DOCSLIB.ORG

REPORT No. 187/20 CASE 12.204 ADMISSIBILITY and MERITS ACTIVE MEMORY CIVIL ASSOCIATION ARGENTINA July 14, 2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
REPORT No. 187/20 CASE 12.204 ADMISSIBILITY and MERITS ACTIVE MEMORY CIVIL ASSOCIATION ARGENTINA July 14, 2020 OEA/Ser.L/V/II.176 REPORT No. 187/20 Doc. 200 CASE 12.204 July 14, 2020 Original: Spanish ADMISIBILITY AND MERITS ACTIVE MEMORY CIVIL ASSOCIATION (VICTIMS AND FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE VICTIMS THE TERRORIST ATTACK OF JULY 18, 1994 ON THE HEADQUARTERS OF THE ISRAELI-ARGENTIAN MUTUAL ASSOCIATION) ARGENTINA Approved by the Commission at its session No. 2179 held on July 14, 2020 176 Regular Period of Sessions Cite as: IACHR, Report No. No. 187/20. Case 12.204. Admissibility and Merits. Active Memory Civil Association. Argentina. July 14, 2020 www.cidh.org INDEX I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 II. PROCEDURE OF THE PETITION BEFORE THE IACHR ................................................................................................................................................ 3 III. POSITION OF THE PARTIES ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 A. The petitioners ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 B. The Argentine State ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 7 IV. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY BY THE ARGENTINE STATE ........................................................................................................... 7 V. COMPETENCE ANALYSIS AND ADMISSIBILITY ............................................................................................................................................................. 9 A. Competence, duplication of procedures, and international res judicata................................................................................................ 9 B. Exhaustion of domestic remedies and timeliness of the petition. ........................................................................................................... 9 C. Colorable claim. ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 VI. MERITS CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 10 A. Facts of the Case.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 10 1. The attack on the headquarters of the Israeli-Argentinian Mutual Association and the investigation headed by the Federal Criminal and Correctional Court No. 9 of the Federal Capital ...................................................... 11 2. The investigation delegated to the Prosecution Unit for the Investigation of the Attack on the AMIA Headquarters by the Federal Criminal and Correctional Court No. 6 of the Federal Capital ........................... 14 3. The processes into the cover-up of the attack ................................................................................................................ 15 B. Rights to life and humane treatment (Article 4.1 and 5.1 of the American Convention) and the right to equal protection (Article 24) in relation to Articles 1.1 of the Convention.. ................................................................................................... 16 1. Specific facts related to the prevention of the attack .................................................................................................... 22 2. Considerations of the Commission in relation to the rights to life and humane treatment in this case....... 24 3. Considerations of the Commission in relation to the right to equality and non-discrimination in this case..27 C. Rights to a fair trial and judicial protection (Articles 8.1 and 25 of the Convention) in relation to the obligation to respect rights (Article 1.1 of the Convention) ................................................................................................................................................... 27 1. Regarding the due diligence in the investigations followed in this case ................................................................ 33 a. Investigation lead by the Federal Criminal and Correctional Court No. 9…………………………………………………..32 i) Initial proceedings at the crime scene and raids carried out by the State Intelligence Secretary…………….33 ii) Regarding the so-called “Syrian / Kanoore Edul lead” ............................................................................................ 36 ii) Actions taken by the Investigating Judge No. 9 in relation to the accused Carlos Telleldín…………..……… 38 iv) Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................................. 42 b. Investigation delegated by the Federal Criminal and Correctional Court No. 6 to the Prosecution Unit for the Investigation of the Attack on the AMIA Headquarters ........................................................................................................ 44 i) Regarding the conservation and handling of the organic material affected in the investigation and its use as evidence ……………………………………………………….…………………….…………………………………..…46 ii) Regarding the determination of the identity of the person who would have immolated themselves in the attack ………………………………………………………………………………………… .....................................47 iii) Regarding the death of the prosecutor in charge of the investigation .……...……………… 52 iv) Regarding the failure to adopt appropriate measures to determine the identity of the so-called "victim 85"..……………………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………….…... 52 v) Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………..51 c. Investigations initiated into the cover-up of the attack ................................................................................................ 53 1 i) Investigation of the irregularities committed during the investigation conducted by the Federal Criminal Court No. 9 .................................................................................................................................................................................. 54 ii) Investigation initiated by the complaint of the Prosecution Unit for the Investigation of the Attack at the AMIA dated January 13, 2015………………………………….…………………………………………………………………………55 iii) Conclusion............................................................................................................................................................................. 56 D. Rights of Access to Information (Articles 13, 1.1, and 2 of the Convention) and to Judicial Protection (Article 25 of the American Convention) ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 57 1. On the issue of classified information held by the State Intelligence Secretariat, its successor agencies, and the UFI-AMIA ............................................................................................................................................................................. 62 2. On the issue of the preservation conditions of the documentary collections and the accessibility of the declassified information ........................................................................................................................................................ 64 E. Right to humane treatment of the next of kin (Article 5 of the American Convention). .................................................... 65 VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................... 67 2 REPORT No. 187/20 CASE 12.204 ADMISSIBILITY AND MERITS ACTIVE MEMORY CIVIL ASSOCIATION ARGENTINA July 14, 2020 I. INTRODUCTION 1. On July 16, 1999, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission,” “the Commission,” or “the IACHR”) received a petition signed by a group of victims and relatives of the victims of the terrorist attack perpetrated against the headquarters of the Israeli-Argentinian Mutual Association [Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina](AMIA) organized through the Active Memory Civil Association [Asociación Civil Memoria Activa]1. The petitioners affirmed that the Argentine State (hereinafter "the Argentine State", "the State" or "Argentina") is internationally responsible for the violation of its duty to prevent the terrorist attack that occurred on July 18, 1994, which caused the death of 85 people and serious injuries to the detriment of at least 151 other people (“the alleged victims”), and due to the state of impunity, to date, of the facts. II. PROCEDURE OF THE PETITION BEFORE
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Las Relaciones De La República Islámica Con Argentina Y Uruguay
    Documentos Año V Número 21 -10 de diciembre de 2007 Irán y el Río de la Plata: Las relaciones de la República Islámica con Argentina y Uruguay El régimen del Presidente Chávez hizo abandono de su legitimidad democrática de origen y la pervirtió en su ejercicio. Entramos en la etapa de la dictadura, una palabra que muchas veces me rehusé a pronunciar cuando pervivían, aunque precarios, los espacios democráticos que se han cerrado abruptamente con la asonada parlamentaria de diciembre último. Se ha orquestado un golpe de estado contra las instituciones democráticas y contra la mayoría que votó contra el gobierno en las elecciones parlamentarias, al abrigo de la sorpresa y en plenas festividades navideñas. Ha sido una estratagema premeditada y bien tramada, propia de un gobierno que utiliza la astucia de los militares que gobiernan para tender emboscadas. La comunidad internacional debe ser movida a considerar la nueva situación venezolana. Por Pablo Brum y Mariana Dambolena Puente Democrático es un proyecto del Area Apertura y Desarrollo Político del Centro para la Apertura y el Desarrollo de América Latina (CADAL), cuyo objetivo es promover globalmente la defensa de las libertades civiles y políticas. n la coyuntura actual, la atención de la comunidad Considerado todo esto, hay una pregunta que no se realiza Einternacional se centra en el terrorismo islámico y suficientemente: ¿qué hay detrás de las noticias que se cuelan cualquier observador casual de las noticias notaría una de vez en cuando sobre las relaciones de Irán con Argentina pluralidad de acontecimientos con un factor común. En el y Uruguay? Líbano, el grupo terrorista Hizb Allah lanza una guerra contra Israel; en Gaza, otra milicia islámica, Hamas, se hace con el Irán y el Río de la Plata poder y dispara misiles al mismo país; en Irak se suceden Originalmente, tanto Argentina como Uruguay mantuvieron los ataques terroristas con docenas y hasta centenares de relaciones políticas con la dictadura del Shah.
    [Show full text]
  • Argentina Accuses Iran of Responsibility for the Hezbollah Terrorist Attack Which Destroyed Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, 1994
    Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Center for Special Studies (C.S.S) November 14, 2006 Argentina accuses Iran of responsibility for the Hezbollah terrorist attack which destroyed Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, 1994. The Argentinean Attorney General’s office announced it had found Iran responsible for the terrorist attack and an Argentinean judge issued arrest warrants for seven senior Iranians and one senior Hezbollah member Scenes from the terrorist attack Wanted: 7 senior Iranians and a senior Hezbollah member Photo: Attorney General’s Website, Argentina The rubble of the AMIA building. Removing the bodies of the victims took weeks. 2 Overview 1. On October 25, 2006, Dr. Alberto Nisman, Argentina’s Attorney General, and Marcelo Martínez Burgos presented the findings of the special team which investigated the terrorist attack which destroyed the Jewish Community Center building (AMIA) in Buenos Aires. The explosion, carried out by a Hezbollah suicide bomber on July 18, 1994, killed 85 persons and wounded 151. 2. The detailed report, which was presented by the Attorney General and his aide at a press conference, unequivocally showed that the decision to blow up the building was taken by the “highest instances of the Iranian government,” and that the Iranians had asked Hezbollah, which serves as a tool for its strategies, to carry out the attack. Therefore, the Argentinean Attorney General petitioned the judge in the case, Dr. Rodolfo Canicoba Corral, to issue international arrest warrants for seven senior Iranian officials, including former president Rafsanjani, and senior Hezbollah operative Imad Moughnieh. It should be noted that no warrant was issued for Iranian leader Ali Khamenei although the report determined that he was involved in the decision to carry out the attack.
    [Show full text]
  • Ben Emmerson Qc Cv2011.Qxp
    Ben Emmerson QC T. 020 7404 3447 (Practice Manager, Paul Venables 020 7611 7405) E. [email protected] Year of Call: 1986 Silk: 2000 Main Areas of Practice Commercial law Media and Information law Crime, criminal due process and financial Public law regulatory law International law Human Rights law Arbitration In his private practice, Ben Emmerson QC has specialised in international and domestic human rights law, international humanitarian law and international criminal law (as well as constitutional, public and public international law). He has more than 15 years experience of litigating before the European Court of Human Rights and is now independently ranked as one of the United Kingdom's top three leading practitioners at the Bar in the law of human rights and civil liberties, and as one of the United Kingdom's top five leading practitioners at the Bar in criminal law (Chambers & Partners 2011). He has extensive experience in litigation involving the law of armed conflict before international courts and tribunals. Ben is currently Special Adviser to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court; Special Adviser to the Appeals Chamber at the UN Khmer Rouge tribunal in Cambodia; and appointed expert adviser to the UN Counter Terrorism Task Force (CTITF) working party on Protecting Human rights while Countering Terrorism. He has appeared as lead counsel in cases involving the law of armed conflict before a number of international courts tribunals, including international criminal tribunals: Prosecutor v Ramush Haradinaj, Case No. IT-04-84-T, Judgment 3 April 2008; Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v Serbia) (International Court of Justice) (extant); Abdelbaset Ali Mohamed Al Megrahi v HM Advocate; Georgia v Russia (ECHR inter-state application) (extant).
    [Show full text]
  • Internal Communication Clearance Form
    NATIONS UNIES UNITED NATIONS HAUT COMMISSARIAT DES NATIONS UNIES OFFICE OF THE UNITED NATIONS AUX DROITS DE L’HOMME HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS PROCEDURES SPECIALES DU SPECIAL PROCEDURES OF THE CONSEIL DES DROITS DE L’HOMME HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL Mandates of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism. REFERENCE: AL G/SO 214 (67-17) Terrorism (2005-4) GBR 4/2013 2 September 2013 Excellency, We have the honour to address you in our capacities as Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism pursuant to Human Rights Council resolutions 16/4 and 22/8. In this connection, we would like to bring to your Excellency’s Government’s attention information we have received concerning the detention of Mr. David Miranda, a Brazilian national transiting through London International Airport and the destruction of hard drives at the Guardian newspaper in London. According to information received: On Sunday 18 August 2013, Mr. David Miranda, a Brazilian national, was detained and questioned by United Kingdom officials for nine hours under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. He was travelling from Berlin to Rio de Janeiro, transiting through London. British authorities later justified Miranda’s detention on the “suspicion of the possession of highly sensitive stolen information that would help terrorism”.
    [Show full text]
  • Reassessing Packer in the Light of International Human Rights Norms
    Reassessing Packer in the Light of International Human Rights Norms † FARKHANDA ZIA MANSOOR I. INTRODUCTION This article analyzes different aspects of Herbert L. Packer’s crime control and due process models in the light of different components of an individual’s right to a fair trial, which is a fundamental individual human right. Packer developed his models to illuminate what he saw as two conflicting value systems that competed for priority in the operation of the criminal justice process. The utilitarian approach dominated the classical period in criminology, where deterrence theory prevailed. However, when the scales tilt too far in the direction of deterrence and crime control, due process rights suffer. Similarly, when the right to a fair trial is violated, it results in questionable convictions, imprisonment, and even execution. When the public learns that innocent persons have been convicted and imprisoned, the justice system itself loses credibility. The risk of human rights violations starts from the moment officials become suspicious of a person and continues through arrest, pre-trial detention, during the trial and appeals, and at the time of imposition of punishment. To avoid wrongful convictions and to protect the individual’s right to a fair trial through all of these stages, international fair-trial standards have been designed. According to Packer’s crime control model, repression of criminal conduct is viewed as the most important function of the criminal process. In the absence of such a repression, a general disregard for the criminal law would develop and citizens would live in constant fear. Crime control and due process (which is analogous to the right to a fair trial) approaches represent the extremes.
    [Show full text]
  • Mohamed Nasheed, Citizen of the Republic of Maldives
    PETITION TO: UNITED NATIONS WORKING GROUP ON ARBITRARY DETENTION Chairman/Rapporteur: Mads Andenas (Norway) Vice-Chairperson: Vladimir Tochilovsky (Ukraine) Sètondji Roland Adjovi (Benin) José Guevara (Mexico) Seong-Phil Hong (Republic of Korea) HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY In the Matter of Mohamed Nasheed, Citizen of the Republic of Maldives v. Government of the Republic of Maldives URGENT ACTION REQUESTED And Petition for Relief Pursuant to Resolutions 1997/50, 2000/36, 2003/31, 6/4, 15/18, 20/16, 24/71 Submitted By: Jared Genser & Maran Turner Ben Emmerson QC Amal Clooney Freedom Now Matrix Chambers Doughty Street Chambers 1776 K Street, NW, 8th Floor Griffin Building 54 Doughty Street Washington, DC 20006 Gray’s Inn, London London W1CN 2LS United States United Kingdom United Kingdom +1.202.466.3069 (phone) +44.207.404.3447 (phone) +44.207.404.1313 (phone) +1 202.478.5162 (fax) [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] @jaredgenser April 30, 2015 1 Resolutions 1997/50, 2000/36, and 2003/31 were adopted by the UN Commission on Human Rights extending the mandate of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. The Human Rights Council, which “assume[d]… all mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities of the Commission on Human Rights…” pursuant to UN General Assembly Resolution 60/251, GA Res. 60/251, Mar. 15, 2006, at ¶ 6, has further extended the mandate through Resolutions 6/4, 15/18, 20/16, and 24/7. 1 Table of Contents Basis for “Urgent Action” Request ................................................................................................. 3 Questionnaire To Be Completed by Persons Alleging Arbitrary Arrest or Detention ...................
    [Show full text]
  • High Court Judgment Template
    Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Sunca, Zagrean and Chihaia v. Romania Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWHC 2786 (Admin) Case No: CO/2387/2016, CO/3889/2015 and CO/4067/2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION DIVISIONAL COURT Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 04/11/2016 Before: LADY JUSTICE SHARP DBE and MR JUSTICE CRANSTON - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: The Court in Mures 1st Appellants and The Bistrita-Nasaud Tribunal, Romania - and - Alexandru Zagrean 1st Respondent Petru Sunca 2nd Appellant - and - Iasi Court of Law, Romania 2nd Respondent Stelian Chihaia 3rd Appellant - and - Bacau Court of Law, Romania 3rd Respondent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr Ben Emmerson QC and Mr Ben Seifert (instructed by Coomber Rich Solicitors) for the 3rd Appellant Mr Edward Fitzgerald QC and Mr Graeme Hall (instructed by Shaw Graham Kersh) for the 2nd Appellant Mr Ben Emmerson QC and Mr Peter Caldwell (instructed by Coomber Rich Solicitors) for the 1st Respondent Mr Julian Knowles QC and Ms Julia Farrant (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the 1st Appellants and the 2nd and 3rd Respondents Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Sunca, Zagrean and Chihaia v. Romania Hearing date: 11 October 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Approved Judgment Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Sunca, Zagrean and Chihaia v. Romania Mr Justice Cranston: Introduction 1. This is the judgment of the court. 2. There are three applications before us. The first is an application by the Judicial Authority for permission to appeal pursuant to section 28 of the Extradition Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”) against the decision of District Judge Margot Coleman dated 8 August 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • LOCKED up WITHOUT EVIDENCE Abuses Under Sri Lanka’S Prevention of Terrorism Act WATCH
    HUMAN RIGHTS LOCKED UP WITHOUT EVIDENCE Abuses under Sri Lanka’s Prevention of Terrorism Act WATCH Locked Up Without Evidence Abuses under Sri Lanka’s Prevention of Terrorism Act Copyright © 2018 Human Rights Watch All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America ISBN: 978-1-6231-35515 Cover design by Rafael Jimenez Human Rights Watch defends the rights of people worldwide. We scrupulously investigate abuses, expose the facts widely, and pressure those with power to respect rights and secure justice. Human Rights Watch is an independent, international organization that works as part of a vibrant movement to uphold human dignity and advance the cause of human rights for all. Human Rights Watch is an international organization with staff in more than 40 countries, and offices in Amsterdam, Beirut, Berlin, Brussels, Chicago, Geneva, Goma, Johannesburg, London, Los Angeles, Moscow, Nairobi, New York, Paris, Stockholm, South Korea. San Francisco, Sydney, Tokyo, Toronto, Tunis, Washington DC, and Zurich. For more information, please visit our website: http://www.hrw.org JANUARY 2018 ISBN: 978-1-6231-35515 Locked Up Without Evidence Abuses under Sri Lanka’s Prevention of Terrorism Act Summary ........................................................................................................................... 1 Proposed Counterterrorism Legislation ..................................................................................... 5 Key Recommendations ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Referral of Iranian President Ahmadinejad on the Charge of Incitement to Commit Genocide
    REFERRAL OF IRANIAN PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD ON THE CHARGE OF INCITEMENT TO COMMIT GENOCIDE AMB. MEIR ROSENNE PROF. ELIE WIESEL AMB. DORE GOLD IRIT KOHN, ADV. AMB. EYTAN BENTSUR M.K. DAN NAVEH PRINCIPAL AUTHOR: JUSTUS REID WEINER, ESQ. The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs ®¯¢Ú© ‰È„Ó ¯Â·Èˆ ÈÈÈÚÏ ÈÓÏ˘Â¯È‰ ÊίӉ Dedicated to the victims of Darfur © 2006 Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs Tel Hai Street 13, Jerusalem 92107, Israel Tel. 972-2-5619281 Fax. 972-2-5619112 Email: [email protected] Internet website: www.jcpa.org ISBN 965-218-055-6 Production Coordinator: Edna Weinstock-Gabay Graphic Design: Rami & Jacky / Hagar Rivka Moshe Acknowledgements The principal author wishes to thank his colleagues at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, including Diane Morrison (for her legal research), Jeremy Siegman, Jennifer Tullman, and Ilana Hart. Photo Credits Front Cover: AP Photo Back Cover: Ahmadinejad speaks during a conference on Oct. 26, 2005 entitled ‘The World Without Zionism.’ Ahmadinejad states that Israel should be “wiped off the map,” the official IRNA news agency reported. (AP Photo/ISNA) Executive Summary President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of the Islamic verbal barrages, however, pose no existential threat Republic of Iran has made the destruction of Israel to ordinary people in the street. Ahmadinejad’s his avowed policy. Ahamadinejad’s declaration reckless anti-Semitic tirades that “the Jews are in 2005 that “Israel should be wiped off the map” very filthy people,” “[the Jews have] inflicted the was met by widespread international outcry. Yet, most damage on the human race,” “[the Jews are] this declaration was not an isolated incident, but a bunch of bloodthirsty barbarians,” “they should the first of many during the past year.
    [Show full text]
  • H. Con. Res. 295
    IV 111TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 295 Condemning the attack on the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on July 18, 1994, and for other purposes. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES JULY 1, 2010 Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN (for herself, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. KLEIN of Florida, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. INGLIS, Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida, Mr. MCMAHON, Mr. PENCE, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. ROYCE, Mr. POE of Texas, Mr. DEUTCH, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. MCGOV- ERN, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. MACK, Mr. MEEK of Florida, Mr. SIRES, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. BILIRAKIS, and Mr. ROHRABACHER) submitted the following concur- rent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Condemning the attack on the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on July 18, 1994, and for other purposes. Whereas, on July 18, 1994, 85 people were killed and 300 were wounded when the Argentine Jewish Mutual Asso- ciation (AMIA) was attacked in Buenos Aires, Argentina; Whereas extensive evidence links the planning of the attack to the Government of Iran, and the execution of the at- tack to Hezbollah, which is based in Lebanon, supported VerDate Mar 15 2010 06:02 Jul 02, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HC295.IH HC295 tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with BILLS 2 by Syria, sponsored by Iran, and designated by the De- partment of State as a Foreign Terrorist Organization; Whereas, on October 25, 2006, the State Prosecutor of Ar- gentina, an office created by the Government of Argen- tina, concluded that the AMIA attack was ‘‘decided and organized by the highest leaders of the former govern- ment of .
    [Show full text]
  • Briefing Paper Saudi Arabia
    BRIEFING PAPER Universal Periodic Review March 2018 THE SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS IN SAUDI ARABIA Contacts Eleanor Openshaw Khalid Ibrahim Husain Abdulla Delphine Reculeau International Service for Gulf Centre for Human Americans for Democracy & Observatory for the Human Rights Rights Human Rights in Bahrain Protection of Human [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Rights Defenders [email protected] In its October 2013 Universal Periodic Review (UPR), Saudi Arabia accepted 240 of 348 recommendations made by States – but none focusing on human rights defenders (HRDs). It accepted 7 recommendations on the rights to freedom of opinion and expression and freedom of association and peaceful assembly, including several calling for the protection of individuals who exercise these rights; and for the definition of laws that enable civil society organisations (CSOs) to work without undue interference. RISKS FACING HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS bylaws cannot be inconsistent with Islamic Sharia, The Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR) reported contradict public morals, infringe upon national that Saudi Arabia often violates its UNCAT unity, or contradict Saudi laws and regulation. obligations by subjecting HRDs in detention to ill According to the International Center for Not-for- treatment.1 HRD Issa Al Marzog Al-Nukhaifi, Profit Law (ICNL) foreign branches cannot be released April 2016, faced torture and solitary registered in Saudi Arabia. The government gains confinement after initiating a hunger strike while in some control over the internal affairs of detention. associations — which cannot work outside of their area of registration, must provide the Ministry of In July 2017, four men were executed after being Labour & Social Development with annual financial arrested for participating in protests.2 That same statements, meeting notes, and voting records, and month, the Saudi Arabian Supreme Court upheld require permission to seek foreign funding.
    [Show full text]
  • Terrorism, Criminal Law and Politics
    Terrorism, Criminal Law and Politics Recent atrocities have ensured that terrorism and how to deal with terrorists legally and politically has been the subject of much discussion and debate on the international stage. This book presents a study of changes in the legal treatment of those perpetrating crimes of a political character over several decades. It most centrally deals with the political offence exception and how it has changed. The book looks at this change from an international perspective with a particular focus on the United States. Interdisciplinary in approach, it examines the fields of ter- rorism and political crime from legal, political science and criminological perspec- tives. It will be of interest to a broad range of academics and researchers, as well as to policymakers involved in creating new anti-terrorist policies. Julia Jansson holds a Doctor of Laws degree from the University of Helsinki, Finland. Transnational Criminal Justice The concept of ‘transnational criminal justice’ has frequently been interpreted in the academic literature as ‘international criminal justice’ or ‘global criminal justice.’ Many publications that use the term ‘transnational’ therefore discuss international criminal justice and international legal frameworks. Another form of study that has developed under the umbrella of transnationality in the field of criminal law is comparative. There has hence been a move from the terminology of ‘international,’ ‘global’ and ‘comparative’ criminal justice towards ‘transnational’ criminal justice. This series considers these developments, but focuses primarily on publica- tions that adhere to a more literal interpretation of the term ‘transnational.’ The aim of the series is to provide a forum for discussion of bilateral and multilat- eral relationships between nations in the field of criminal justice.
    [Show full text]