Libya: Global Condemnations of Human Rights Violations

As the World Watches...

As posted here by IntLawGrrls Diane Marie Amann and Jaya Ramji-Nogales, human rights abuses against Libyan civilians include indiscriminate use of force, killings, forced disappearances, and violations of the rights to freedom of thought, conscience, opinion, peaceful assembly, and access to information. (Pictured, flag displayed by protesters and diplomats that have denounced the current government.) The reported violations have outraged observers around the world. This, despite a virtual communications blackout that has made monitoring events in Tripoli and other parts of the country difficult.

The United Nations Security Council meets today to discuss the potential imposition of sanctions under UN Charter Chapter VII authority.

Condemnations of Colonel Moammar Gaddafi's actions have included those from diplomats previously associated with his government.

A selected list of international statements and developments appears below.

The world is watching, but the people of the world must do more than watch. They must also insist that their leaders take appropriate joint actions to end the killings and other abuses.

UN Condemnations
►“Libya: Gaddafi in Spotlight at UN Security Council,” BBC News, 26 February 2011
►“UN Resolution on Libya ‘possible’ on Saturday, Security Council President,” Xinhua, February 26, 2011
►“Ban Calls on UN Security Council to Consider Immediate Steps to Stop Killings in Libya,” 25 February 2011
►"UN Human Rights Council Recommends Suspension of Libya," UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 25 February 2011
►“15th Special Session on the situation of human rights in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya” Human Rights Council, 25 February 2011 (links to statements by High Commissioner Navi Pillay, a statement on behalf of all “special procedures” mandate-holders, statements by member countries, and civil society, and Human Rights Council resolution calling for the suspension of Libya from membership on the Council)
Regional Condemnations
►“AU Peace and Security Council on the Situation in Libya,” EuropAfrica.net, 24 February 2011
►Josh Rogin, “Over 200 Arab Groups Call for Libya No-fly Zone,” The Cable, Friday, February 25, 2011 (includes full texts of statements by prominent Arab intellectuals and by NGOs)
►“Request for Provisional Measures to the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights” INTERIGHTS, 24 February 2011
(joint request by Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, Human Rights Watch, and INTERIGHTS)
Condemnations by Libyan Diplomats
► “UN Ambassador’s Tears for Libya,” BBC News, 26 February 2011 (UN Ambassador Mohamed Shalgham’s denunciation of the government’s use of force against civilians and request for Security Council action.)
►“Libyan Arab League delegation renounces Gaddafi,” Reuters, 25 February 2011
Legal Standards
►Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Homepage, UN Office of the High Commission for Human Rights
(listing Libya's international human rights obligations under treaty law and customary international law)
►“Responsibility to Protect,” UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/63/309, 4 September 2009 (International Coalition ofn the Responsibility to Protect webpage) (link to resolution and history of UN efforts to ennumerate the responsibilities of the international community when states fail to protect civilians within their borders or affirmatively harm them.)
News Updates
►Live: Libya Revolt, BBC News (continuously updated page, visited 26 February 2011).

Human Rights Council call: Suspend Libya

The Human Rights Council of the United Nations resolved unanimously to ask the General Assembly to suspend Libya (flag at left).
Today's special session in Geneva marked the 1st time that the behavior of a Human Rights Council member had provoked a special session of the Council. The behavior at issue: the attacks upon demonstrators by what remains of the government of Moammar Gadhafi. The violence in Libya occurs amid a months-long backdrop of political changes in North Africa and the Middle East.
Also pursuant to the resolutionm an emergency inquiry commission will be sent to the country.
Here's the Advance unedited resolution, as adopted:

S-15/2 Situation of human rights in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

The Human Rights Council,
Reaffirming the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and relevant international human rights instruments, and relevant international law,
Recalling General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006,
Recalling further Council resolution 5/1 and 5/2 of 18 June 2007,
Expressing deep concern at the deaths of hundreds of civilians and rejecting unequivocally the incitement to hostility and violence against the civilian population made from the highest level of the Libyan government;
Reaffirming that all States have an obligation to protect the rights to life, liberty and security of the person,
Reaffirming also the responsibilities of all States, in conformity with the United Nations Charter, to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms for all,
Reaffirming further that all Member States of the United Nations Human Rights Council should uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights and that the United Nations General Assembly may suspend the rights of membership in the Council of a member that commits gross and systematic violations of human rights;
Supporting the statements made by the Secretary-General of the United Nations and by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, in particular the latter’s statement of 22 February 2011 calling for international investigation into Libyan violence and justice for victims;
Supporting also the Press Statement of the United Nations Security Council on Libya of 22 February 2011,
Also supporting the statement issued by the Council of the League of Arab States of 22 February 2011, the statement of the Secretary General of the Organisation of Islamic Conference of 20 February 2011, the communiqué of the 261th Meeting of the Peace and Security Council of the African Union, and the relevant conclusions of the European Union Foreign Affairs Council of 21 February 2011;
1. Expresses deep concern with the situation in Libya, strongly condemns the recent gross and systematic human rights violations committed in Libya, including indiscriminate armed attacks against civilians, extrajudicial killings, arbitrary arrests, detention and torture of peaceful demonstrators, some of which may also amount to crimes against humanity; 2. Strongly calls upon the Government of Libya to meet its responsibility to protect its population, to immediately put an end to all human rights violations, to stop any attacks against civilians, and to fully respect all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression and freedom of assembly;
3. Strongly calls upon the Government of Libya for the immediate release of all arbitrarily detained persons, including those who were detained before the recent events, as well as for the immediate cessation of intimidation, persecution and arbitrary arrests of individuals including lawyers, human rights defenders and journalists;
4. Urges Libyan authorities to ensure the safety of all civilians, including citizens of third countries, to refrain from any reprisals against people who have taken part in the demonstrations, to facilitate the departure of those foreign nationals wishing to leave the country, and to allow the provision of urgent humanitarian assistance to those in need;
5. Also urges Libyan authorities to immediately cease the blocking of public access to the internet and telecommunication networks
6. Further urges Libyan authorities to respect the popular will, aspirations and demands of its people and to do their utmost efforts to prevent further deterioration of the crisis and to promote a peaceful solution ensuring safety for all civilians and stability for the country;
7. Recalls the importance of accountability and the need to fight against impunity and in this regard stresses the need to hold to account those responsible for attacks in Libya, including by forces under government control, on civilians;
8. Urgently calls for an open, inclusive, meaningful and national dialogue aimed at systemic changes responding to the will of the Libyan people and at the promotion and protection of their human rights;
9. Reminds the Government of Libya to respect its commitment as a Member of the Human Rights Council to uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights and to cooperate fully with the Council and its Special Procedures;
10. Calls on the Libyan authorities to guarantee access to human rights and humanitarian organisations including human rights monitors;
11. Decides to urgently dispatch an independent, international commission of inquiry, to be appointed by the President of the Council, to investigate all alleged violations of international human rights law in Libya, to establish the facts and circumstances of such violations and of the crimes perpetrated, and , where possible identify those responsible to make recommendations, in particular, on accountability measures, all with a view to ensuring that those individuals responsible are held accountable, and to report to the Council at its seventeenth session, and calls upon the Libyan authorities to fully cooperate with the Commission;
12. Requests the Secretary-General and the High Commissioner to provide all administrative, technical and logistical assistance required to enable the above-mentioned commission of inquiry to fulfil its mandate;
13. Requests the High Commissioner to provide an oral update to the Council at its sixteenth session on the human rights situation in Libya, and to submit a follow-up report to the seventeenth session, as well as to organize an interactive dialogue on the human rights situation in Libya during the seventeenth session of the Council;
14. Recommends to the United Nations General Assembly, in view of the gross and systematic violations of human rights by the Libyan authorities, the consideration of the application of the measures foreseen in OP8 of General Assembly resolution 60/251;
15. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Incoming Foreign Relations chair

The arrival in January of the 112th Congress is slated to bring the 1st woman chair of the Foreign Relations Committee of either house of Congress.*
Moving from ranking minority member to chair will be U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (left).
In the United States since age 7, when her family fled her birthplace, Cuba, Ros-Lehtinen has served in Congress since 1989. As described by the Associated Press, her South Florida district "includes parts of Miami's Little Havana and the tourist-dependent and gay friendly Miami Beach and Florida Keys." That combination makes for the occasional unexpected position -- unlike many Republicans, she voted to repeal "Don't Ask Don't Tell."
On many other issues, however, Ros-Lehtinen is likely to be a thorn in the side of policies favored by the administration of President Barack Obama. Examples of expected points of contention:
► She'll "resist any White House attempts to pressure Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu."
► She "may try to chip away at the president's executive order" -- about which we've posted -- "allowing foreign aid for international groups that provide information about abortion services."
► She'd "like U.S. contributions to the U.N. to be voluntary until the U.S. creates an office to audit U.N. activities for transparency and eliminate waste." She's particularly critical of the U.N. Human Rights Council, whose members include countries like China, Saudia Arabia -- and the country with which she's expected to oppose any U.S. dialogue, Cuba. _____________________________

* A far cry from the "leadership" posts women tended to hold not so long ago -- more than 1 Congresswoman was chair of the House Beauty Shop Committee.

United States' Periodic Review

The United States is on deck for a turn in the Universal Periodic Review rotation.
Universal Periodic Review, of course, is the process by which the Human Rights Council monitors compliance with international human rights obligations. Each of the United Nations' 192 members states is up for review every 4 years.
At a session in Switzerland, lasting tomorrow from 9 a.m. to 12 noon Geneva time (4 to 7 a.m. Eastern), the Council will consider the record of the United States for the 1st time ever.
(You can watch the proceedings via live webcast here. The United States' report on its activities, plus reports from nongovernmental organizations -- some of which IntLawGrrl Jaya Ramji-Nogales examined a while back -- may be found here.)
Leading the U.S. delegation will be Dr. Esther Brimmer (left), Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs; Harold Hongju Koh, the State Department's Legal Adviser; and Michael Posner, Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.

A story in the Washington Post situates the scheduled appearance within the Obama Administration's policy of "positive engagement"; indeed, it labels the session a "milestone." The policy also plays out, as we've posted, in other fora, such as the International Criminal Court. In a new ASIL Insight, meanwhile, our colleagues Christina M. Cerna and David P. Stewart expressed concern that the proceedings might be "heavily politicized." And they reserved judgment on whether this innovation

can produce an objective, informed, and productive assessment of a given state’s human rights situation. More importantly, only substantial time will tell whether the Universal Periodic Review process as a whole can in fact contribute to an improvement in the overall human rights situation in countries in the world, including ours. That is its main purpose and that is the standard by which it should be judged.

The United States is 9th in the lineup of 16 countries to be reviewed in this Council session, which began Monday and will run through November 12. Also under review: Liberia, Malawi, Mongolia, Panama, Maldives, Andorra, Bulgaria, Honduras, Marshall Islands, Croatia, Jamaica, Libya, Micronesia, Lebanon, and Mauritania. Those sessions also are available online here.

(h/t California-Davis 2L Joanna Cuevas Ingram)

CEDAW comment

Lest it get lost in the mix, we reprint a comment received from reader Rebecca Landy (this Rebecca, we believe), respecting Hope Lewis' weekend post on women's rights.
Rebecca wrote:

"Interesting statement considering the US still has not ratified CEDAW...

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

____________________________________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 1, 2010

Statement by the NSC Spokesman Mike Hammer on the Resolution on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women at the U.N. Human Rights Council

The United States welcomes the adoption today by the United Nations Human Rights Council of a resolution addressing the elimination of discrimination against women. Most significantly, this resolution establishes a working group of five independent experts from different regions of the world who will work with governments and civil society to identify and promote steps to eliminate laws and practices that discriminate against women, and to advise governments on how to promote gender equality and the empowerment of women. The United States was proud to co-sponsor this resolution with a group of over 70 other countries, which was led by Colombia and Mexico. We look forward to working closely with the new working group and the international community in seeking an end to discrimination against all women everywhere."

* * * *

The resolution to which the United States' National Security Council spokesman referred was adopted last Friday. As described here, via that resolution the U.N. Human Rights Council established a 5-member Working Group on Discrimination against Women in Law and Practise set to operate for 3 years. Many countries spoke in favor of the plan -- many of them that, unlike the United States, are states parties to CEDAW, the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

Heartfelt thanks for the head's up, Rebecca!

Intersectionality and the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, Rashida Manjoo, will present a thematic report to the Human Rights Council in June 2011. Manjoo’s report will focus on intersectional forms of discrimination in the context of violence against women. Manjoo, who has held the appointment of Special Rapporteur since 2009, comes to the office with impressive credentials from her years as an advocate of the High Court of South Africa, as the former South African Parliamentary Commissioner of the Commission on Gender Equality, and as an accomplished activist focusing on violence against women within South Africa.
The Special Rapporteur should be applauded for undertaking the research to produce a report on intersectionality and violence and to bring it to the attention of the Human Rights Council. Not since the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance, has the Special Rapporteur’s office engaged with issues of intersectionality in such a meaningful way. In 2001, the then-Special Rapporteur, Radhika Coomaraswamy, issued a report in preparation for the World Conference that was important in challenging the U.N.’s historical tendency to compartmentalize human rights abuses as either the result of gender discrimination or racial discrimination -- but not both. In the past, I have critiqued the U.N. human rights treaty bodies’ tendency to neatly compartmentalize forms of discrimination rather than explore their intersections. I am encouraged to see the Special Rapporteur’s office undertake to study the myriad ways in which women are targeted for violence based not only on gender but also on their membership in ethnic, religious, sexual, and other minority communities.

On the Job! Legal adviser on U.N.

(On the Job! pays occasional notice to interesting intlaw job notices)

The International Commission of Jurists, a Geneva-based network of judges and lawyers that seeks to affirm international law and rule of law principles that advance human rights, is seeking an attorney with a minimum of 8 years' experience to be the Geneva-based Senior Legal Adviser, U.N. Representative to the group's International Law & Protection Programme. The successful candidate will lead ICJ's work before the United Nations, including treaty bodies, and the Human Rights Council.
Deadline is June 7, 2010, via application submitted to recruitment@icj.org. Details here.

Takin' It to the Council

There's been a flurry of activity over the past week as immigrants' rights organizations have finalized their submissions to the United Nations Human Rights Council's Universal Periodic Review of the United States of America, scheduled for November 22 - December 3 of this year. While the reports make for grim reading, it's inspiring to see groups ranging from the Chaldean Federation of America to the Coalition of Immokalee Workers embracing a human rights approach to the protection of migrants in the United States. In the words of the Advocates for Human Rights report, endorsed by dozens of national and state organizations from Human Rights First to the UFCW Local 789, "International law recognizes that while the United States has the right to control immigration that right is tempered by its obligations to respect the fundamental human rights of all persons." Given the limitations of constitutional protections for non-citizens and the inherently transnational nature of immigration law, the turn to international human rights law makes ample sense.
The four reports that I've seen so far focus on different aspects of the U.S. immigration system. The Advocates for Human Rights report, focusing on the cluster of migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers, presents three proposals for reform: protecting due process and family unity in the immigration system, ending blanket and arbitrary detention of immigrants, and ensuring compliance with the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. A few shocking facts -- the Department of Homeland Security will spend nearly $17 billion on immigration enforcement in FY 2011; over 1 million family members are estimated to have been separated by deportation between 1997 and 2007; 1-2 migrants die per day crossing the border from Mexico to the U.S.; and nearly 100 migrants in DHS custody died between 2003 and 2009. A total of 26 reports were published between 2007 and 2009 highlighting the failures of the U.S. immigration detention system.
A second report, submitted by the Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, the Global Workers Justice Alliance, and the Transnational Legal Clinic at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, focuses on the cluster group of migrant laborers. Noting that "the migrant worker experience is marred by systemic failures of the United States to protect their human rights," the report highlights human rights violations from recruitment through the conclusion of the employment relationship: rising border deaths, exploitation of migrant workers, and legal and practical barriers to accessing justice for migrant workers. The report discusses the exclusion of migrant workers from the protections of federal labor laws, such as the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act, that fail to cover domestic workers and agricultural workers. It estimates that anywhere from 300,000 to 800,000 children work in the agriculture industry, often earning less than $2 an hour, risking pesticide poisoning, heat illness, and life-long disabilities, not to mention a 50% drop-out rate from school.
A third report submitted by a long list of stakeholders including the Heartland Alliance National Immigrant Justice Center, the American Friends Service Committee, and the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, exposes human rights violations in the immigration detention system. The report recommends that, in order to comply with the UDHR and the ICCPR, the United States must provide individual custody determinations for immigration detention, provide judicial review over custody decisions, and ensure that conditions in immigration detention facilities reflect the civil nature of the government's detention authority. The report highlights the specific problems faced by women and girls in immigration detention, including separation from family members and rape and other forms of sexual assault. It also discusses the challenges faced by LGBT detainees, who are often the target of harassment and abuse because of their sexual orientation, and as a result may be segregated into solitary confinement.
Last but not least, the Seton Hall University School of Law Center for Social Justice and New York Lawyers for the Public Interest submitted a report focused on the extrajudicial involuntary deportation of immigrant patients by U.S. hospitals. The report argues that U.S. laws and policies that severely restrict immigrant eligibility for publicly supported health care have led to this practice of extrajudicial medical repatriation of seriously ill or injured indigent immigrant patients to countries lacking medical care, in violation of U.S. obligation under the UDHR, the ICCPR, CERD, and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. While data on medical deportations are not reliable, over 100 such removals have been documented, including one case in which Atlanta's Grady Hospital repatriated 10 to 13 dialysis patients to Mexico, four of whom died after their transfer. The report recommends ending this practice of involuntary extrajudicial deportation, enforcing federal hospital discharge laws, imposing more stringent reporting requirements on adverse consequences to patients following discharge, and the provision of universal health care regardless of immigration status.
Though the latter may be the most quixotic of all of the recommendations, there's still hope that we may see some of the other changes made under the Obama Administration. In any case, it's a strong showing from the immigrants' rights community, and one that will surely be considered seriously by the Human Rights Council this fall.

Go On! Human Rights Council review

(Go On! is an occasional item on symposia and other events of interest) From our colleague John P. Cerone, Professor of Law and Director of the Center for International Law and Policy at New England Law School in Boston (also the home institution of IntLawGrrls' own Dina Francesca Haynes), comes news of a conference entitled Reviewing the UN Human Rights Council: Looking backward and moving forward, to be held on Friday, April 9, at the W Boston, 110 Stuart Street.
Here's the invite:

Join experts from around the globe in a discussion of the history, efficacy, and future of the UN’s Human Rights Council. Participants will critically examine the work of the council with a view toward generating recommendations for the upcoming General Assembly review of the council. The diverse range of experts includes prominent representatives from the United Nations and other intergovernmental organizations, the U.S. Department of State, diplomatic representatives from other council member states, civil society, and the academy.

The day will begin with an address by Kyung-Wha Kang (left), U.N. Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights; featured at a special luncheon will be these ambassadors: Juan José Gómez Camacho, Mexico's Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva; Eileen Donahoe (right), U.S. Representative to the Human Rights Council; Mohammed Loulichki, Morocco's Permanent Representative to the United Nations; and Ali Treki, President of the 64th Session of the U.N. General Assembly.

Joining John -- who's Special Advisor to the U.S. Delegation to the Human Rights Council -- as panelists will be:
► Christina Cerna, Principal Human Rights Specialist, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
► Juliette De Rivero, Human Rights Watch
► Kate Gorove, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State
► Professor Hurst Hannum, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University
► Andrew Hudson, Human Rights First
► Melanie Khanna, Legal Adviser, U.S. Mission to the U.N. and Other International Organizations
► Andrew Loewenstein, a Partner at Foley Hoag and Chair of the Committee on Public International Law and Human Rights of the Boston Bar Association
► Craig Mokhiber, Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights

► Suzanne Nossel, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs
► Ted Piccone, Brookings Institution
► Bertram Ramcharan, former U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights ad interim
► Yvonne Terlingen, Amnesty International

Details and registration here.

Therapeutic Abortion In Nicaragua, cont.

We've blogged before on the issue of therapeutic abortion and its criminalization in a handful of states, including Chile, El Salvador, Malta and the Philippines.

Women’s Link Worldwide along with other organizations that form part of the Strategic Group for the Decriminalization of Therapeutic Abortion in NICARAGUA -- including the Nicaraguan Center for Human Rights, the OB-GYN Society, the New Family Association (ANFAN), the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL), and IPAS Central America -- recently requested the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR) to order the Nicaraguan government to adopt urgent precautionary measures to protect the life of a 27-year-old Nicaraguan woman and mother of a 10-year-old child. The case is premised on the fact that the Nicaraguan health system refused "Amalia" (or "Amelia" -- the petitioner's pseudonym) both a therapeutic abortion and treatment (chemotherapy and radiotherapy) for metastatic cancer.
On February 26, in an unprecedented move, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, under the leadership of President Luz Patricia Mejia Guerrero (right), apparently adopted urgent precautionary measures on behalf of the petitioner (the text of the measures is not yet available on the Commission's website, see more here, here and here). Women's Link Worldwide reports that in its ruling, the IACHR called on the government of Nicaragua to

• ensure that the petitioner has access to appropriate medical treatment for her condition, and
• undertake this treatment in consultation with Amalia and her designated representatives.

In addition, the Commission has apparently required an account of Amalia’s progress within five days. There are some reports that Amalia did finally receive treatment for her cancer, although this cannot be confirmed.

Nicaragua is under considerable internal and external pressure to amend its law. At the recent session of the U.N. Human Rights Council that considered Nicaragua's first Universal Periodic Review of its human rights record, the Council recommended that the law be abolished. Nicaragua reportedly took note of the recommendation, but did not accept it or even offer to study it as it did with respect to other recommendations. The Nicaraguan representative countered that the law was a reflection of Nicaragua's sovereignty. In addition, four other human rights bodies -- the Committee against Torture, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women -- have determined that the law violates Nicaragua's treaty-based human rights obligations. Amnesty International has taken up the case, and feminist activists have launched an Urgent Action on Amelia's behalf. The Constitutional Court has yet to rule on the constitutionality of the measure.
Stay tuned....

Afro-Colombians' plight

(It’s IntLawGrrls’ great pleasure to welcome back alumna Gay McDougall, who guest-posts on her current work as U.N. Independent Expert on Minorities)
　
During my official visit this month to Colombia (flag at left), I had an opportunity to meet with both President Álvaro Uribe and numerous senior government officials and to consult with persons from Afro-Colombian communities. This dialogue was in keeping with my mandate on minority issues, and helped to promote implementation of the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic minorities.
Focusing on communities who identify as Afro-Colombian, Black, Raizal and Palenquero, I visited cities and regions where these communities are prominent.
This post summarizes the preliminary views I set forward here; my findings and recommendations will be fully developed in my report to the U.N. Human Rights Council.

Overview
The story of Afro-Colombians begins with slavery and the massive and gross violations of the rights of African descendants that terrible chapter in history entailed. In Colombia, as slaves escaped, they were forced to find refuge in nearly uninhabitable, geographically remote regions of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, shown in the darkest color at right. (map credit) There they built communities and livelihoods under conditions of extreme isolation, harsh climate, and often extreme poverty.
As in many other countries, the legacy of slavery endures and is manifested in communities that are socially and economically marginalized, facing racist attitudes and structural discrimination. The Colombian government has made efforts to address certain aspects of the disparities faced by Afro-Colombians, but the legacy of slavery continues to have a profound impact.
New challenges also have emerged.
Afro-Colombian settlements, in rural areas and town ghettos, rival only the reservations for Indigenous peoples as the very poorest in Colombia, with extreme poverty rates of over 60%. Surveys suggest that 80% of Afro-Colombians do not have basic needs met. Infant mortality rates in Chocó and Cauca are 54 per 1,000 of the population. Life expectancy in Afro-Colombian regions is only 55. Illiteracy rates for Afro-Colombians are estimated to be twice the national average. The responses of the national Government and regional authorities have been inadequate and must be addressed as a matter of urgency.
The recent census failed to capture the full demographic and socio-economic picture of the Afro-Colombians, estimated at between 10% and 25% of Colombia’s population. Additionally there is virtually no disaggregation of socio-economic data by race, so government policies are based on faulty data. I often heard from Afro-Colombians that they feel statistically "invisible", and that consequently their issues are ignored, their lives are less valued and that government policies dedicated to their needs are not achieving the desired improvements to their situations.

Legal Framework
Colombia has an impressive and commendable legislative framework that recognises many rights of Afro-Colombians, starting with the Constitution of 1991 which recognizes not only the right to non-discrimination but also the right to equality for all citizens. It also pledges to protect the ethnic and cultural diversity of the country and it promotes the political participation of minorities by establishing two reserve seats in the House of Representatives for Afro-Colombians.
Law 70 of 1993 recognises the right of black Colombians to collectively own and occupy their ancestral lands, and also reinforces rights to education, health and political participation.
While such measures are praiseworthy, the vast majority of communities and organizations that I consulted complain that implementation remains woefully inadequate, limited and sporadic. And where steps have been taken, no real enforcement has followed. As one woman told me:

‘The laws say all the right things but still, nothing has happened.’

Displaced & dispossessed
Displacement was highlighted as the highest priority issue for many Afro-Colombians. Those lands onto which runaway slaves were forced to retreat, while isolated and neglected for centuries, have in recent years been identified as the most fertile and resource rich of Colombia’s territory. This has placed these once isolated, largely self-sufficient communities directly in harm’s way.
These are also some of the most strategically important regions for guerrillas, former paramilitaries and other armed groups currently involved in narcotics production and trafficking. While the government has adopted a political position that the armed conflict has ended and paramilitary groups have demobilized, in many rural black communities that I visited I heard emotional and credible stories of murders and threats to the lives of community leaders.
The number of internally displaced persons ranges from an official tally of 3.073 million to civil society estimates as high as 4 million -- constituting the world’s second largest internal displacement situation. Those few who returned have found that others have claimed ownership or rights of usage in their absence.
Victims and communities believe that there is complete impunity for all of those who commit crimes against them.
I was pleased to meet with the Vice Minister of Defense and representatives of the police and the military during my visit. I was told of important steps being taken to build armed services that are aware of and responsive to the rights of Afro-Colombian communities and to break with the pattern of past violations. These efforts are welcome. However, more must be done to protect vulnerable communities and their leaders.
I would like to commend the work of the Ombudsman’s office in establishing a system of early warning and risk assessment for communities and leaders under threat. But the office’s alerts must be assessed by a committee of the security forces and civil institutions at the national level, which has frequently discounted the credibility of the alerts.
Displacement has particularly affected women, who have been displaced to urban areas in greater numbers than black men, and who suffer extreme vulnerability when they are. Ancestral lands from which Afro-Colombians are displaced are not only the source of livelihood and survival for communities, they are also essential for the preservation of Afro-Colombian culture, livelihood, language, tradition and for maintaining the social fabric of communities. (credit for 2007 Fiesta Palenque photo) The effects of displacement require solutions for both rural and urban communities, as recognized in a landmark decision of the Constitutional Court, Order 005 of 2009. The Court concluded that Government must act comprehensively to address the rights and needs of Afro-Colombians who are displaced and ordered specific measures; to date these have not been effectively implemented.
I welcome the establishment of the Intersectoral Commission for the Advancement of the Afro-Colombian Population, and hope that its recommendations will quickly move from the planning phase to the phase of actually impacting the lives of those who are suffering.


Women & violence
Afro-Colombian women spoke to me of their experiences, the violence committed against them, including sexual violence, the fear and trauma that they have endured on a daily basis and the challenges of their lives as women and mothers living under conditions of conflict, displacement and poverty. The rights of women to return to their community lands in security must be considered a priority.
When men have been killed, disappeared or forced to flee, women have assumed leadership roles in their communities and have shown remarkable resilience and resistance. However they do not receive the necessary recognition as community leaders and are not afforded the protection measures that they require. Mothers also spoke of losing children to forced recruitment into guerrilla and illegal armed groups.

Economic interests & "inconvenient rights"
Many Afro-Colombians have been displaced by "megaprojects", large-scale economic operations, often involving national and multinational companies, promoted by the government as bringing development and economic gain to the whole of Colombia. The communities have grave concerns about encroachment on their land rights and adverse environmental impacts; however, in the face of such economic interests and megaprojects it appears that the rights of communities are "inconvenient rights" and that the laws put in place to protect them are equally inconvenient.
Decree 1320 of 1998 requires that "prior informed consultation" must take place with Afro-Colombian and indigenous communities for the exploitation of natural resources within their territories. However I was informed that projects have been implemented without consultation or with consultations held with people who do not legitimately represent communities. Consultations must be meaningful and effective; importantly, International Labour Organisation Convention No. 169 Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, which this decree purports to incorporate into domestic law, requires that prior and informed consent of communities before projects are implemented on their lands.



Participation in decision-making
Despite the importance of political participation (prior post), Afro-Colombians are extremely poorly represented in political structures and institutions in Colombia and consequently the voices and issues of Afro-Colombians are not being sufficiently heard or given the attention that they deserve.

Go On! Minorities & political participation

(Go On! is an occasional item on symposia of interest. This particular one's a guest post, from IntLawGrrls guest/alumna Gay McDougall)

I am pleased to announce that U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-California) (below left), Chairperson of the Congressional Black Caucus, will chair the Second United Nations Forum on Minority Issues, undertaken in accordance with Human Rights Council Resolution 6/15 (2007). Yours truly has organized and convened the forum as part of my duties as the U.N. Independent Expert on Minority Issues, about which I've posted here.
Theme for this forum is "Minorities and Effective Political Participation"; it will take place November 11-13, 2009, at the Palais des Nations in Geneva, Switzerland.
Discussions at the forum will focus on the following core elements:
► identification of good practices in relation to minorities and political participation;
► identification of challenges and problems facing minorities and countries with respect to increasing the participation of minorities in political processes;
► consideration of opportunities; and
► initiatives and solutions for improved and more effective political participation by members of minority groups.
In addition to a wide range of stakeholders, the Forum will bring together members of minority populations from all regions of the world, who are either elected officials or have been candidates at national or local levels, those engaged in political parties, and those who are actively engaged in developing programs to encourage greater participation of minorities in the political process. There will also be a number of minorities who are senior government officials from countries that have affirmative action policies or constitutional provisions that require diversity in the top echelons of government. It is hoped that they will be able to share their personal experiences and to make proposals for policies that would encourage greater participation of minority groups in political processes.
Additionally, the Forum participants will include governments, relevant bodies and specialized agencies of the United Nations, intergovernmental organizations, regional organizations, national human rights institutions, experts on minority issues and non-governmental organizations. As last year, it is anticipated that there will be over 400 participants.
The forum will produce action-oriented recommendations, addressed to governments, political parties and nongovernmental organizations, which I will present to the Human Rights Council next spring.
For information, please contact the Secretariat supporting the forum, Lydie Ventre, lventre@ohchr.org, or Kim Turcotte, minorityforum@ohchr.org. Further details here.

Who said what on Gaza

Figuring out who said what about Palestine in recent days proved yet another mainstream media scavenger hunt.
► Reuters wrote Friday that "a report by U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay lambasted the 'nearly total impunity' for the violations," then proceeded to list "Pillay's recommendations" respecting the issue.
► Christian Science Monitor reporter Ilene R. Prusher led Thursday with a Human Rights Watch report on Gaza, the area depicted in cream coloring at right. She then anticipated that "what are expected to be two critical United Nations reports." (map credit) Prusher continued:

Israel has refused to cooperate in the investigation that is expected to yield the harsher of the two reports. That investigation is headed by Judge Richard Goldstone, a former war-crimes prosecutor from South Africa who was appointed by the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. Israel has criticized the council, which has a rotating membership that currently includes countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kyrgyzstan, and Angola, as biased and thus unfit to accurately assess its actions.
Israel has provided assistance, however, to investigators working on a second report, being conducted by the UN Commission on Human Rights.

Although the 1st paragraph makes sense, the 2d does not: as posted, the "UN Commission on Human Rights" disbanded in 2006 to make way for the "UN Human Rights Council." One guesses the 2d paragraph was intended to refer to the inquiry on which Reuters reported a day later. Yet this too appears a bit askew.
That's because the website of the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights attributes the Friday report not directly to Commissioner Pillay, but rather to the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories. The U.N. General Assembly renewed the mandate of this 41-year-old Special Committee just last December, via Resolution A/RES/63/95. Its 3 current members -- representing Malaysia, Senegal, and Sri Lanka -- conducted a 10-day field mission to Egypt, Jordan, and Syria at the beginning of this month, and then concluded:

'Violations of the international humanitarian law during the operation Cast Lead, in particular the targeting of civilian population and wanton destruction of property and religious and cultural objects.'

The Special Committee will present its findings -- based on field mission interviews and expert reports from nongovernmental and governmental organizations -- to the U.N. General Assembly later this year.
Have gone this far in the scavenger hunt, but still not entirely sure who said what.
Reportorial precision would go a long way toward aiding comprehension of the workings of international legal institutions.

Gender-based violence: Special rapporteur appointed

The United Nations Human Rights Council (photo below) approved Rashida Manjoo’s appointment as the new UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women its Causes and Consequences on 18 June 2009, according to a UN press release. Manjoo (above, photo credit) is a leading gender rights, anti-apartheid, and social justice advocate. The Special Rapporteur’s mandate, established in 1994, and extended in 2003, is to investigate, and to make recommendations at international, regional, and national levels on ending, gender-based violence (GBV).
Often treated as a marginal issue by governments, GBV is a global phenomenon and impacts people at all levels of society. It occurs in every country and culture and takes a range of forms, including the following:
►Family Violence: domestic violence/honor killings, female genital cutting, violently enforced appearance regulation, female infanticide, and abuses against girls, elders, and women with disabilities;
►Violence in the Community: rape, trafficking in women and girls, lack of access to reproductive health care, forced sterilization, the misuse of medical techniques to “control” women, and violence aimed at preventing the education of girls;
►State Violence and State-condoned Violence: GBV against women in detention, the use of rape, forced pregnancy, and other forms of sexual violence as weapons of war or armed conflict.
Groundbreaking international human rights instruments such as the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women and General Recommendation No. 19 (issued by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women) elaborate on the significant roles states and private actors must play in ending GBV.
Manjoo, an Advocate of the High Court of South Africa, served on that country’s constitutionally-prescribed Commission on Gender Equality from 2001 to 2006. She held research and teaching positions in international human rights law and advocacy and family law as a Clinical Instructor and Visiting Fellow at Harvard Law School’s Human Rights Program and as the E. Desmond Lee Visiting Professor for Global Awareness at Webster University. Manjoo writes and speaks extensively on women’s rights and other social justice issues.
A member of the international board of Women Living Under Muslim Laws, she is an internationally-recognized expert on the implications of cultural and religious context for gender rights and the socio-economic status of women and girls.
Rashida Manjoo is the third Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, following the appointments of Dr. Radhika Coomaraswamy (Sri Lanka) in 1994, and Dr. Yakin Ertürk (Turkey) in 2003.
IntLawGrrls look forward to a continued international spotlight on GBV and to the realization of a safer and more peaceful world for all.

The work of the U.N. minority issues expert

(My thanks to IntLawGrrls for this opportunity to contribute this guest post on my current work on behalf of the United Nations)

► This week I sent a letter, along with my colleagues who work on torture and arbitrary detention, to China. We challenged the Chinese government either to explain how its detention of two ethnic Uighurs complies with international law or to release the two urgently. China acknowledges having upwards of 40 different ethnic and religious minorities, in addition to the Tibetans, who face varying levels of oppression and repression.

► Next week I leave for a mission to Kazakhstan.

► Last year this time I was in Guyana, investigating the multi-layered relationships between the Indo-Guyanese (persons of East Indian descent), who currently control the government, and the Afro-Guyanese, who are almost the same percentage of the population but feel persecuted and grossly disadvantaged.

► In France, I saw a country that tourists never see. The lives of the “visible minorities” of France, persons who immigrate from North Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean to the shoddy, ghetto suburbs outside Paris, can’t been seen from the Eiffel Tower. They face discrimination at all levels. They are suspected and feared because of their religion. And even those who are second-generation citizens are never, ever considered “French.”

Since 2005, I have done this work in my capacity as U.N. Independent Expert on Minority Issues. I was appointed to the position by the High Commissioner for Human Rights with the consent of all governments that were members of the U.N. Human Rights Council (née Commission on Human Rights). There are over 40 individuals like myself, from all regions of the world, who are chosen to carry out this critical function for the chief human rights mechanism of the United Nations. Each has a mandate to focus on a specific human right. My mandate is to focus on the rights of minority populations. They are defined as groups that are distinct by ethnicity (race), religion or language and who have an inferior power relationship to other groups in the society. The relative numbers aren’t as meaningful as the subservient power status. So that:

► In South Africa during apartheid, my mandate would have been the protection of the African population, rather than the Afrikaners.

► In Brazil, I focus on the Afro-Brazilians even though the government now admits that they may be 55% or more of the population.

The international legal prescription against racial discrimination is at the core of my mandate, along with the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to Ethnic, Religious or Linguistic Minorities.

Furthermore, the U.N. resolution authorizing my work requires that I take “a gender perspective” in everything that I do. Each year I visit a number of countries where I am received at the level of a Cabinet Member or Minister of State. That gives me an unparalleled opportunity to engage the top officials in countries about their policies regarding minorities. And, of course, I am able to meet with minority communities, with academics who study these issues, and with civil societies more broadly. I present my findings, evaluations and detailed recommendations to the 47 governments that sit on the U.N. Human Rights Council. I also do thematic reports on issues that concern minorities across all regions of the world, like minorities and poverty or minorities and the right to education.

Of course, my mandate also includes minorities in the United States. Indeed, U.S. civil rights laws and my personal experiences as a minority in the United States have enriched my capacity to grapple with the complexities of discrimination as they present themselves in other cultures and countries. When I take on issues here in the United States, however, that home-grown expertise is rarely acknowledged.

An example: The U.N. Special Rapporteur on Housing and I intervened a while back when the City of New Orleans revealed a post-Hurricane Katrina plan to tear down much of the its remaining public housing. Our assessment was that to do that would violate the right to adequate housing that is guaranteed without discrimination by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The local response? New Orleans' daily newspaper, the Times-Picayune, accused me of being a meddling outsider “idiot from the U.N.”

On April 29

On this day in ...
... 2002, a year after it lost a seat for the 1st time in history, the United States regained a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Commission by winning 1 of 4 seats set aside for western countries. Established in 1947, the 53-member Commission would expire in 2006 and be replaced by the Human Rights Council, a 47-member body to which, as we've posted, the United States this year plans to seek election for the 1st time.
... 1946, in Tokyo, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East formally charged Hideki Tojo, who'd served as Japan's Prime Minister during World War II, as well as 27 other Japanese military leaders. Defendants were charged with 55 counts of international crimes in the indictment. (credit for photo at right of Tojo)

(Prior April 29 posts are here and here.)

Ambassador Susan Rice on UN & USA

Here's what Dr. Susan E. Rice (left), U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, told Politico about the U.S. decision to seek a seat on the Human Rights Council for the 1st time since it was established in 2006:

'We have a record of abject failure from having stayed out. We've been out for the duration and it has not gotten better. It's arguably gotten worse. We are much better placed to be fighting for the principles we believe in -- protection of human rights universally, fighting against the anti-Israel crap, and for meaningful action on issues that we care about and ought to be the top of the agenda -- things like Zimbabwe, Sudan, Burma, by leading and lending our voice from within.'

In an interview well worth reading, Rice also indicated that the February announcement that the United States was pulling out of Durban II, the World Conference on Racism, to be held this month in Geneva, may in the end lead to U.S. involvement: following the announcement organizers to produced a new draft agreement that's much more to the United States' liking.
Rice struck a tone far different from that of a recent predecessor, John Bolton (who, not surprisingly, already has condemned the new administration's decision that the United States will try to work within the Human Rights Council). She said of the United Nations:

'This is an institution that, despite its evident flaws, we are much better off having function effectively.'