Blogmaton: Human Rights Watch

Mostrar mensagens com a etiqueta Human Rights Watch. Mostrar todas as mensagens

25 janeiro, 2012

Apresentação do World Report 2012 da Human Rights Watch

2012 World Report, Q. and A. - Cairo

Question and answer session at the press conference of the launch of Human Rights Watch 2012 World Report. Cairo, Egypt, Sunday January 22 2012. (http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012)

World Report 2012:

Strengthen Support for 'Arab Spring'

Governments Should Support Rights, Not Abusive Allies

(Cairo, January 22, 2012) -- Many democracies have allowed their ties with repressive allies to temper their support for human rights in the Arab Spring protests, Human Rights Watch said today in its World Report 2012. For reasons of principle and long-term interest, governments should stand firm with the people of the Middle East and North Africa when they demand their basic rights and work to ensure the transition to genuine democracies.

The 676-page report, Human Rights Watch's annual review of human rights practices around the globe, summarizes major rights issues in more than 90 countries, reflecting the extensive investigative work carried out in 2011 by Human Rights Watch staf... More

07 janeiro, 2012

Human Rights Watch on the Tenth Anniversary of Guantanamo

Human Rights Watch Press release

January 6, 2012

On January 11, 2002, the United States brought the first 20 prisoners to the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, marking the beginning of a program of indefinite detention without charge or trial of terrorism suspects that has lasted 10 years.

Since then, a total of 779 prisoners have been held at the facility.

Provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2012, passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama on December 31, 2011, codify the practice of indefinite detention without trial into US law. This page is a compilation of selected Human Rights Watch reporting on Guantanamo and related matters over the past decade, as well as facts and figures comparing military commissions to federal courts.

Despite promises by Obama soon after his inauguration to close the facility, 171 prisoners remain.

Of the 779 detained in total, roughly 600 have been released and eight have died over the course of the past decade. Of the eight deaths, six are suspected suicides.

During the administration of President George W. Bush, many detainees at Guantanamo were subjected to painful stress positions; extended solitary confinement; threatening military dogs; threats of torture and death; and prolonged exposure to extremes of heat, cold, and noise that amounted to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.

When Obama took office in January 2009, about 242 prisoners remained.

Only a handful of the roughly 600 detainees released over the past 10 years were ever charged with a criminal offense.

Of the 171 prisoners that remain, the Obama administration has said it plans to prosecute 32, yet only one prisoner, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, currently faces any formal charges.

Another five, those accused of planning the September 11, 2001 attacks, have charges pending against them, but formal charges have yet to be brought and they have not been arraigned.

Of the remaining 139 prisoners, the administration has said it plans to detain 46 indefinitely without ever bringing charges against them. Another 89 detainees have been approved for transfer to home or third countries.

A variety of factors have prevented the release of those slated for transfer including inaction on the part of the Obama and Bush administrations, a moratorium placed on transfers to Yemen following the attempted bombing by a Yemeni of a US airliner on December 25, 2009, and restrictions placed by Congress on transfers from Guantanamo in December 2010. Fifty-six of the 89 detainees slated for transfer are from Yemen.

Ongoing US violations of detainee rights are not limited to Guantanamo.

Nearly 3,000 people now held by US forces in Afghanistan have not been afforded the basic rights that even captured enemy fighters are due in a civil war, such as being informed by a judge of the basis for their detention or allowed access to counsel. And individuals apprehended outside of Afghanistan currently detained there should never have been brought to the country at all.

Human Rights Watch opposes the prolonged indefinite detention without trial of terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. The practice violates US obligations under international law.

Human Rights Watch has strongly urged the US government to either promptly prosecute the remaining Guantanamo detainees according to international fair trial standards, or safely repatriate them to home or third countries.

We have also called for investigations of US officials implicated in torture of terrorism suspects and for adequate compensation for detainees who were mistreated.

Human Rights Watch will continue to press for compliance with these obligations. Failure to do so does enormous damage to the rule of law both in the US and abroad.

27 setembro, 2011

Saudi Arabia: Women to Vote But Reforms Exclude Other Forms of Discrimination

Os destaques a amarelo são de minha responsabilidade.

But Reforms Exclude Other Forms of Discrimination, says Human Rights Watch

(Amman) September 26, 2011 – King Abdullah’s announcement that women will be able to participate in municipal elections in 2015 and become members of the consultative Shura Council is a long overdue step toward greater participation of women in public life, Human Rights Watch said today. In his statement on September 25, 2011, Abdullah made no reference to reforming other areas of discrimination against women, such as the guardianship system that authorizes male control over women and the ban on women driving.

“King Abdullah’s promise that women will finally be allowed to vote is a welcome move away from the discrimination and exclusion that Saudi women have suffered for so long,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Sadly, King Abdullah’s promise of reform in 2015 doesn’t come soon enough for women to vote in upcoming municipal elections.”

Women remain excluded from participating in the municipal elections set to begin before the end of September. The kingdom held its first municipal elections in 2005, but the government barred women as voters and candidates. At the time, the government promised they would be able to participate in the second round of elections, scheduled for 2009, but postponed that vote until 2011, claiming there were “technical” difficulties with ensuring women could participate. Despite an additional two-year preparation period, the government in early 2011 announced that it would again exclude women from the 2011 municipal elections, the only elections for political offices in the kingdom.

The king’s latest announcement promised that women could vote in the next municipal elections, scheduled for 2015. Half of the municipal council’s seats are elected, and the other half are appointed by the government. The powers of the councils remain unclear and are not significant, though recent changes ensure that each municipal council can directly work with the local mayor and governor, and not only report to the minister of municipal and rural affairs in Riyadh.

The king also announced that women could become full voting members of the Shura Council, an appointed consultative body that has authority to review laws and question ministers but cannot propose or veto legislation and has no binding powers. In 2006 the Shura Council appointed six women as advisors, a number that has now risen to 12. These women advisers do not have a right to vote, however.

In April 2011 a group of Saudi women launched the Baladi campaign to protest their exclusion from the elections, and several women unsuccessfully attempted to register as voters. One woman launched a legal challenge, but the Board of Grievances, an administrative court, rejected the case because of procedural errors in the submission.

The conservative kingdom maintains a system of male guardianship under which women cannot make decisions about their life without approval from a father, husband, brother, or even son, including decisions regarding travel, work, health care, education, and business affairs. In June 2009 the government promised the United Nations Human Rights Council that it would abolish that system but has yet to do so.

Saudi women renewed a campaign to allow women to drive in May 2011, leading to the arrests of Manal al-Sharif, one female driver, and others who followed her example across the kingdom. Abdullah has not indicated when women would be allowed to drive.

“We hope King Abdullah’s announcement is the first step in giving Saudi women essential rights that other women all over the world take for granted,” Whitson said.

27 janeiro, 2011

World Report 2011: Your Global Guide to Human Rights

January 25, 2011

25 janeiro, 2011

Human Rights Watch World Report 2011: Governments Soft-Talking Abusers

From: HREA

Sent: segunda-feira, 24 de Janeiro de 2011 20:23
Subject: [headlines] Human Rights Watch World Report 2011: Governments Soft-Talking Abusers

EU and Others Need to Use Pressure to Bring Change

(Brussels) January 24, 2011 -- Too many governments are accepting the rationalizations and subterfuges of repressive governments, replacing pressure to respect human rights with softer approaches such as private "dialogue" and "cooperation," Human Rights Watch said today in releasing its World Report 2011. Instead of standing up firmly against abusive leaders, many governments, including European Union member states, adopt policies that do not generate pressure for change.

The 649-page report, Human Rights Watch's 21st annual review of human rights practices around the globe, summarizes major human rights issues in more than 90 countries and territories worldwide, reflecting the extensive investigative work carried out in 2010 by Human Rights Watch staff.

"The ritualistic support of ‘dialogue' and ‘cooperation' with repressive governments is too often an excuse for doing nothing about human rights," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. "The EU's ‘constructive dialogues' are among the most egregious examples of this global trend."

Dialogue and cooperation are important for addressing human rights concerns, and achieving cooperation is a key goal of human rights advocacy, Human Rights Watch said. But when there is a lack of political will to respect rights, pressure changes the cost-benefit analysis that leads a government to choose repression.

When governments expose or condemn abuses, condition military aid or budgetary support on ending violations, or call for prosecution and punishment of those responsible, it raises the cost to abusive governments, Human Rights Watch said.

A range of countries from the global North and South are regular offenders, but the EU in particular seems eager to adopt the ideology of dialogue and cooperation, Human Rights Watch said. Even when the EU issues a statement of concern on human rights, it is often not backed by a comprehensive strategy for change.

The credibility of the EU as a force for human rights around the world also rests on its willingness to address human rights abuses by its own member states. With a record of discrimination and rising intolerance against migrants, Muslims, Roma, and others, inadequate access to asylum, and abusive counterterrorism measures, member states and EU institutions need to show greater political commitment to ensure that respect for human rights at home matches the EU's rhetoric abroad.

Recent examples of failure to exert pressure include the EU's obsequious approach toward Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, the West's soft reaction to certain favored African autocrats such as Paul Kagame of Rwanda and Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia, and the near-universal cowardice in confronting China's deepening crackdown on basic liberties. The most effective support for human rights in China in 2010 came from the Norwegian Nobel committee's awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to imprisoned Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo.

Pressure has not been abandoned, Human Rights Watch said. But it has been used primarily toward governments whose behavior is so outrageous that it overshadows other interests at stake, such as North Korea, Iran, or Zimbabwe.

The use of dialogue and cooperation in lieu of pressure has emerged with a vengeance at the United Nations, from Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to many members of the Human Rights Council, Human Rights Watch said. In addition, leading democracies of the global South, such as South Africa, India, and Brazil, have promoted quiet demarches as a preferred response to repression. Recent illustrations include Association of Southeast Asian Nations' (ASEAN) tepid response to Burmese repression, the United Nations' deferential attitude toward Sri Lankan wartime atrocities, and India's pliant policy toward Burma and Sri Lanka, Human Rights Watch said.

US President Barack Obama increased his focus on human rights in his second year in office, but his eloquent statements have not always been followed by concrete actions. Nor has he insisted that the various US government agencies convey strong human rights messages consistently, with the result that the Defense Department and various US embassies - in Egypt, Indonesia, and Bahrain, for example - often deliver divergent messages.

Dialogues of any sort, whether public or private, have greater impact when tied to concrete benchmarks, Human Rights Watch said. Benchmarks give a clear direction to the dialogue and make the participants accountable for concrete results. Without them, repressive governments are able to manipulate these dialogues, treating their mere commencement or resumption as a sign of "progress." For example, a 2008 EU report on its Central Asia strategy concluded that implementation was going well but gave nothing beyond "intensified political dialogue" as a measurement of "progress."

"This is a particularly bad time for proponents of human rights to lose their public voice," Roth said. "Abusive governments and their allies, trying to prevent the vigorous enforcement of human rights, have had no qualms about raising theirs."

Sri Lanka, for example, strongly pressured the UN to try to quash a UN advisory panel on accountability for war crimes committed during its armed conflict with the Tamil Tigers. China mounted a major lobbying effort to discourage governments from attending the Nobel Prize ceremony for Liu Xiaobo. And China made a similar effort to block a proposed UN commission of inquiry into war crimes committed in Burma, which had the strong support of the US and several EU member states.

The UN Human Rights Council has been especially timid, with many countries refusing to vote for resolutions aimed at a particular country. In an extreme example, rather than condemn Sri Lanka for the brutal abuses against civilians in the final months of the conflict with the Tamil Tigers, the council congratulated Sri Lanka, Human Rights Watch said.

Although the EU's partnership and cooperation agreements with other countries are routinely conditioned on basic respect for human rights, it has concluded a significant trade agreement and pursued a full-fledged partnership and cooperation agreement with Turkmenistan, a severely repressive government, without conditioning either on human rights improvements or engaging in any serious efforts to secure improvements in advance, Human Rights Watch said. And the EU opened accession discussions with Serbia despite its failure to apprehend and surrender for trial Ratko Mladic, the Bosnian Serb wartime military leader and an internationally indicted war crimes suspect, a key benchmark for beginning the discussions. The EU also lifted sanctions imposed on Uzbekistan after security forces massacred hundreds in 2005 in the city of Andijan, even though the Uzbek government took no steps to fill any of the EU criteria required for lifting the sanctions.

By the same token, the Obama administration in its first year simply ignored the human rights conditions on the transfer of military aid to Mexico under the Mérida Initiative even though Mexico failed to prosecute abusive military officials in civilian courts as required. Only in the administration's second year did it withhold some aid.

"Dialogue and cooperation have their place, but the burden should be on the abusive government to show a genuine willingness to improve," Roth said. "In the absence of the demonstrated political will by abusive governments to make change, governments of good will need to apply pressure to end repression."

Human Rights Watch Press release

20 dezembro, 2010

Separados e Desiguais um relatório da Human Rights Watch sobre a descriminação e a colonização ilegal israelita

Separate and Unequal
Israel’s Discriminatory Treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Um relatório da Human Rights Watch (HRW) publicado neste domingo mostra que os colonatos israelitas têm melhores serviços, como a água ou energia eléctrica, do que as urbanizações palestinas da mesma zona.

Este relatório mostra que Israel opera um sistema a dois níveis para as duas populações da Cisjordânia, nas grandes áreas em que exerce o controlo exclusivo. O relatório é baseado em estudos de caso comparando o tratamento totalmente diferente dado por Israel, aos colonatos e às comunidades palestinas vizinhas nessas áreas.. Ele exorta os EUA e os estados membros da UE e as empresas com operações em áreas de colonatos para evitar apoiar as políticas de colonização israelitas que são inerentemente discriminatórias e que violam a lei internacional.

Nesse relatório a organização de defesa dos direitos humanos HRW afirma que o governo dos Estados Unidos deveria descontar da ajuda que fornece ao Estado de Israel o valor dos subsídios que Israel concede para continuar a colonizar a Cisjordânia.

"Os Estados Unidos, que concedem 2,75 bilhões de dólares de ajuda anual a Israel, teriam que suspender uma parte deste financiamento equivalente ao que Israel gasta para apoiar a colonização, um valor estimado num estudo de 2003 em 1,4 bilhão de dólares", afirma a HRW.

Os palestinos consideram que a presença de 500.000 israelitas em mais de 120 colonatos na Cisjordânia e Jerusalém Oriental impedem a criação de um Estado palestino viável nos territórios ocupados por Israel na Guerra dos Seis Dias de 1967.

O fim da moratória sobre a construção de novas casas para colonos na Cisjordânia colocou em risco as negociações directas de paz israelo-palestinas retomadas em 2 de Setembro, depois de uma interrupção de 20 meses, no seguimento da brutal agressão à Faixa de Gaza.

A moratória de 10 meses, anunciada em 25 de Novembro de 2009 pelo primeiro-ministro israelita Benjamin Netanyahu, estava limitada aos colonatos da Cisjordânia, excluindo Jerusalém Oriental e milhares de obras iniciadas anteriormente, assim como edifícios públicos (escolas ou sinagogas).

A seguir poderá encontrar o link para o documento e o respectivo índice:

Separate and Unequal
Israel’s Discriminatory Treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories

I. Summary

Background

Construction Permits, Zoning, and Demolitions

Freedom of Movement

Water

Land Confiscation

II. Recommendations

To the Government of Israel

To the Government of the United States

To the International community, including the United States and European Union

To the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

To Businesses Profiting from Settlements

III. Methodology

IV. Background

Israeli Jurisprudence and Discrimination

Land Confiscation

Discriminatory Restrictions, Planning, and Forced Displacement in Area C

Discriminatory Enforcement

East Jerusalem..

Settler Incentives and Funding Sources

Corporate Involvement in Settlements

V. Northern Jordan Valley

VI. Bethlehem District

Jubbet al-Dhib

Nahalin

VII. Nablus District

Yanun and Itamar

VIII. Ramallah District

Al-Janiya and Talmon

IX. Jahalin Bedouin and Ma’ale Adumim

X. East Jerusalem

Background: Overview of Israeli Planning and Building Policies in East Jerusalem

Al-Bustan and the City of David

Discrimination in Silwan

Coda: Increasing Harassment

Discrimination and Forcible Transfer in International Law

Forcible Transfer

XI. Rights to a Home, Adequate Housing and Property

Appendix: Human Rights Watch Letters to Israeli Authorities and Their Responses

Acknowledgments

20 agosto, 2010

Parem a demolição de casas dos beduínos. O apelo da Human Rights Watch a Israel

Israel: Stop Demolishing Bedouin Homes | Human Rights Watch

Estruturas destruídas pela quarta vez num mês numa aldeia do Neguev.

"Israel está demonstrando um desprezo chocante pelos direitos fundamentais dos seus cidadãos que, por acaso, são beduínos. Estas demolições devem parar agora." afirmou Joe Stork, vice-director para o Médio Oriente da organização Human Rights Watch.

Seguindo o link acima poderá ler, em inglês, esta posição da Human Rights Watch.

Sobre a Human Rights Watch

A Human Rights Watch é uma das líderes mundiais entre as organizações independentes dedicadas à defesa e protecção dos direitos humanos. Ao concentrar a atenção internacional onde os direitos humanos são violados, dá voz aos oprimidos e mantém os opressores responsabilizados pelos seus crimes. As investigações objectivas e rigorosas e uma defesa focada e estratégica criam uma pressão intensa para a acção e aumenta o custo do abuso dos direitos humanos.

Desde há 30 anos, a Human Rights Watch tem trabalhado tenazmente para lançar as bases legais e morais para uma mudança profunda e tem lutado para trazer maior justiça e segurança para as pessoas ao redor do mundo.

14 maio, 2010

"Eu perdi tudo": Relatório da Human Rights Watch - Destruições ilegais de propriedades civis em Gaza

Um relatório sobre a destruição ilegal de propriedades civis durante a operação Cast Lead

Este relatório, apresentado ontem, documenta as investigações da Human Rights Watch, sobre 12 casos distintos em que as forças israelitas, durante a Operação Cast Lead, destruíram extensamente propriedades civis, incluindo casas, fábricas, plantações e estufas, em áreas sob seu controle, sem qualquer finalidade militar lícita.

As investigações da Human Rights Watch, basearam-se em provas físicas, imagens de satélite e relatos de testemunhas múltiplas em cada local, não tendo encontrado nenhuma indicação de combates nas proximidades, quando ocorreu as destruições.

Leia o Comunicado de Imprensa (Eng.)

Leia o Relatório (Eng.)

ISBN: 1-56432-630-6

Download do relatório (Eng.) (PDF, 2.94 MB)

Blogmaton