organization:united nations human rights council

  • UNHRC adopts resolution to strengthen UN presence in Palestine
    March 22, 2019 4:14 P.M.
    http://www.maannews.com/Content.aspx?ID=782955

    BETHLEHEM (Ma’an) — The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) adopted a draft resolution to strengthen the UN presence in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territory, on Friday afternoon.

    The UNHRC requested “the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to strengthen the field presence of the Office of the High Commissioner in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the besieged Gaza Strip.”

    The Council requested the deployment of “personnel and expertise necessary to monitor and document the ongoing violations of international law” in the occupied territories.

    It condemned Israel’s “apparent intentional use of unlawful lethal and other excessive force” against civilian protesters, including children, journalists and health workers, in Gaza.

    The resolution was adopted with 23 states in favor, 8 against, and 15 abstentions.

    The votes against the resolution were given by Australia, Austria, Brazil, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Fiji, Hungary, and Ukraine.

    #ONU

  • UN council: Israel intentionally shot children and journalists in Gaza - Israel News - Haaretz.com
    https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/un-council-israel-intentionally-shot-children-and-journalists-in-gaza-1.697

    The investigative commission of the United Nations Human Rights Council that examined the most recent round of violence on the #Israel-#Gaza border presented its findings on Thursday, saying it found “reasonable grounds” that Israeli security forces violated international law.

    The commission determined that the majority of Gaza protesters who were killed by Israeli forces —154 out of 183 people — had been unarmed.

    The panel also recommended that UN members consider imposing individual sanctions, such as a travel ban or an assets freeze, on those identified as responsible by the commission.

    [...]

    The commiission found that 35 children had been killed, some from direct weapons fire. The commission also noted one case involving a disabled person in a wheelchair and direct fire at journalists who claimed that they were clearly identified as press. One commission member, Sara Hussein, responded that there was no justification for firing at children and the disabled, whom she claimed posed no danger. The commission also took note of injury to Israeli soldiers in the confrontations.

    The commission also recommended that materials it collected be transferred to the International Criminal Court in The Hague and that UN members “consider imposing individual sanctions, such as a travel ban or an assets freeze, on those identified as responsible by the commission.”

    #crimes #ONU #impunité

    En français, versions édulcorées
    https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2019/02/28/israel-mis-en-cause-par-une-commission-de-l-onu-pour-de-possibles-crimes-de-

    https://www.lorientlejour.com/article/1159486/lonu-accuse-israel-de-possibles-crimes-contre-lhumanite-a-gaza.html

    https://www.rts.ch/info/monde/10254221-l-onu-suspecte-israel-de-crimes-de-guerre-lors-des-manifestations-a-gaz

  • UN to review 7 resolutions against Israel in March
    Feb. 15, 2019 11:06 A.M. (Updated : Feb. 15, 2019 12:29 P.M.)
    http://www.maannews.com/Content.aspx?ID=782560

    BETHLEHEM (Ma’an) — The United Nations Human Rights Council is planning to issue seven resolutions against Israel during March, according to Israeli news outlets.

    Israeli Channel 2 reported that a report of the Commission of Inquiry into the “Gaza Fence” and the black list of businesses operating inside illegal Israeli settlements and beyond the Green Line will be among the resolutions to be made.

    The UN Special Coordinator’s report in the Palestinian lands will also be reviewed, in addition to the Goldstone Report of 2009 and Israeli violations in occupied Golan.

    Israeli violations of the International Law will also be reviewed by the UN Human Rights Council.

    #PalestineONU

  • Un intéressant éditorial du New York Times contre les tentatives du Sénat américain de criminaliser BDS

    Opinion | Curbing Speech in the Name of Helping Israel - The New York Times

    A Senate bill aims to punish those who boycott Israel over its settlement policy. There are better solutions.

    By The Editorial Board
    The editorial board represents the opinions of the board, its editor and the publisher. It is separate from the newsroom and the Op-Ed section.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/opinion/editorials/israel-bds.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

    One of the more contentious issues involving Israel in recent years is now before Congress, testing America’s bedrock principles of freedom of speech and political dissent.

    It is a legislative proposal that would impose civil and criminal penalties on American companies and organizations that participate in boycotts supporting Palestinian rights and opposing Israel’s occupation of the West Bank.

    The aim is to cripple the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement known as B.D.S., which has gathered steam in recent years despite bitter opposition from the Israeli government and its supporters around the world.

    The proposal’s chief sponsors, Senator Ben Cardin, a Maryland Democrat, and Senator Rob Portman, an Ohio Republican, want to attach it to the package of spending bills that Congress needs to pass before midnight Friday to keep the government fully funded.
    ADVERTISEMENT
    The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a leading pro-Israel lobby group, strongly favors the measure.

    J Street, a progressive American pro-Israel group that is often at odds with Aipac and that supports a two-state peace solution, fears that the legislation could have a harmful effect, in part by implicitly treating the settlements and Israel the same, instead of as distinct entities. Much of the world considers the settlements, built on land that Israel captured in the 1967 war, to be a violation of international law.

    Although the Senate sponsors vigorously disagree, the legislation, known as the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, is clearly part of a widening attempt to silence one side of the debate. That is not in the interests of Israel, the United States or their shared democratic traditions.

    Critics of the legislation, including the American Civil Liberties Union and several Palestinian rights organizations, say the bill would violate the First Amendment and penalize political speech.

    The hard-line policies of Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, including expanding settlements and an obvious unwillingness to seriously pursue a peace solution that would allow Palestinians their own state, have provoked a backlash and are fueling the boycott movement.
    Editors’ Picks

    How to Buy a Gun in 15 Countries

    Opinion
    In Praise of Mediocrity

    Ellen DeGeneres Is Not as Nice as You Think

    ADVERTISEMENT
    It’s not just Israel’s adversaries who find the movement appealing. Many devoted supporters of Israel, including many American Jews, oppose the occupation of the West Bank and refuse to buy products of the settlements in occupied territories. Their right to protest in this way must be vigorously defended.

    The same is true of Palestinians. They are criticized when they resort to violence, and rightly so. Should they be deprived of nonviolent economic protest as well? The United States frequently employs sanctions as a political tool, including against North Korea, Iran and Russia.

    Mr. Cardin and Mr. Portman say their legislation merely builds on an existing law, the Export Control Reform Act, which bars participation in the Arab League boycott of Israel, and is needed to protect American companies from “unsanctioned foreign boycotts.”

    They are especially concerned that the United Nations Human Rights Council is compiling a database of companies doing business in the occupied territories and East Jerusalem, a tactic Senate aides say parallels the Arab League boycott.

    But there are problems with their arguments, critics say. The existing law aimed to protect American companies from the Arab League boycott because it was coercive, requiring companies to boycott Israel as a condition of doing business with Arab League member states. A company’s motivation for engaging in that boycott was economic — continued trade relations — not exercising free speech rights.

    By contrast, the Cardin-Portman legislation would extend the existing prohibition to cover boycotts against Israel and other countries friendly to the United States when the boycotts are called for by an international government organization, like the United Nations or the European Union.

    Neither of those organizations has called for a boycott, but supporters of Israel apparently fear that the Human Rights Council database is a step in that direction.
    Get our weekly newsletter and never miss an Op-Doc
    Watch Oscar-nominated short documentaries from around the world made for you.

    SIGN UP
    ADVERTISEMENT
    Civil rights advocates, on the other hand, say that anyone who joins a boycott would be acting voluntarily — neither the United Nations nor the European Union has the authority to compel such action — and the decision would be an exercise of political expression in opposition to Israeli policies.

    Responding to criticism, the senators amended their original proposal to explicitly state that none of the provisions shall infringe upon any First Amendment right and to penalize violators with fines rather than jail time.

    But the American Civil Liberties Union says the First Amendment wording is nonbinding and “leaves intact key provisions which would impose civil and criminal penalties on companies, small business owners, nonprofits and even people acting on their behalf who engage in or otherwise support certain political boycotts.”

    While the sponsors say their bill is narrowly targeted at commercial activity, “such assurances ring hollow in light of the bill’s intended purpose, which is to suppress voluntary participation in disfavored political boycotts,” the A.C.L.U. said in a letter to lawmakers.

    Even the Anti-Defamation League, which has lobbied for the proposal, seems to agree. A 2016 internal ADL memo, disclosed by The Forward last week, calls anti-B.D.S. laws “ineffective, unworkable, unconstitutional and bad for the Jewish community.”

    In a properly functioning Congress, a matter of such moment would be openly debated. Instead, Mr. Cardin and Mr. Portman are trying to tack the B.D.S. provision onto the lame-duck spending bill, meaning it could by enacted into law in the 11th-hour crush to keep the government fully open.

    The anti-B.D.S. initiative began in 2014 at the state level before shifting to Congress and is part of a larger, ominous trend in which the political space for opposing Israel is shrinking. After ignoring the B.D.S. movement, Israel is now aggressively pushing against it, including branding it anti-Semitic and adopting a law barring foreigners who support it from entering that country.
    ADVERTISEMENT
    One United States case shows how counterproductive the effort is. It involves Bahia Amawi, an American citizen of Palestinian descent who was told she could no longer work as an elementary school speech pathologist in Austin, Tex., because she refused to sign a state-imposed oath that she “does not” and “will not” engage in a boycott of Israel. She filed a lawsuit this week in federal court, arguing that the Texas law “chills constitutionally protected political advocacy in support of Palestine.”

    Any anti-boycott legislation enacted by Congress is also likely to face a court challenge. It would be more constructive if political leaders would focus on the injustice and finding viable solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict rather than reinforcing divisions between the two parties and promoting legislation that raises free speech concerns.

  • Tunisia: Privacy Threatened by ‘Homosexuality’ Arrests

    Tunisian authorities are confiscating and searching the phones of men they suspect of being gay and pressuring them to take anal tests and to confess to homosexual activity, Human Rights Watch said today. Prosecutors then use information collected in this fashion to prosecute them for homosexual acts between consenting partners, under the country’s harsh sodomy laws.

    “The Tunisian authorities have no business meddling in people’s private sexual practices, brutalizing and humiliating them under the guise of enforcing discriminatory laws,” said Amna Guellali, Tunisia director at Human Rights Watch. “Tunisia should abolish its antiquated anti-sodomy laws and respect everyone’s right to privacy.”

    Human Rights Watch spoke with six men prosecuted in 2017 and 2018 under article 230 of the penal code, which punishes consensual same-sex conduct with up to three years in prison. One person interviewed was only 17 years old the first time he was arrested. Human Rights Watch also reviewed the judicial files in these cases and five others that resulted in prosecutions under either article 230 or article 226, which criminalizes “harming public morals.” In addition to violating privacy rights, these cases included allegations of mistreatment in police custody, forced confessions, and denial of access to legal counsel.

    Police arrested some of these men after disputes arose between them or after neighbors reported them. Two had gone to the police to report being raped.

    Some of the men spent months in prison. At least three have left Tunisia and applied for asylum in European countries.

    K.S., a 32-year-old engineer, entered a police station in Monastir in June 2018 to file a complaint of gang rape, and to get an order for a medical examination of his injuries. Instead of treating him as a victim, he said, the police ordered an anal test to determine whether K.S. was “used to practicing sodomy.” “How they treated me was insane,” K.S. told Human Rights Watch. “How is it their business to intrude into my intimate parts and check whether I am ‘used to sodomy’?”

    In another case, a 17-year-old was arrested three times on sodomy charges and was forced to undergo an anal examination, as well as months of conversion therapy at a juvenile detention center. Both harmful practices are discredited.

    Tunisian prosecutors have relied extensively in recent years on forced anal examinations to seek “evidence” of sodomy, even though the exams are highly unreliable and constitute cruel, degrading, and inhuman treatment that can rise to the level of torture.

    On September 21, 2017, during the Universal Periodic Review at the United Nations Human Rights Council, Tunisia formally accepted a recommendation to end forced anal exams. However, Tunisia’s delegation stated: “Medical examinations will be conducted based on the consent of the person and in the presence of a medical expert.” This stance is not credible because trial courts can presume that a refusal to undergo the exam signals guilt, Human Rights Watch said. Tunisia should abandon anal exams altogether.

    Prosecutions for consensual sex in private and between adults violate the rights to privacy and nondiscrimination guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Tunisia is a party. The United Nations Human Rights Committee, which monitors compliance with the covenant, has stated that sexual orientation is a status protected against discrimination. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has found that arrests for same-sex conduct between consenting adults are, by definition, arbitrary.

    Tunisia’s 2014 constitution, in article 24, obliges the government to protect the rights to privacy and the inviolability of the home. Article 21 provides that “All citizens, male and female, have equal rights and duties, and are equal before the law without any discrimination.” Article 23 prohibits “mental and physical torture.”

    The Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits house searches and seizure of objects that could serve a criminal investigation without a judicial warrant, except in cases of flagrante delicto, that is when catching someone in the act.

    Article 1 of Law No. 63 on the protection of personal data stipulates that “every person is entitled to the protection of their personal data and privacy of information, viewed as a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution. This data can only be used with transparency, loyalty and respect for the dignity of the person whose data is subject of treatment.” However, neither Law No. 63 nor any other domestic law regulates the conditions for seizing private data during a police investigation or its use.

    On June 12, the Commission on Individual Freedoms and Equality, appointed by President Beji Caid Essebsi, proposed, among other actions, to decriminalize homosexuality and to end anal testing in criminal investigations into homosexuality. It also proposed criminalizing the unlawful “interception, opening, recording, spreading, saving and deleting” of an electronic message.

    On October 11, 13 members of the Tunisian Parliament introduced draft legislation for a code on individual freedoms. It incorporated several proposals from the presidential commission including abolition of article 230.

    Parliament should move quickly on this draft legislation and abolish article 230, Human Rights Watch said. It should enact a law that effectively protects people’s privacy, through regulating the seizure and use of private data during criminal investigations, with consequences if such a law is violated.

    The Justice Ministry should meanwhile direct public prosecutors to abandon prosecutions under article 230. The Interior Ministry should investigate reports of the ill-treatment of people arrested based on their gender identity or sexual orientation.

    Human Rights Watch conducted face to face interviews with men in Tunisia and phone interviews with men who fled to European countries. Pseudonyms have been used to protect their privacy.

    Shams and Damj, local LGBT rights groups, provided assistance.

    Accounts by Men Prosecuted

    K.S., 32, engineer

    K.S. used to work for an international company in Tunis. He said that on June 8, he went to spend the weekend in at a friend’s house in Monastir, a coastal city. He had earlier chatted with a man from Monastir on Grindr, a social network application for gays. They made a date and they met that day in a café. The man invited K.S. to his house, but once there, the man became aggressive and showed K.S. a police badge. Two other men arrived, and they started insulting him, calling him “sick.” “One said, ‘You people of Loth [a demeaning term derived from the Biblical and Quranic story of Lot], you deserve to be killed, you are like microbes.’”

    They punched and slapped him on the face, he said. Then the man who had invited him said, “We will show you what sodomy is like.” The men then forced him to take off his clothes and bend over. Two of them held K.S. by the arms while the third inserted a baton in his anus. “It was unbearable, I felt that I will faint,” K.S. said. They finally let him leave.

    I was shivering and bleeding [when I reached my friend’s house]. The next day, I went to Fattouma Bourguiba hospital in Monastir. I just wanted to get medical treatment and to check that I did not have internal hemorrhaging.

    But, he said, the doctor refused to examine him without a police order:

    I went to the Skanes district police station in Monastir, to try to get the requisition order. I did not want to tell the police the full story, so I just said that three men had raped me. The policeman who was typing my statement left the room at some point, and that’s when I saw on the screen that he was instructing the doctor at Fatouma Bourguiba hospital to examine whether I am ‘used to practicing sodomy.’ I felt the blood freeze in my body.

    Human Rights Watch reviewed the June 9 police requisition order, in which the chief instructs the doctor to examine whether K.S. was “used to practicing sodomy” and whether he was victim of anal rape.

    K.S. said that, when the policeman returned to the office, K.S. asked if he could leave. The policeman replied: “And go where? You can’t leave before we check what kind of stuff you do.” The policeman called for a patrol car to drive K.S. to the hospital.

    The doctor told me that he has a requisition order to perform an anal test. “We want to check whether this is a habit,” he said. I was terrified. I told him that I didn’t want to do the test. But he insisted that he had to perform it. He told me to remove my pants and assume a prayer position [on hand and knees] on top of the medical bed. He put on gloves and started to examine me with his fingers. As soon as he did, I felt sick and told him I wanted to go to the toilet. I wanted to stop this humiliation. He let me go. I managed to avoid the policemen who were waiting for me in the corridor and left the hospital. Once in the parking lot, I started running until I felt safe, and then went to my friend’s house.

    K.S. said he took a flight on June 13 to Belgium, where he has filed a request for asylum.

    K. B., 41, documentary filmmaker

    K.B. spent 13 months in pretrial detention on accusation of sodomy and unlawful detention. He is married and the father of an 8-year-old girl. He told Human Rights Watch that on March 3, 2017, at around 9 p.m., he went to downtown Tunis for drinks. While he was sitting in a bar, S.Z., a young man, approached him. They chatted for a while, then K.B. invited him to his place. He said that, after having sex, he went to the kitchen to prepare some food. When he came back to the living room, he caught the man stealing money from his wallet. K.B. tried to force him out of his apartment, but the man locked himself in a bedroom, went to the balcony, and screamed for help. Policemen arrived, arrested them, and took them to the Aouina district police station.

    Police treated me with contempt. The first question the interrogator asked was whether I had sex with S.Z. I denied it categorically and told him we only had drinks together. But he said that S.Z. had confessed. The interrogator asked me: “Aren’t you ashamed of yourself?”
    K.B. said the police at the station confiscated his phone and looked at his social media history and his photo archives. They switched the phone off and did not allow him to call his family or a lawyer. They presented him with a statement to sign, but he refused. At 4 a.m., they transferred both men to Bouchoucha detention center. Later that morning, the police took the men to the Tunis first instance court, where a prosecutor ordered them to undergo an anal test. The police took them to Charles Nicole hospital, K.B. said, where he refused the test. “The idea of them intruding into my intimacy and into my body was so humiliating to me.”

    He was returned to detention and after a few weeks decided to undergo the test in the hope that negative results would prove his innocence. He said he informed the investigative judge during a hearing and the judge issued a requisition. Police officers took him again to Charles Nicole Hospital.

    It was the worst thing that ever happened to me. The doctor asked me to strip and get on the examination table. He asked me to bend over. There was one policeman in the room and one medical assistant, watching. The doctor put one finger into my anus and moved it around. I was so ashamed. It was very dehumanizing.

    K.B. said that even though the test result was negative, the investigative judge indicted him for sodomy. The order referring the case to trial said that the time elapsed between the alleged act and the test prevented the court from ruling out that K.B. was “used to the practice of sodomy.”

    In May 2018, 13 months after the court placed K.B. in pretrial detention, it acquitted and freed him.

    In the indictment, the investigative judge wrote that S.Z. had confessed to the police to “committing the crime of sodomy in exchange for money” and that he admitted that he “approached and dated men he met via Facebook.” The judge quotes the police report, which describes in crude terms the sexual intercourse between K.B. and S.Z. The judge also states that K.B has denied the accusation of sodomy, and instead stated that he and S.Z. were only having drinks at his place and did not have sex.

    The investigative judge notes that S.Z. later retracted his confession and says that he gave instructions for the forensic doctor in the Charles Nicole Hospital to administer an anal test to determine whether K.B “bore signs of the practice of homosexual activity” recently or whether he “practices sodomy in a habitual way.”

    The judge’s indictment of K. B. was based on S.Z.’s confession to the police, later repudiated, from “the circumstances of the case, which show that the two men had no other reason to go to K. B.’s house” and K. B.’s refusal to take the anal test. The judge wrote: “given that the test was performed 20 days after the reported incident, the forensic doctor was not able to find signs of anal penetration because those signs disappear five days after the act.”

    “Free” (nickname), 32, hairdresser

    Free said that on the night of April 5, 2018, he went with a female friend from Sousse to Monastir for drinks and to meet his boyfriend. When they arrived at around 9 p.m., he said, a police patrol stopped them and asked for their papers, then told the woman to accompany them to the station for further identity checks. Free waited outside the station.

    While waiting, Free received an angry message from his boyfriend asking him why he was late. Free explained where he was and snapped a photo of the station as proof. A police officer saw him and confiscated Free’s telephone, saying he had endangered state security. The officer took him to an interrogation room, where another officer handcuffed him to a chair. An officer searched the phone and finding nude photos of Free, then searched his social media activity and read the conversations he had with men on gay dating apps and his chats with his boyfriend on Facebook Messenger, some of them sexually explicit.

    Free said that the police officer turned to him and said, “I hate you, you sodomites. You will have to pay for your depravity.” Other police officers in the room insulted Free, he said. The officer interrogated him about his sexual activity, wrote a report, and told him to sign it. When Free refused, a policeman slapped him in the face and said, “Ah, now you are trying to be a man. Just sign here, you scum.” Free signed the report without reading it.

    At no point during the interrogation did the police advise Free of his right to speak to a lawyer. At around midnight, they moved him into a cell, where he spent the night. The following day, he was taken before a prosecutor, who charged him with sodomy but decided to release him provisionally pending trial. On June 6, he appeared before the first instance court in Monastir. The presiding judge closed the courtroom to the public.

    The first question he asked me was whether I am used to the practice of sodomy. I told him I was not. He asked the question again, then asked, “Then why did you confess?” I answered, “Because the police forced me to.” The judge asked, “But if you are not a sodomite, why do you dress like this, why do you look like one of them?”

    He said the judge adjourned the trial to June 14, when he convicted Free and sentenced him to a four-months sentence with probation, based on his phone conversations and his forced confession. Free has appealed.

    M. R., 26, paramedic

    M.R. worked in a hospital in Tebourba, a city 40 kilometers west of Tunis. He fled to France and applied for asylum after being charged under article 230 and granted pretrial release.

    M.R. said he had always hidden his sexual orientation because of severe social stigma. In November 2017, he chatted with a man on Facebook. The man, called A.F., sent him photos, and they decided to meet. When they did, M.R. realized that the photos were fake and told A.F. that he would not have sex with him. A few days later, on November 28, A.F. banged on his door at around 4 a.m. Fearing scandal, M.R. opened the door to find A.F. drunk and wielding a knife. A.F. slapped him on the face, ordered him to remove his clothes, and raped him, he said, threatening to cut his throat. After a few hours, A.F. told M.R. to buy A.F. cigarettes. M.R. went to the Tebourba police station and filed a rape complaint.

    When I told the police officers about the rape, they asked me how I knew the man and how we met. I dodged the questions, but they insisted. I told them that I am gay, and their behavior changed instantly. The station chief said: “Ah, so you were the one who initiated this, you are an accomplice to the crime, there is no rape here – you deserve this.” Then, he handed me a requisition order and told me to go get an anal test the following day at Charles Nicole Hospital.

    The police interrogated M.R., then accompanied him to his apartment, where they arrested A.F. The police told M.R. to undergo the anal examination, then report to the First Instance Court in Manouba. M.R. consulted the nongovernmental association Shams, which defends sexual minorities, and decided to skip the anal test. When he reported to the court, the investigative judge treated him as a criminal, not a victim. M.R. said:

    He asked questions about my sex life and when I started practicing sodomy with other men. He said that I deserved everything that had happened to me and that I should be ashamed of myself.

    M.R. said that the judge charged him with sodomy and granted him pretrial release. A.F. was kept in custody and charged with sodomy and rape.

    The indictment of M.R., prepared by the investigative judge and dated December 13, 2017, provides purported details from M.R.’s intimate life, including confessions that he is gay. The indictment also relies on the confession from A.F. and cites a condom seized at M. R.’s house as evidence.

    M.R. said that, three days after the encounter with A.F., he reported to work at the hospital. The director handed him a dismissal notice on the grounds that he was facing trial.

    I had to go back to my family’s place, as I had no salary anymore. It was like living in a prison. My father and older brother beat me many times, my father even burned me with a cigarette. They did not allow me to go out, they said they were ashamed of me.

    Having lost everything, he left Tunisia for France.

    I had no other choice, I felt rejected by everyone, my family, society, my colleagues. And I was afraid of going to prison.

    Mounir Baatour, M.R.’s lawyer, told Human Rights Watch that the case is stalled in the first instance court in Manouba, and has yet to go to trial. On May 15, 2018, indictment chamber sent the indictment to the cassation court for a legal review, which is pending.

    R. F., 42, day laborer, and M.J. 22, unemployed

    On June 12, 2018, police in Sidi Bouzaiane arrested R.F. and M.J. after R.F. went to the police to say that M.J. had refused to leave R.F.’s house.

    M.J. said that the police came to his house and took both men to the police station at around midnight. They interrogated them in the same room, asking them how they met. A police officer took R.F.’s phone and watched videos stored on it, then said to R.F., “So you are a miboun [a degrading term for gay]. M.J. said:

    One of the four officers present during interrogation slapped R.F. on the face. Then he turned toward me and asked, “So what were you both doing in the house? I’m sure you were having sex, so you too must be a miboun. You are staining this country,” he said.

    M.J. said that policemen beat him on his face, head, and back. When the police finished the interrogation at 3 a.m., they presented a written report and told M.J. to sign it. He said he asked to have a lawyer first, but they refused to let him call one and insulted him. He signed the report.

    The police report, reviewed by Human Rights Watch, states that neither man requested a lawyer. R.F.’s purported statement, as the police recorded it, describes in graphic terms how he habitually practices sodomy and has sex with men. The police report states that officers searched R.F.’s smartphone and found videos of R.F. having sex with men. The police confiscated his phone, the report says, as “evidence of the crime.”

    Two days after the arrest, M.J. said, he and R.F. appeared before a prosecutor, who asked them: “Aren’t you afraid of God’s judgment?” He ordered pretrial detention, and they were sent to the Sidi Bouzid prison. M.J. said that one of the prison guards harassed him and asked him vulgar questions such as: “How you do this? Are you getting fucked for money? Why are you fucking men? Aren’t there enough women to fuck in this country?”

    He said he was put in a cell with 100 other men, who seemed to have been informed about his “crime.” Over the following days, his cellmates insulted, beat, and sexually harassed him. He said that one night, he refused to have sex with the cell “strongman”, so the man and two others beat him. He said they held his arms, while the strongman slapped him on the face and punched him on the chin.

    After a week in detention, he appeared before an investigative judge, who asked him about his sexual behavior. M.J. said he admitted that he is gay. He said he had done nothing wrong, but the judge replied, “You are harming society.”

    The first instance court in Sidi Bouzid sentenced the two men on June 12 to three months in prison for sodomy. The appeals court upheld the sentence.

    S.C., 24 and A.B., 22

    Police arrested S.C. and A.B. in Sousse on December 8, 2016, when they were allegedly caught committing sodomy in public. They were sentenced, on March 10, 2017, to eight months in prison under article 230 of the penal code and not on charges related to public indecency. The police report describes their sexual intercourse in detail and concludes that S.C. “committed active sodomy,” while A.B. was a “passive sodomite.”

    The judgment from the first instance court in Sousse, which Human Rights Watch reviewed, states that both denied committing sodomy or being homosexuals. It states that they were both subjected to anal examinations on December 9, 2016, that turned out “negative.” The judge concluded that: “the results of the anal tests cannot exonerate the accused of the crime, especially given that the [tests] were performed sometime after the facts.” The court based the guilty verdict only on the declarations by police officers and wrote that: “it is appropriate to sentence them to eight months as an adequate and dissuasive sentence proportional to the offense that they have committed.”

    A.C., 18, student

    A.C. was arrested three times for sodomy. The first time was in August 2017, when he was 17. Police forces arrested him at his house after his two sisters denounced him as gay and took him to the Kasba police station in Tunis. He said that they interrogated him extensively about his sexual orientation and took his smart phone and searched his personal data. The next day, they took him to a forensic doctor in the Charles Nicole hospital for an anal examination. He said he did not have a lawyer and that the police did not inform him of his right to have one.

    I did not understand what was going on. The police told me that the test is mandatory. The doctor told me to go on an examination bed and to bend, and then he inserted his fingers in my insides. The doctor did not explain what the test is about.

    A.C. said he was released without charge after spending two days in the Kasba police station.

    On May 15, 2018, he went to the police station in Sijoumi, in Tunis, in response to a summons. He said police officers told him his family had filed a complaint and questioned him for almost four hours. A.C. confessed to being gay. The police took him to Bouchoucha detention center in Tunis, where he spent the night. The next day, May 16, he appeared before the Tunis first instance court in Sidi Hassine, where an investigative judge interviewed him. The judge asked him: “Why are you like this? Don’t you know that what you’re doing is haram [forbidden under Islam]?”

    I told the judge that I didn’t break any laws, that what I do is my personal business. I did not hurt anyone. This is my private life and should not be the concern of anyone else.

    He said the judge ordered his detention for two months in a juvenile rehabilitation center, as he was still a minor, and forced him to undergo “conversion therapy,” a thoroughly discredited method to change someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity. At the center, a psychiatrist visited him twice, telling him that “he should work on changing himself and his mind.” He appeared before another investigative judge, on June 25, who released him.

    A.C. said that on September 2, he was running some errands with his boyfriend when the police stopped them and asked for their identity cards. The police told A.C. that his family had filed a complaint against him. They took him to Hay Hlel police station in Tunis, where they questioned him about his sexual life, confiscated his phone, and looked at his photos and personal conversations. A prosecutor issued a warrant to detain him, and he spent eight days in the Bouchoucha detention center. On September 20, he appeared before a judge, who released him without charge.

    F.B, 28; N.A, 21 and B.K., 27, day laborers

    In Sousse, a coastal city, the police arrested three men in January 2017, after neighbors complained that they suspected the men were gay. In the indictment, which Human Rights Watch reviewed, the investigative judge states that the police went to the house where the men were staying, seized their phones, on which they found “evidence that they were sodomites,” as well as “women’s clothing,” and took the men to the police station.

    The investigative judge ruled that the men harmed public morals based on the content of the seized phones and “because they dressed up like women, used lipstick, and talked in a languid way.” The police report and the indictment, which usually would include information about a judicial warrant, did not indicate that the police had one. The three men were sentenced to two months in prison for the charge of harming public morals and served their terms.

    https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/11/08/tunisia-privacy-threatened-homosexuality-arrests

    #Tunisie #homophobie #homosexualité #COI #LGBT

  • Sri Lanka: Government Slow to Return Land. Create Consultative Process to End Military Occupation

    The Sri Lankan government has yet to fully restore civilian ownership of land and property nearly a decade since the end of the civil war in 2009, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Progress, particularly since the election of a new government in 2015, has been hindered by broad military claims of national security and the lack of a transparent process.

    The 80-page report, “‘Why Can’t We Go Home?’: Military Occupation of Land in Sri Lanka,” details security force occupation of land both during and after the armed conflict. It identifies the lack of transparency and due process, failure to map occupied land, inadequate support to affected people and communities, and prolonged delays in providing appropriate reparations for decades of loss and suffering. The military has also used some confiscated lands for commercial profit rather than national security and returned damaged or destroyed property to owners without compensation.

    “All those displaced during Sri Lanka’s brutal civil war are entitled to return to their homes,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director. “Despite repeated pledges by the authorities, the military has been frustratingly slow to restore land to its rightful owners.”

    The report is based on over 100 interviews between August 2017 to May 2018 with members of affected communities, activists, local officials, and lawyers. It looks into cases of military occupation and land release in 20 areas in six districts, primarily in Sri Lanka’s north and east.

    The three-decade civil war in Sri Lanka ended with the decisive defeat of the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in May 2009. Large areas, including those previously held by the LTTE in the north and east, came under military control. At the end of the war, some 300,000 people ended up in a military detention camp.

    While the administration of then-President Mahinda Rajapaksa released some land to its original owners, the military retained control over large areas for military but also non-military purposes, such as agriculture, tourism, and other commercial ventures.

    The new government, led by President Maithripala Sirisena, took some steps to release civilian land held by the security forces. At the United Nations Human Rights Council in October 2015, the government promised to address conflict-related issues, including returning land to its original owners. However, the government’s response has fallen far short of its promises. On October 4, 2018, the president ordered the state to release all civilian land by December 31, 2018.

    The military has also retained control of land it previously announced it would return. For instance, in April 2017, the navy responded to protests by displaced communities from the Mullikulam area in Mannar by announcing it would release 100 acres of the land that security forces had been occupying. More than a year later, people are still waiting.

    “Now there is no war,” said Francis Crooss, a village elder. “It’s now peacetime. So why can’t we go back home?”

    State agencies have exchanged properties without releasing the land to civilians. In Pallimunai in Mannar, land belonging to residents displaced since 1990 was occupied first by the army and then the police. At war’s end, the police promised to release their land and homes, but instead, the navy took control.

    “We’ve been made refugees in our own village,” said Helena Perera, one of the residents.

    All three major ethnic communities in the country – the Sinhalese, Tamils, and Muslims – are affected by military occupation of land in the north and east. However, the vast majority of cases impact the Tamil community.

    Human Rights Watch documented a number of cases in which properties were destroyed while held by the military after the war, including Hindu temples, churches, mosques, and Buddhist shrines.

    Government authorities have also carried out land grabs since the end of the war. In July 2010, the military forcibly evicted residents of Ragamwela, Panama, in southeastern Ampara district. In November 2011, 200 soldiers arrived in Ashraf Nagar village in Ampara district and demanded that all its occupants leave. In such cases, the security forces set up military camps or used the land for other purposes, including commercial use.

    The government’s failure to establish a uniform policy on resettlement remains a critical problem, Human Rights Watch said. Some displaced families did not receive proper resettlement assistance when they returned to formerly occupied lands. The government transferred others from displacement camps, but they then entered into other forms of displacement, such as living with friends and relatives, or moving to other camps closer to their original properties, which the military still occupied. Those resettled more than once were denied full resettlement assistance when their land was eventually released.

    A 70-year-old fisherman from Myliddy said his family had moved 24 times in 27 years until the military released his property in July 2017. But without resettlement assistance, he is severely in debt. “We hope the government will at least help us restart our lives this one last time,” he said.

    Partial releases pose particular problems for returnee communities. Military control of neighboring areas hinders access to services and jobs, and heightens fears of surveillance and harassment by soldiers.

    Establishing ownership of land where multiple displacements have occurred over decades is difficult, Human Rights Watch said. But instead of leaving it exclusively to the military, the government should urgently set up a transparent and consultative process, including displaced communities, to establish land claims and restore civilian ownership.

    “The government has adopted an arbitrary, piecemeal approach to land returns, which is fomenting deep distrust among communities wary that the military is still in charge,” Ganguly said. “It should address rights violations and provide remedies to end the distress of those who have long suffered because of the military’s occupation of land.”


    https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/10/09/sri-lanka-government-slow-return-land
    #terre #Sri-Lanka #guerre #conflit #occupation #occupation_militaire #retour #rapport #IDPs #déplacés_internes #réfugiés #restitution_des_terres

    Lien vers le rapport:
    https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/10/09/why-cant-we-go-home/military-occupation-land-sri-lanka

  • UN Human Rights Council passes a resolution adopting the peasant rights declaration in Geneva - Via Campesina
    https://viacampesina.org/en/un-human-rights-council-passes-a-resolution-adopting-the-peasant-right

    Seventeen years of long and arduous negotiations later, peasants and other people working in rural areas are only a step away from having a UN Declaration that could defend and protect their rights to land, seeds, biodiversity, local markets and a lot more.

    On Friday, 28 September, in a commendable show of solidarity and political will, member nations of United Nations Human Rights Council passed a resolution concluding the UN Declaration for the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas. The resolution was passed with 33 votes in favour, 11 abstentions and 3 against. [1]

    Contre : Australie, Hongrie et Royaume-Uni

    In favour: Afghanistan, Angola, Burundi, Chile, China, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iraq, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, Mongolia, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Switzerland, Togo, Tunisia, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela

    Abstention: Belgium, Brazil, Croatia, Georgia, Germany, Iceland, Japan, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain

    https://viacampesina.org/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2011/03/Declaration-of-rights-of-peasants-2009.pdf

    #droit_des_paysan·nes

  • Colombia pledges to tackle impunity for activist killings
    http://news.trust.org/item/20180510164924-j3r31

    Colombia is working to prevent the killing of activists and tackle impunity, under mounting international pressure to stem the violence, a minister said on Thursday.

    Despite a 2016 government peace accord that ended a half a century of civil war with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), activists in the country are still in the firing line, with one gunned down every five days.

    They are particularly at risk in regions vacated by rebel fighters following the peace accord, leaving a power vacuum that crime gangs have sought to fill, the United Nations has said.

    “The government recognizes that the signing of the peace accord is not peace in itself but a necessary and definitive step towards building a more just and equal society,” said Rodrigo Rivera, Colombia’s interior minister.

    “We are fighting against the impunity of homicides of human rights defenders,” he told the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva on Thursday as it reviewed the country’s right record.

    The government has set up an elite police task force and investigation unit to dismantle criminal groups and investigate killings and attacks against activists, the minister said.

    About 4,000 at-risk activists receive protection from the government, including bodyguards, bullet-proof vests and cars, Rivera said.

    The government says 144 human rights campaigners were killed in 2016 and 2017 and 103 people have been arrested.

    But local rights groups and watchdogs say the true number of dead is higher.

    #Colombie #violences #meurtres #activisme

  • Birmanie Répression, discrimination
    et nettoyage ethnique en Arakan-FIDH 2000

    https://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/birmarak.pdf

    I. L’Arakan
    A. Présentation de l’Arakan
    B. Historique de la présence musulmane en Arakan
    C. Organisation administrative, forces répressives et résistance armée

    II. Le retour forcé et la réinstallation des Rohingyas :
    hypocrisie et contraintes
    A. Les conditions du retour du Bangadesh après l’exode de 1991-92
    B. Réinstallation et réintégration

    III. Répression, discrimination et exclusion en Arakan
    A. La spécificité de la répr
    ession à l’égard des Rohingyas
    B. Les Arakanais : une exploitation sans issue

    IV. Nouvel Exode
    A. Les années 1996 et 1997
    B. L
    ’exode actuel
    C
    Conclusion

  • UN: Create International Inquiry on Yemen. Human Rights Council Should Act on High Commissioner’s Appeal

    (Geneva) – The United Nations Human Rights Council should immediately create an international investigation into abuses in Yemen. The UN high commissioner for human rights also called for a halt to arming the parties to the conflict in a report released in Geneva on August 25, 2016. He called the impact of the conflict on Yemen’s civilians “devastating.”

    https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/styles/node_embed/public/multimedia_images_2016/burnedcar.jpg?itok=G14Hg0zM
    https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/08/26/un-create-international-inquiry-yemen
    #Yémen #droits_humains #abus
    cc @reka

  • Thailand: Asylum seekers and refugees lack protection

    The government of Thailand should commit to concrete actions to respect, protect, and promote the rights of asylum seekers, refugees, and survivors of human trafficking during its upcoming Universal Periodic Review (UPR) at the United Nations Human Rights Council, said eight human rights organisations today.

    http://rightsinexile.tumblr.com/post/142067568732/thailand-asylum-seekers-and-refugees-lack
    #Thaïlande #asile #migrations #réfugiés

  • Saudis Seek to Fend Off U.N. Inquiry on Yemen - The New York Times

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/25/world/middleeast/saudis-seek-to-fend-off-un-inquiry-on-yemen.html?smid=tw-nytimesworld&smtyp

    GENEVA — As Saudi Arabia and its Arab allies pressed their military offensive against Houthi rebels in Yemen, Saudi diplomats were waging their own battle to fend off calls in the United Nations Human Rights Council for an international inquiry into abuses by all parties to the Yemeni conflict.

    Those calls came in a council resolution submitted Thursday by the Netherlands, with support from a group of mainly Western countries, that requests the United Nations high commissioner for human rights send a mission to Yemen.

    Quelle bande de #psychopathes ces mecs, c’est effrayant.

  • Kerry Denounces #UN Human Rights Council “Obsession” with #Israel
    http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/kerry-defends-israel-against-obsession%E2%80%9D-un-human-rights-c

    US Secretary of State #John_Kerry gestures as he delivers remarks to the United Nations Human Rights Council on Monday, March 2. AFP/Evan Vucci

    #US Secretary of State John Kerry on Monday launched a staunch defense of Israel at the annual session of the UN human rights body. Israel has long had stormy relations with the Human Rights Council (HRC), which has repeatedly accused it of rights violations in Palestinian territories, leading to accusations of bias by Israel and its allies. “The HCR’s obsession with Israel risks undermining the credibility of the entire organization,” Kerry said at the opening of the main annual session of the council, which aims to protect human rights around the globe. read (...)

    #Gaza #human_rights_violations #ICC #jerusalem #Palestine #west_bank

  • For a little pressure on Israel - The Hindu
    http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/for-a-little-pressure-on-israel/article6250154.ece?homepage=true

    VIJAY PRASHAD

    Despite the massacres of entire families, U.S. President Obama has made no major public address to caution Israel

    Sixteen days into the Israeli offensive on Gaza, on July 23, the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva held a hearing. Pressure from the League of Arab States has been severe. A few days before, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) held an emergency session on Gaza. The Jordanian delegation, on behalf of the Arabs, carried a resolution for a ceasefire around the United Nations building to no avail. It had two points that Israel would not accept — it did not sanction Hamas by name, and it called for the end to the stranglehold on Gaza. Israel, which continues to occupy Gaza despite the withdrawal of its troops in 2005, has obligations as an occupying power. In 2005, it signed an Agreement on Movement and Access, but has never allowed this to come into effect. Israel controls the borders of Gaza, sealing in the almost two million people on to 140 square miles of land. With absent movement on the Jordanian resolution in the UNSC, the momentum shifted to the Human Rights Council.

    The debate in Geneva was very emotional. The U.N. agencies in Gaza have been deeply impacted by the Israeli war, with their buildings taking fire and their personnel in grave danger (with three U.N. teachers killed). Kyung-wha Kang of the U.N.’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs suggested that the attack on hospitals and school was “a flagrant violation of international law,” while the mechanism to warn civilians of bombardment creates “terror and trauma” in an occupied territory where there is no safe haven. Civilian homes are not a target, said the U.N. High Commissioner Navi Pillay, also pointing out that the entire situation was “dreadful and interminable.” The most telling moment in Commissioner Pillay’s statement came when she said this was the “third serious escalation of hostilities” in her six years on the job. As in 2009 and 2012, she said, “it is innocent civilians in the Gaza Strip, including children, women, the elderly and persons with disabilities, who are suffering the most.”

    A ceasefire

    In Gaza, meanwhile, the sounds of bombardment continue. Negotiations persist in Cairo and Doha to create a pathway to a ceasefire, while Israel, obdurate, continues to pound the Gaza Strip. In an unguarded moment on Fox News, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry expressed his frustration with Israel. He hastily caught himself. The U.S. has no appetite to force Israel to silence its guns. Hamas’ Khaled Meshaal, speaking from Doha, said that he would accept a ceasefire only if it came alongside an end to the embargo. This is the pillar of the Jordanian resolution, which, it is clear, the Israelis will not tolerate. The Palestinians do not want a ceasefire without some improvement of their situation. Fatah, the other major faction of the Palestinians, takes the same position as Hamas. Yasser Abed Rabbo, the likely successor to Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas, said, “Gaza’s demand to lift the siege is the demand of the entire Palestinian people and not just one particular faction.” This is a position with which the government of India concurs. All factions in Palestine and the Arab League agree that the blockade must be lifted for a genuine ceasefire. If this is their minimum requirement, it is unlikely that there will be a ceasefire deal. No amount of U.S. pressure can convince Israel to the rationality of that demand.

    Fifty thousand Palestinians went on the streets of the West Bank through the night of July 24, signalling to the Israelis that they are ready for a third intifada

    Indications of any U.S. pressure are not evident. Despite the massacres of entire families, U.S. President Obama has made no major public address to caution Israel. Instead, the White House tells the press that Mr. Obama continues to talk to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to offer U.S. support, as the U.S. Congress voted unanimously to fully back the Israeli war effort.

    Ms Pillay asked the Council, “What must we finally do to move beyond a ceasefire that will inevitably be broken again in two or three years?” A first step, she noted, is accountability — “ensuring that the cycle of human rights violations and impunity is brought to an end.” To that end the Human Rights Council called for the creation of an independent international commission of inquiry to investigate “all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law” in all of Occupied Palestine “particularly in the Gaza Strip.” After Operation Cast Lead (2009), the U.N. empanelled the Goldstone Commission, whose report castigated Israel for the use of dangerous weapons (such as white phosphorus) and for targeting Gaza’s civilian infrastructure. Under intense U.S. pressure, including on India, the Goldstone Commission’s report went into cold storage.

    Out of the 47 members in the Council, 29 voted to create a Commission, 17 abstained and one voted against it. The sole ‘No vote’ came from the U.S., showing how little appetite there is in Washington to pressure Israel not only to a ceasefire but to be held accountable for its methods of war. The members of the European Union abstained, as did several African states. The ‘Yes’ countries included members of the Arab League and Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, South American states, some African countries, and the entire BRICS bloc (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). India’s Ambassador to the U.N. Asoke Mukerji said that India is “deeply concerned” about the civilian casualties — over 700 Palestinians dead, several thousand of them injured (as opposed to one Israeli civilian dead). Dilip Sinha, India’s ambassador to the Human Rights Council, was more graphic, bemoaning the “heavy air-strikes in Gaza and the disproportionate use of force resulting in the tragic loss of civilian lives.”

    India’s position

    The Indian government’s reticence to hold a debate in Parliament and its refusal to put any pressure on Israel for its war with a statement is now of no consequence. The U.N. vote shows two things. First, that India’s drift into the U.S. orbit is not complete. It has commitments to the BRICS states. South Africa — with vivid memories of apartheid — would be unwilling to soft-pedal on the issue of Palestinian rights. Nor would Russia, which sees this as an easy way to pressure the U.S. The BRICS, therefore, will retain India in the pro-Palestine camp. Second, despite the desire of the Indian establishment to create an enduring relationship with Israel, the grotesque actions of Tel Aviv are a constraint. India continues to believe in the possibility of the creation of Palestine with stable borders, including Jerusalem as its capital.

    None of this is accepted by Israel, whose own policy vis-à-vis the Palestinians is incoherent. Fifty thousand Palestinians went on the streets of the West Bank through the night of July 24, signalling to the Israelis that they are ready for a third ‘Intifada’. Israel is in no mood for concessions. The only outcome is more terrible violence.

    “All these dead and maimed civilians should weigh heavily on all our consciences,” said Ms Pillay. They certainly did not seem to bother the U.S.’ Ambassador Samantha Power, who is otherwise the champion of humanitarian intervention. Her preferred cocktail of Responsibility to Protect (R2) and “no fly zones” was not in evidence.

    Nor did it bother the U.S. Ambassador to the Human Rights Council, Keith Harper — a Native American lawyer who knows a great deal about the occupation of a people. The U.S. sat silent and pushed the red button. This is not a red light of caution to Israel. For Tel Aviv, this is a green light.

    (Vijay Prashad is Professor of International Studies at Trinity College, Hartford, Connecticut, U.S.)❞

  • The world is sick of Israel and its insanities -
    Haaretz
    http://www.haaretz.com/mobile/.premium-1.601243?v=4D11ADD0ED2AC72D4F92594A16B9D7B9

    By Gideon Levy
    Published 03:50 26.06.14
    What a cruel world: Three yeshiva students were kidnapped, and the world isn’t interested; three mothers are crying out, and the world doesn’t answer. It’s all because the entire world is against us; it’s anti-Semitic and hates Israel. The Anti-Defamation League is already preparing a report. But the truth is, that’s just the way things are: When you openly thumb your nose at the world for years on end, eventually, it thumbs its nose back.

    The three mothers went all the way to Geneva. One of them went abroad for the first time in her life to go to the United Nations Human Rights Council. But the world, and the council, went on their merry ways. It’s the irony of fate: About two years ago, Israel officially suspended cooperation with that council; together with the Marshall Islands, Palau and the U.S., it opposed the council’s very establishment. But now, in its distress and the mothers’ distress, it has turned to the council, which is indeed hostile to Israel and spends more time on it than on any other country. Suddenly, Israel needs the world. It even needs the UN, which all of a sudden isn’t the worthless body Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion once termed it.

  • Exclusive : U.S. Boycotts U.N. #Drone Talks
    http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/03/19/exclusive_us_boycotts_un_drone_talks

    Pakistan is trying to push a resolution through the United Nations Human Rights Council that would trigger greater scrutiny of whether U.S. drone strikes violate international human rights law. Washington, though, doesn’t want to talk about it.

    The Pakistani draft, which was obtained by Foreign Policy, urges states to “ensure transparency” in record-keeping on drone strikes and to “conduct prompt, independent and impartial investigations whenever there are indications of any violations to human rights caused by their use.” It also calls for the convening of “an interactive panel discussion” on the use of drones.

    The Geneva-based human rights council held its third round of discussions about the draft on Wednesday, but the Obama administration boycotted the talks.

    The White House decision to sit out the negotiations is a departure from the collaborative approach the administration promised to take when it first announced plans to join the Human Rights Council in March 2009.

    #crimes #états-unis

  • Amnesty decries ‘extreme political violence’ in Egypt - Alarabiya.net

    http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2013/09/10/Amnesty-decries-extreme-political-violence-in-Egypt.html

    Amnesty International called on Tuesday for an independent investigation into killings by Egyptian security forces as well as torture and violations of the rights to free speech and assembly.

    The military’s overthrow of President Mohammad Mursi in July after mass protests against him unleashed an “extreme level of political violence,” the London-based group told the United Nations Human Rights Council.
    “Between 14 and 18 August, at least 1,089 people were killed, many due to the use of excessive, grossly disproportionate and unwarranted lethal force by security forces,” said Peter Splinter, Amnesty representative in Geneva.
    Egyptian security forces have also failed to prevent or end a wave of sectarian attacks targeting Coptic Christians, he said, referring to attacks on the minority who make up 10 percent of its 85 million people.

  • Rebels and Syrian Government Trade Blame for Attack on Broadcaster
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/world/middleeast/syrian-pro-government-television-station-attacked.html

    Those difficulties were illustrated Wednesday in findings by a panel from the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, which is investigating rights violations in Syria. The panel said it was unable to determine conclusively who was responsible for the May 25 massacre of 108 civilians in the western region of Houla, but “considers that forces loyal to the government may have been responsible for many of the deaths.”

    While the investigators accused government forces of committing violations on “an alarming scale” in recent months, they also found that both sides had carried out summary executions. And they determined that the nature of the conflict had changed, escalating significantly despite Mr. Annan’s peace entreaties.

    […]

    The commission said it had also received many reports of summary executions by antigovernment rebels, foreign fighters and people suspected of being informers or collaborators.

    A Free Syrian Army soldier told the panel that captured soldiers from the Alawite sect, from which Mr. Assad draws strong support, are usually executed immediately, while soldiers from other sects are given the option of joining the opposition.

    The commission drew attention to the plight of children caught in the conflict and the use of sexual violence against men, women and children, particularly by pro-government forces.

  • The UN would like the White House to please explain all the #drone killings | Death and Taxes
    http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/184803/the-un-would-like-the-white-house-to-please-explain-all-the-drone-

    UN investigator Christof Heyns issued a report to the United Nations Human Rights Council ahead of a debate it’s scheduled to have later today, in which he called on the US to please explain the rash of drone killings which have escalated under President Obama, killing civilians along the way.
    Reuters reports: “Citing figures from the Pakistan Human Rights Commission, he said U.S. drone strikes killed at least 957 people in Pakistan in 2010 alone. Thousands have been killed in 300 drone strikes there since 2004, 20 percent of whom are believed to be civilians.”

  • On ne va pas se gêner: U.S. pressing UN Human Rights Commissioner to put off West Bank settlements probe
    http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/diplomania/u-s-pressing-un-human-rights-commissioner-to-put-off-west-bank-settlements-

    The Obama administration is trying to delay the establishment of a panel appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council to investigate the issue of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

    U.S. Middle East envoy David Hale met in Bern last week with UN Human Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay and asked her not to advance the matter in the near future.

  • Palestine Campaigners Claim #BDS Success as Edinburgh Council Rejects Veolia
    http://jnoubiyeh.com/2010/12/palestine-campaigners-claim-bds-success.html

    A pro-Palestinian pressure group claimed success last week after Edinburgh Council rejected an attempt by a controversial firm to take over a range of public services in the city.

    Et quelle est cette « controversial firm » ?

    Veolia had been shortlisted to take over environmental services contracts, including refuse collection and street cleaning, but a Council report published Friday indicated that the firm is no longer being considered. This latest blow for Veolia comes on top of similar multi-billion pound losses around the world, and is likely to add to the pressure on the firm to cease providing waste and transport services to Israel’s illegal settlements in Palestine, including the construction of a tramway that the United Nations Human Rights Council deems, “in clear violation of international law”. The line is set to link Israel with some of its illegal settlements.

    Épatant.

    En revanche, il serait encore plus épatant que la ville renonce purement et simplement à privatiser ses services publics municipaux. Parce que là, certes c’est bien de soutenir les Palestiniens, mais il reste la décision de filer la gestion de services (le budget des services municipaux avoisinant le milliard de livres par an) au secteur privé (ce qui n’est bon pour personne) :
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/16/edinburgh-considers-bin-collection-privatisation

    “My instinct is that outsourcing sounds like a bad idea,” said David Griffin, owner of the Elvis Shakespeare book and record store on Leith Walk. “I don’t understand why the people in the refuse department can’t just do the job themselves. I don’t see any reason to outsource because some private companies will only want to make a profit.”

    [...]

    “This is going to affect 25% of the workforce of the council,” he said. “That will range from bin men to the reception staff at the city chambers. There is a whole range of council services up for grabs here ... I think if we detailed what this was to the public they would see this as privatisation, and that’s not popular in Scotland.”

    [...]

    “It is not just from the union’s perspective. It is looking at money being taken out of the city. It will have an impact on services and it will also have an impact on the city’s businesses if people aren’t employed here.”