigation of suspected mass grave sites and the exhumation, analysis and identification of any bodies found there.

“The CAT has sent the Government a very strong message that the world is watching,” said Dieudonné Bashirahishize, Vice-President of the East Africa Law Society and chairman of the coalition of lawyers of victims of international crimes (CAVIB). “Burundian authorities need to stop disregarding human rights and start collaborating with its civil society and the international experts.”

Reprisals instead of answers

Shortly after the examination, four eminent lawyers were threatened with being disbarred for denouncing rampant abuse before the experts: Vital Nshimirimana, Chair of Forum pour la Conscience et le Renforcement de la Société Civile (FORSC) and President of the campaign “Halte au troisième mandat”, Armel Niyongere, Dieudonné Bashirahishize and Lambert Nigarura.

The CAT made explicit mention of this episode and urged the authorities to drop this request.

Following up on the clampdown

Following the authorities’ no-show halfway through the session, it also invited the Government to report back by October. Hinting at Burundi’s lack of cooperation, the Committee gave the State two months to follow up and provide it with enough information to assess whether or not it had honored its obligations under the Convention Against Torture, invoking the “interrupted dialogue” and “exceptional and urgent character” of this special review.

These recommendations come as Burundi has been witnessing serious human rights violations since the controversial re-election of President Pierre Nkurunziza’s to a third term in April last year. After a failed coup attempt, a violent crackdown quashed mass protests, prompting the CAT to request that the State submits a special report on how it is fighting torture and ill treatment in the country.

After Israel and Syria, Burundi was the third country the UN torture watchdog has ever asked, pursuant to Article 19, paragraph 1 of the Convention, to submit a special report ahead of the scheduled four years.

An op-ed by Pamela Capizzi

Burundi deserted its examination before the United Nations Committee against Torture (CAT) midway. One can only regret this missed opportunity for an open and honest dialogue.

The CAT’s 58^th session has been remarkable in many respects. Firstly, the experts decided to examine Burundi in a special procedure – this had only happened twice in the past, for Israel and Syria. And secondly, because of the Burundian delegation’s unprecedented coup de theatre.

On 28 July, the CAT’s session opened with the traditional statement from the State before the experts started their questions. Those were numerous, detailed and clearly also drawn from the report civil society had submitted earlier this summer. This report, to which TRIAL International participated, documented the severe and ongoing human rights violations in the country.

Since April 2015, Burundi has been the theatre of widespread violence against political opponents and civil society. The current president’s bid for a third mandate ignited an important wave of protest that was violently repressed, quickly escalating to a crisis that resulted in hundreds of deaths and over 270’000 displaced (UN sources).

Walking away from the UN table

On the second day of the examination, Burundi’s answers to the experts’ questions were greatly expected. The delegation failed to show up altogether.

While several States have declined to attend CAT examinations, it is to our knowledge the first time that delegates leave the procedure halfway through.

A note addressed to the Chair expressed Burundi’s surprise that questions were based on the NGOs’ report. State delegates expected the discussion to revolve around fewer issues and subsequently required more time “to check the allegations against Burundi and deliberate on the appropriate measures to adopt”.

It is deeply regrettable that the Burundian government declined to engage with the international community. United Nations examinations are the occasion for a State to address its shortcomings, make its voice heard, in collaboration with – not against – civil society and qualified experts.

NGOs are crucial to report abuse, and the CAT’s thorough use of their report proved their legitimacy. It is disappointing that Burundian representatives interpreted this move as an affront, rather than the opportunity for dialogue it was.

Burundi’s behavior before the CAT, as well as its recent refusal to allow UN police officers component to be deployed in its territory, is a threat to future cooperation. We hope that the government will reconsider its position and further engage in a constructive dialogue with (its) civil society and international community – or its civilian population will be paying the heaviest price.

Pamela Capizzi, Legal Adviser
@PamelaCap1

A military tribunal in Bukavu sentenced private Bolingo Katusi to 15 years imprisonment for the rape of two women in the village of Mukoloka, in the East of the Democratic Republic of Congo.

As night gathered on 14 September 2013, Mrs Sylvie and Yvette (pseudonyms) prepared to go to sleep in their respective rooms of their common house. Yvette was attending to her baby boy.

Taking advantage of the men’s absence, private Bolingo Katusi broke into their house threatening the two women with his rifle. He forced himself on Sylvie and Yvette, who tried to resist him. During the fight, her baby boy fell to the ground. He succumbed to his injuries within days.

Bolingo Katusi is a soldier in the Congolese military, deployed in Mukoloka a few months earlier to free the area of the armed group Raiya Mutomboki, itself sowing terror among the civilian population. Stories of abuse perpetrated against citizens by those supposed to protect them are sadly common in the region.

Travelling for 3 days to testify

Bolingo was arrested by his superior the day after his crime, only to break out of jail soon afterwards. He was arrested again in 2015 and held in prison.

The accused stood trial before a military tribunal in Bukavu. A local NGO trained by TRIAL International** was in charge of gathering evidence – no mean feat in this remote village, almost 2 years after the deed. The testimonies of the victims in court, however, soon proved indispensable to the proceedings.

And so Yvette and Sylvie embarked in the longest journey of their life: with the support of TRIAL International, they travelled by motorbike, car and plane for three days, all the way to Bukavu. Neither had left their village before.

During the hearings, both women bravely recounted the night Bolingo Katusi forced himself on them. They were assisted throughout the proceedings by a local lawyer coached by TRIAL International.

A victory for all rape victims

At last, in July 2016, M. Bolingo was found responsible for the double rape of Sylvie and Yvette, and was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. The judges also ordered him to pay 20’000 USD to each of the victims as reparation for the prejudice suffered.

Rape is a plague affecting thousands of women in Eastern DRC, and each condemnation is a victory for all of them. The fact that the accused was a member of the military is also a powerful deterrent for those men in uniform all too used to commit atrocities with impunity.

Sylvie and Yvette have shown incredible courage in accepting to testify, in spite of widespread stigma attached to sexual violence. TRIAL also salutes the excellent documenting and litigating work carried out by local lawyers and human rights defenders.

TRIAL and its partners now face a new legal battle: that to enact the compensation measures ordered by the judges. Despite hundreds of similar condemnations, not a single victim of sexual violence has ever received reparations.

** The training program offered by TRIAL International to local NGOs on the documentation of sexual violence crimes according to the International Protocol on the Documentation and Investigation of Sexual Violence in Conflict was possible thanks to the support of the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office

Geneva, 26 July 2016 – A coalition of Burundian NGOs[1], with the support of the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), the International Federation of Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture (FIACAT), TRIAL International, the Centre for Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) and DefendDefenders (East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project) have submitted a report condemning a resurgence in extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances, arbitrary arrests and cases of torture.

During the 58^th session of the United Nations Committee against Torture (CAT) from 25 July to 12 August, Burundi will exceptionally be examined by experts of the CAT following the deterioration of the human rights situation in the country, triggered by a deep-rooted political crisis affecting the country since 2015.

Civil society has provided experts with an alternative report describing the alarming situation in the country since its last review by the CAT in 2014, and in particular the worsening situation in light of the 2015 political crisis. The report documents numerous violations of the Convention, such as the increased use of torture, poor treatment during arbitrary arrests and detention, and a significant increase in extrajudicial executions and enforced disappearances.

The signatories are also deeply concerned by the lack of investigations into these violations and by the culture of impunity prevailing throughout the country.

The recommendations of the report call on the Burundian government to put a stop to these violations, to prosecute those responsible, and to guarantee compensation for victims.

The report is available in French and English.

The review of Burundi can be followed live at www.treatybodywebcast.org (10:00 CET on 28 July; 15:00 CET on 29 July).

[1]The coalition is composed of the following Burundian NGOs: l’Action des Chrétiens pour l’Abolition de la Torture au Burundi (ACAT Burundi), l’Association Burundaise pour la Protection des Droits Humains et des Personnes Détenues (APRODH), la campagne SOS-Torture / Burundi, le Collectif des Avocats des Victimes de Crimes de Droit International (CAVIB), la Coalition Burundaise pour la Cour Pénale Internationale (CB-CPI), le Forum de la Société civile pour le Monitoring des Elections (COSOME), le Collectif pour la Promotion des Associations des Jeunes (CPAJ), le Forum pour la Conscience et le Développement (FOCODE), le Forum pour la Conscience et le Renforcement de la Société Civile (FORSC), la Ligue Burundaise des Droits de l’Homme (Ligue ITEKA) et le Réseau des Citoyens Probes)

On 17 July, the world will celebrate International Justice Day. But justice on an international level is not the only aspect of the fight against impunity, nor does it hold all the answers.

The Rome Statute, adopted on 17 July 1998 and laying the foundation of the International Criminal Court (ICC), was heralded as a breakthrough against impunity – and rightfully so. However, the ICC was founded on the principle of complementarity, meaning that it would only intervene when States prove unwilling or unable to prosecute mass atrocities themselves. It is neither in the Court’s mandate not in its capacities to prosecute all international crimes: the biggest part of the task lies in the hands of the States.

The past year has witnessed remarkable successes at the domestic level: Hissène Habré was condemned in Senegal for the mass crimes committed in Chad when he was President; Argentina convicted 15 former military men for their involvement in Plan Condor, including a former head of State; Guatemalan and Bosnian courts ruled in favour of victims in landmark sexual violence cases; France and the UK are currently holding universal jurisdiction trials. These examples show that domestic prosecution is achievable and can set the standards by which high-level offenders, including from powerful countries, will be held accountable in the future.

In the past few years, TRIAL International massively increased it focus on justice efforts at the national level, be it by training local human rights defenders, litigating cases domestically or lobbying for changes in domestic law – with growing success.

For the first time, Switzerland condemned a former far-right politician for denying that the Srebrenica genocide had taken place.

On 31 May, Mr. Donatello Poggi was found guilty of racial discrimination by a local court in Ticino (Switzerland) for having called the Srebrenica massacre a “propagandistic lie” in a 2012 article. That same article held that Serbs, not Bosniaks, had been the real victims of Europe’s largest mass killings since the end of the World War II.

Following the publication of the article, a lawyer of Bosnian descent lodged a criminal complaint. It was supported by TRIAL International, which has been working in Bosnia and Herzegovina with war victims of all ethnicities since 2007.

While it is true that war casualties included Serbs, numerous international and national verdicts have qualified the killing of 8’000 Bosniak men and boys in July 1995 as genocide.

To our knowledge, this verdict – which can still be appealed – is the first rendered in Switzerland on the Srebrenica genocide. It goes to sending a strong message that denying past atrocities, and thereby hindering peaceful reconciliation, will not be tolerated.

For the first time, Switzerland condemned a former far-right politician for denying that the Srebrenica genocide had taken place.

While it is true that war casualties included Serbs, numerous international and national verdicts have qualified the killing of 8’000 Bosniak men and boys in July 1995 as genocide.

Congolese NGOs provide assistance to thousands of victims of sexual violence in their quest for justice. TRIAL International stands with them in their struggle, notably by providing targeted training programs.

The fight against impunity for sexual violence in DRC is only possible thanks to the considerable documentation work of local human rights defenders – a task they sometimes carry out at the risk of their life. To support them in this role, TRIAL International has developed a training program devoted to the documentation of sexual violence as an international crime.

Based on the International Protocol on the Documentation and Investigation of Sexual Violence in Conflict, the program trains participating NGOs to gather evidence and conduct effective interviews while adapting to the special needs of sexual violence victims. In addition to this theoretical knowledge, each NGO will conduct field documentation missions, with a view to opening proceedings before Congolese courts or international bodies.

Finally, TRIAL International also invites experts to train participants in the use of personal and digital security tools. Indeed, the documentation of serious crimes often leads to threats and intimidation not only against the victims but also against the human rights defenders themselves.

Over the last two months, the NGOs Collective Campaign for Peace, Himalayan Human Rights Monitors and TRIAL International ran training sessions for Nepali journalists on human rights reporting. Held in the cities of Pokhara, Biratnagar and Nelapgunj, it delivered both theoretical and practical knowledge to 45 participants.

The training started with an overview of United Nations mechanisms and basic international law notions, as well as context-specific issues like the transitional justice process.

A session on security issues followed, as human rights reporting may, in extreme cases, put victims at risk of reprisal. The journalists were therefore briefed on risks assessment and security strategies, sharing good practice on how to document abuse while respecting the victims’ trauma. The training closed with an introduction to social media and citizen journalism.

The participants expressed their gratitude towards the organizing NGOs and underlined how their new knowledge would improve the quality of their work. “We often deal with human rights issues, but we used to make mistakes due to poor understanding and inadequate technical support,” said Sandhya Adhikari, a television reporter in Pokhara. “Now we are better equipped to react appropriately.”