The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam – A Quest to Reconcile Economic Development with the Right to Water

By: Kristoffer Burck, Junior Research Associate, PILPG-NL

The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) is a dam project in Northern Ethiopia along the Blue Nile, and is set to become the largest hydropower plant in the African continent.  With its current construction date set at 2023, the dam promises to bring industrialization and development to Ethiopians.  But despite the opportunity the dam may represent for Ethiopians, it has been met with objections from others.  In fact, Sudanese and Egyptian politicians, whose populations are highly dependent on the freshwater supply of the Nile, warn that the dam constitutes a threat to their national security.  Since July 2020, when  Ethiopia began  to partially fill up the reservoirs of the dam, the relationships between the states have soured.  The disagreements concern the applicability of colonial treaties, the  balancing of the right to economic development with the right to water, and ways to facilitate effective regional cooperation. 

Colonial Baggage

According to some Egyptian politicians, the legal situation of the Nile is quite straightforward: the “Nile Waters Agreement” of 1929 guarantees a large share of the Nile´s water to the Egyptian population, and gives the government a right to veto construction projects of riparian states.  But, the problem with this agreement is that it was not concluded with the upstream states, but with Great Britain, who had colonized most of the riparian upstream states, including Sudan.  In 1959, a newly independent Sudan renegotiated the agreement with Egypt, with the result that the water resources were re-allocated between these two states.  The former Eastern African colonies located upstream the Nile (Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda), argue that they are not bound to these colonial treaties under the tabula rasa theory. The controversial theory is codified in article 16 of the Vienna Convention on the Succession of States in Respect of Treaties and holds that newly independent states are not automatically bound by colonial treaties.  For Ethiopians the argument is even clearer: they were not a party to any of the applicable agreements and are therefore not bound by them. 

The Right to Economic Development

The difficulties in interpreting colonial treaties is not the only field of contention.  The GERD project potentially has a considerable impact on human rights of the populations of Ethiopia, Egypt and Sudan.  More specifically in Ethiopia, the project could positively impact the right to economic development, recognized as a human right in Article 22(1) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples´ Rights. While the Ethiopian economy has steadily grown over the past years, its successful development is still held back by endemic power cuts.  A hydroelectric dam could provide a reliable source of energy, not only for Ethiopia but also for bordering countries, struggling with the same situation.  A majority of the Ethiopian (diaspora) population has shown high hopes for the project, and a large portion of the GERD was funded through popular bonds.  As a result, the dam could provide a pathway for Ethiopia to attain their right to development, to industrialize large parts of their economy, and create jobs that could possibly lift millions out of poverty. 

The Right to Water

However, concerns about the dam project by Egypt and Sudan are based on arguments of human rights too.  The “Human Right to Water” has been recognized in several international human rights agreements and receives particular attention in Goal 6 of the Sustainable Development Goals.  In theory, filling the GERD reservoir would require a full annual flow of the Blue Nile.  The Egyptian agricultural sector and the population rely heavily on the steady flow of the Nile.  Consequently, a sudden substantial drop in Nile water supply would be disastrous.  Egypt therefore argues that the GERD project would interfere with their right to water is to be seen as an issue of national security. In addition to the right to water, strong fluctuations of water flow could furthermore be damaging to Sudanese and Egyptian hydroelectric dams. This could impair their respective electricity stability and thereby threaten Sudanese and Egyptian rights to economic development. 

Conclusion 

Regional negotiations, such as the Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA) of the Nile Basin Initiative, have failed to reach a solution.  Specifically, the definition of “water security” in Article 14 of the CFA caused contention.  Arguing based on their “historical rights”, stemming from the colonial treaties, Sudan and Egypt refused to sign the agreement.  After mediation attempts by intermediaries, such as the United States and the African Union (AU), and the rejection of an Ethiopian proposal for a preliminary agreement, Ethiopia started to fill the GERD´s reservoirs without an agreement in July 2020. While the situation might appear to be in a deadlock, an agreement could be beneficial to all states involved.  A recent study, published in October 2020 by Nature Communications, shows that the Dam could benefit Sudan and Ethiopia, without negatively impacting Egypt. However, especially in the case of a prolonged drought, coordination between all states is crucial.  The speed of filling the reservoirs would have to be adjusted to periodical rainfall and water flows would need to be communicated openly.  The study suggests that a minimum annual release of water from the GERD could actually increase water safety for Sudanese and Egyptian populations, also in cases of drought. A harmonized schedule for filling and releasing water could therefore ultimately balance the rights to water and the rights to economic development.   Since the release of the study, trilateral talks continued and yielded some positive results in regard to coordinating the filling process.  Nevertheless, Sudanese officials boycotted the latest round of negotiations in November 2020, demanding a stronger involvement of mediators.  

A cooperative agreement could offer a path to reconcile Ethiopia’s desire to economic development with Egypt’s and Sudan’s rights to water safety.  Yet, such a commitment requires trust and mutual assurances.  In light of the volatile situation in the region, all parties involved would be best served by agreeing on procedural issues and continuing negotiations on the technical specifications of filling and releasing water from the dam in good faith.

France’s Global Security Law: Article 24 and the Right to Information

By: Alexandrah Bakker, Junior Research Associate, PILPG-NL

On October 20, 2020, MPs from France’s ruling party proposed the so-called “Global Security Law” (Loi Sécurité globale): a law purporting to be “inventive and innovative” in its approach towards national security, while respecting the actors who contribute to it.  Although the entire bill has elicited criticism, its Article 24, in particular, has gained notoriety.  

Article 24 criminalizes the dissemination of images showing the face or other identifying characteristics of a member of the national police or of the gendarmerie participating in a police operation.  The provision applies when the dissemination aims to undermine the officer’s physical or mental integrity.  Individuals convicted under this provision may face imprisonment of up to one year and a fine of up to €45,000.

Proponents of Article 24 claim that police officers have increasingly faced personal attacks on social media, and that this provision is solely intended to protect them from those who have malicious intent.  Meanwhile, critics have denounced the law as an instrument of impunity.  Many have pointed to recent high-profile incidents of police violence that would not have been brought to the public’s attention were it not for the widespread distribution of videos of the incidents on social media.  A few notable cases include the Benalla Affair, the death of Cédric Chouviat, the Theo rape case, and, more recently, the beating of Michel Zecler, which was condemned by French President Emmanuel Macron.  In other words, they consider that Article 24, by limiting the right to distribute information, can have further implications for the accountability of public authorities in France.

Domestic and international institutions, such as the Defender of Rights (Défenseure des droits), the League for Human Rights (Ligue des droits de l’homme), Reporters Without Borders, Amnesty International, and United Nations experts, have decried the law’s potential implications for the right to privacy, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of expression.  In particular, these institutions have criticized Article 24 as a threat to the right to information.  In response to this criticism and large-scale protests, legislators modified the law to add that it is without prejudice to the right to information.

The Right to Information in International Human Rights Law

The right to information is a corollary of the right to freedom of expression, which is enshrined in both domestic and international human rights law.  France’s international obligations with regards to this right can be found in two places: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).

Article 19 of the ICCPR and Article 10 of the ECHR provide for a right to freedom of expression which includes the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information.  However, this right is not absolute.  Both provisions allow the state to limit the right to information if such a limitation is pursued for a legitimate aim, is provided for by law, and is necessary and proportionate.

Article 24 and the Right to Information

Both the ICCPR and the ECHR recognize the protection of national security and the rights or reputation of others as grounds to limit the right to information.  However, the restrictions imposed citing these grounds must be legal, necessary, and proportionate.  It is in this respect that human rights experts have expressed concern over Article 24. 

Although Article 24 finds basis in legislation, experts consider that the legality requirement is not satisfied due to a lack of precision.  A law that limits the right to information must be sufficiently clear that the public can regulate its behavior accordingly, and that those charged with its execution can distinguish between forms of expression that are and are not permitted.  It is hard to say, for instance, how the intent underlying the dissemination of images will be ascertained.

The necessity and proportionality elements require that the law must be applied only for the purpose for which it was adopted, must be directly related to the need used to justify it, and must be the least intrusive means of achieving its goal.  Reporters Without Borders observed that, even if the law is applied appropriately by judges, Article 24 may still be treated by law enforcement as a justification to arrest individuals live streaming from protests or other events with significant police presence.  Furthermore, law enforcement officers’ right to privacy is already recognized within Article 8 of the ECHR and Article 9 of the French Civil Code.  It could be argued that steps could be taken to reinforce the civil remedies available under these provisions, rather than adding elevated criminal sanctions.

Conclusion

On November 24, 2020, the National Assembly voted to adopt the Global Security Law with 388 votes in favor and 104 against.  The government has since announced that the article will be completely rewritten to address the criticism, a move which has itself been criticized as an inappropriate intervention by the executive in the legislative process.  However, experts claim that it is the underlying idea, and not the phrasing, of Article 24 that is incompatible with international human rights standards.  They have therefore called for the article to be withdrawn entirely.  The law is expected to reach the Senate in January 2021.

“Your Users, Your Liability” - How the ECtHR Established Liability for Hate Speech on Online News Platforms

By: Paul Weber, Junior Research Associate, PILPG-NL

Online platforms have become one of the most important ways in which we communicate today.  The European Court of Human Rights (the Court, ECtHR) recognized that the internet “provides an unprecedented platform for the exercise of freedom of expression”.  Yet, hatred and incitement to violence are common on these fora.  In many cases, authors of such comments hide behind the anonymity provided to them by the internet.  Therefore, victims often find themselves unable to hold the authors directly accountable for their comments.  The ECtHR has addressed this issue by finding that online news platforms are liable for improperly managing hate speech in their user’s comments.  This blog post will outline how the Court established the liability of online platforms for the comments of their users.

 The ECtHR’s case law on the liability of online platforms for unlawful user comments began with Delfi AS v Estonia.  This case concerned the news platform Delfi.  Delfi was held liable for failing to remove personally insulting and threatening user comments under one of its news articles.  The article concerned the business practices of a local company.  Delfi AS removed the comments only after receiving the information that the affected company had filed a lawsuit against it.  In the domestic legal proceedings, the Estonian courts held that the comments violated the affected company’s personality rights and were thus not protected by freedom of speech.  The domestic proceedings imposed legal liability on Delfi AS, as it had failed to provide a system for quick removal of hateful comments.  Subsequently, Delfi AS complained before the ECtHR that it was a violation of  freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). 

 The “Delfi Criteria”

In its decision, the ECtHR developed four criteria to evaluate a platform’s liability concerning comments (paras. 142-143).  These were: the context of the comments, what steps the company took to prevent or remove the unlawful comments, the alternative of holding the actual authors of the comments accountable instead, and, lastly, the consequences of the domestic ruling for the company.  It is necessary to have a closer look at the Court’s application of those criteria to the Delfi AS case to understand what it meant by each of them.

 First, in examining the context of the comments, the ECtHR found that the platform was not a “passive, purely technical service provider” (para. 146).  The actual authors could neither edit nor delete their comments once published.  Thus, Delfi AS had ultimate control over the comments and economically profited from them. 

Second, the Court found that Delfi AS employed upload filters to delete comments containing certain hateful words, and, on several occasions, administrators had deleted hateful comments on their initiative.  However, in the present case, these measures had failed to remove comments containing hate speech without delay and without having been notified.  There, the ECtHR found that the Delfi AS’ response to the comments was insufficient. 

Third, the Court evaluated whether holding the actual authors liable for their comments might be an alternative approach.  The Delfi news platform allowed its users to comment anonymously.  In the eyes of the ECtHR, this anonymity stood in the way of redress for the victims and, hence, could not be an alternative approach in this case. 

Fourth, the Court did not believe that the consequences of the domestic proceedings for Delfi AS were overly harsh.  The company only had to pay a small fine and was not substantially hindered in its operation, according to the ECtHR.  For these reasons, the Court held that the Estonian ruling did not violate freedom of expression. 

With these four criteria, the ECtHR laid the groundwork for its jurisprudence on online news platforms.   Their liability arises, because news platforms “provide for economic purposes a platform for user-generated comments on previously published content” (para. 116).  In the eyes of the ECtHR, this new case law does not extend to social media platforms and blogs.  Such platforms do not provide content of their own and the individuals providing actual content do so as a hobby.  In the eyes of the ECtHR these platforms therefore do not have the same responsibilities as news platforms.

 The Legacy of Delfi AS

Less than a year after the Delfi AS decision, the ECtHR affirmed and refined its criteria for online platform liability in MTE and Index.hu v. Hungary.  Here, the Court additionally evaluated the effect that the comments in question had on the persons that they addressed. With these refined criteria, the Court has evaluated several more cases.  However, this new case law is far from uncontroversial. 

First criticism came with the Delfi AS judgment itself, as Judges Sajó and Tsotsoria wrote a joint dissenting opinion.  The two judges particularly questioned the focus on professional news platforms, remarking that “Freedom of expression cannot be a matter of a hobby” (Diss. Op. para. 9).  Other commentators, like Lorna Woods, criticized the implicit rejection of a notice-and-take-down system as sufficient, as the Court had found that platforms would have to act on their initiative.  However, as Neville Cox observed, Delfi and the case law that followed also provided “a bulwark against the enhanced possibilities for the exercise of freedom of expression de facto provided by the internet”.

Conclusion

The Delfi criteria, for the first time, allowed victims of hate speech online to hold the economic profiters, namely the platform providers, responsible for the wrongs they endured.  In doing so, the Court put greater limits on the freedom of speech online.  However, thereby, it also addressed the issue that victims are often left without redress due to the anonymity provided to authors of hate speech by the internet.  Several Council of Europe member states place greater responsibility on service providers online.  A notable example is Germany and its network enforcement act, which increases the duties of social media platforms.  Thus, the Delfi case law of the ECtHR may be the first of further interesting developments in the jurisprudence on hate speech online.

November 2020

Monthly News Updates:  Human Rights Mechanisms - November 2020

By: Shaya Javadinia, Junior Research Associate, PILPG-NL 

The following post summarizes and highlights some of the updates on the work of regional and international human rights mechanisms around the world in the month of November.  

EUROPE 

European Court of Human Rights |  Pre-trial detention of journalist Ahmet Şık violated the Convention

In Şık v. Turkey, the applicant is a journalist who was suspected of circulating propaganda in favor of organizations considered to be terrorist organizations by publishing articles in the Turkish daily newspaper Cumhuriyet, and posting on social media .  The Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to liberty and security (Article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights) as his detention for the above-mentioned offences was based on mere suspicion.  Furthermore, the Court found that the interference with the freedom of expression of the applicant (Article 10 European Convention on Human Rights) was not prescribed by law, as the material he published  only instigated a public debate on facts, and did not support nor promote the use of violence or terror.  [November 24, 2020] 

European Court of Human Rights | Insufficient compensation for inhuman conditions of detention

In Barbotin v. France, the Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to an effective remedy (Article 13) and the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3 of the European Convention on Human rights).  While the applicant had been awarded compensation by the French domestic courts for the inhuman conditions of his detention, he had to pay the fees for the expert investigating the prison conditions himself.  The Court decided that the fact that the applicant had to bear the costs for the expert’s fees hindered the effectiveness of the compensation remedy provided to him and resulted in a violation of his Convention rights.  [November 19, 2020] 

European Court of Human Rights | Right of prisoners to receive meals compatible with the precepts of their religion

In Saran v. Romania, the Court found a violation of the applicant’s (Mr. Saran) right to freedom of religion  (Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights) on the basis that he wasdenied meals consistent with the precepts of his religion (Islam) during his time as a prisoner in two of the five Romanian prisons in which he was held.  The Romanian authorities had asked the applicant to provide written proof of his adherence to Islam, in absence of which they refused to provide him with meals in compliance with his religion.  The Court found that the authorities, in refusing to provide the requested meals, had not fairly balanced the interests of the prison, the other prisoners, and the individual interest of Mr. Saran.   [November 10, 2020] 

European Court of Human Rights | Launch of Ukrainian HUDOC case-law database

Pending cases against Ukraine represent approximately 16 percent of the overall caseload of the European Court of Human Rights.  For that reason, the Court has launched a Ukrainian user interface of its case-law database HUDOC, in cooperation with the Ukrainian Ministry of Justice, the Office of the Agent of Ukraine before the Court, and the Council of Europe office in Ukraine.  This interface follows the example of the existing English, French, Georgian, Russian, Spanish, and Turkish versions of HUDOC.  The newly launched database aims to enhance understanding of the Court’s case law amongst the public and legal professionals, which could in turn help to increase the correct application of European standards in domestic courts.  [November 5, 2020] 

AFRICA 

African Commission on Human and People’s Rights | Concern over the current situation of armed conflict unfolding in the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

The Government of Ethiopia has launched a military offensive against the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) in response to the TPLF’s attack on the Northern Command of the Ethiopian National Defense Forces on November 4, 2020.  These armed encounters have resulted in the killing and forced displacement of many civilians, posing a significant risk of violation of their fundamental human rights.  The Commission has called on the Government of Ethiopia to respect its obligations under international human rights law and to abide by international humanitarian law during the armed conflicts.  Furthermore, the Commission has warned all parties involved in the conflict against war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity, and has encouraged them to engage in dialogue to settle their dispute peacefully.  [November 26, 2020] 

African Commission on Human and People’s Rights | The Commission calls on Burkina Faso to respect voting rights of its citizens

The Commission has been informed of incidents of disruptions of voter registrations by extremist groups in certain regions of Burkina Faso.  These incidents were followed by the Burkinabé parliament passing a new law that allows for votes to be counted regardless of people’s access to polling stations.  The Commission reminds the Burkinabé authorities of their obligation to ensure the respect of the the right to vote and requests that authorities take measures necessary to ensure their citizens can effectively exercise this right.  [November 11, 2020] 

THE AMERICAS 

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights | The Commission adopts precautionary measures in favor of human rights defenders in Cuba

The Commission granted precautionary measures in favor of a family of human rights defenders at risk of irreparable damage to their human rights in Cuba.  The individuals requested the precautionary measures as Cuban state agents and third parties were allegedly subjecting them to threats, harassment, detentions, and acts of violence as a result of their work as human rights defenders.  In the precautionary measures, the Commission requested Cuba to implement the necessary measures to protect the rights to life and personal integrity of these individuals, and to allow them to carry out their work as human rights defenders without being subjected to harassment.  [November 24, 2020]

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights | Creation of Interdisciplinary Group of Independent Experts for Bolivia

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has established, by means of an agreement with Bolivia, a new Interdisciplinary Group of Independent Experts for Bolivia (GIEI-Bolivia).  This mechanism aims to assist with the investigation of acts of violence and human rights violations which took place in Bolivia between September 1, and December 31, 2019.  The Commission views GIEI-Bolivia as an impartial mechanism with technical expertise and integrity, which will ensure that those responsible for the violations are identified, and will offer appropriate recommendations on the issue. [November 20, 2020] 

Inter-American Court of Human Rights | Basic course on Human Rights for Non-Lawyers

On November 5, the Court held a basic course on human rights for non-lawyers in Central America that discussed the impact of the Court’s case-law  on human rights situations in the region.  This course was offered as a part of the “Training and awareness-raising on human rights in the midst of the COVID 19 pandemic” Project, and aimed to train the non-legal community of the region on methods of teaching and learning about human rights.  [November 9, 2020] 

UN MECHANISMS 

The Committee on Enforced Disappearances | The Committee urges Iraq to end impunity for enforced disappearances

The Committee on Enforced Disappearances has expressed concerns over the persistent pattern of enforced disappearances in Iraq, and urges Iraq to promptly implement the offence of enforced disappearances into their domestic criminal legislation.  Iraq has taken some positive steps in ending enforced disappearance by setting up fact finding committees and drafting the Bill on the Protection of Persons from Enforced Disappearance.  However, the Committee has expressed concerns over the delayed adoption of the Bill, which hinders the prompt criminalization of the offence and compliance with the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.  [November 27, 2020]

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination | Publication of recommendations on combating racial profiling

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has published general recommendations on preventing and combating racial profiling by law enforcement officials.  These recommendations aim to guide states in overcoming, among other things, algorithmic bias in their use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for law enforcement purposes.  Use of AI and other new technology in law enforcement can increase the risk of using discriminatory practices in determining the likelihood of criminal activity, which can lead to serious violations of human rights.  In these guidelines, the Committee encourages states to ensure compliance with international human rights law in their use of algorithmic profiling technology.  [November 26, 2020] 

Human Rights Council (Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment | Wave of mass executions and unfair trials in Iraq are concerning

The United Nations human rights experts have expressed concerns over the number of prisoners facing execution sentences based on terrorism-related convictions in Iraq.  Trials under Anti-Terrorism Law have been depriving the defendants of basic access to a fair trial, and frequently result in execution sentences.  The experts urge Iraq to halt mass executions immediately, to respect its international obligation to refrain from arbitrary deprivation of life, and to offer fair trials to individuals accused of terrorism crimes.  [November 20, 2020] 

Human Rights Council (Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health) | Monopolizing vaccines against COVID 19 is counterproductive 

The United Nations experts have criticized the nationalism surrounding the attempt to secure vaccines for fighting the COVID-19 pandemic, and call on countries to adopt a joint human-rights based approach to ensure mass immunization.  The experts highlight the need for international cooperation in order to ensure that everyone has access to the COVID19 vaccine, especially  vulnerable people living in poverty, and reminds the community that “no one is secure until all of us are secure.”  [November 9, 2020] 

Human Rights Council (Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar) | Call for Myanmar to refrain from limiting democracy in the general election 

The Special Rapporteur has expressed his support for the standards set up by Myanmar to ensure that the upcoming elections are free, fair, and reflect the will of the people, but points out that this cannot happen as long as other national laws continue to undermine democracy.  In Myanmar, freedom of expression is highly limited, and the right to vote is still denied based on race, ethnicity, and religion.  The Special Rapporteur calls on Myanmar to lift censorship of the state media, which is one of the only ways for the candidates to reach out to the voters during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to introduce reforms upholding and enhancing democracy in the country.  [November 2, 2020] 

November 2020

Monthly News Updates: Domestic Prosecution of International Crimes - November 2020

By: Alexandrah Bakker, Junior Research Associate, PILPG-NL 

This month saw significant developments in the domestic prosecution of international crimes.  In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a military court handed a long-awaited conviction against former rebel leader Sheka.  Meanwhile, Australia and the United Kingdom adopted differing approaches to allegations of war crimes committed by their armed forces overseas.

EUROPE

Germany | Syrian state torture trial continues in Koblenz

The lawyers representing the joint plaintiffs in the al-Khatib trial, which deals with allegations of Syrian state torture, argued that crimes of sexual violence should be charged as crimes against humanity.  At the moment, the charges of rape and sexual assault are being dealt with as ordinary crimes under German criminal law. [November 19, 2020]

Germany | Syrian torture trial: The “Caesar” files in court for first time

 An expert witness in the al-Khatib trial testified that the Caesar files serve as evidence of the systematic torture and killings of detainees in Syria since 2011.  The Caesar files were first published in 2014 and contain 55,000 photographs depicting the torture inflicted upon 11,000 victims. [November 12, 2020]

Germany | German woman charged for crimes against humanity in Syria

German federal prosecutors charged Nurten J. with war crimes for living in a home that was taken by ISIS from its owners.  They also charged her with crimes against humanity for participating in the enslavement of a Yazidi girl. [November 11, 2020]

Bosnia and Herzegovina | Bosnian army officers charged for killings of prisoners

The Bosnian state prosecution charged two former Bosnian Serb army officers, Radomir Nedic and Ratko Djurkovic, with crimes against humanity and war crimes for an attack carried out against Bosniak civilians in July 1992. [November 4, 2020]

France | France seeks trial ofLiberian rebel leader accused of crimes against humanity

French prosecutors requested a trial against Kunti K., a former Liberian rebel leader accused of committing acts of torture in 1993 and 1994 during Liberia’s civil war. [November 4, 2020]

United Kingdom | MPs pass bill to protect UK soldiers from prosecution

The United Kingdom’s House of Commons passed the Overseas Operations Bill, which is intended to protect the United Kingdom Armed Forces from “vexatious” claims over their actions overseas. [November 3, 2020] 

The United Kingdom Parliament’s Human Rights Committee published the results of its legislative probe into the controversial Overseas Operations Bill.  The Committee found that the Bill would make it more difficult for victims to obtain justice for war crimes committed by UK Armed Forces overseas. [October 29, 2020] 

AFRICA

Democratic Republic of the Congo | Sheka and his wingman receive life sentences, victims are finally recognized

A military court in the Democratic Republic of the Congo convicted former militia leader Ntabo Ntaberi Sheka and his ally Séraphin Nzitonda, alias Lionceau, of war crimes.  Both defendants received life sentences for the war crimes of murder, sexual slavery, and the recruitment and use of child soldiers.  The court additionally found Sheka guilty of the war crime of pillage and found Lionceau guilty of the crime against humanity of rape. [November 23, 2020]

Sudan | Sudan declares amnesty except for war crime suspects

Sudan has declared amnesty for “all those who carried arms or took part in military operations or war.”  The amnesty “excludes those with arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court or […] those wanted for genocide or crimes against humanity.” [November 13, 2020]

AUSTRALIA

Australia | Report finds evidence of war crimes by Australian special forces in Afghanistan

The Brereton report is the result of a four-year administrative inquiry into alleged war crimes committed by Australian soldiers in Afghanistan between 2005 and 2016.  The report found that the special forces were responsible for the killings of 39 Afghans in 23 separate incidents, and that these killings were deliberately covered up. [November 19, 2020]

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced that a special investigator will be appointed to conduct a criminal investigation into alleged war crimes committed by Australian armed forces in Afghanistan.  Where appropriate, the special investigator will refer cases to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. [November 13, 2020]

THE AMERICAS

Argentina | Argentina dirty war: torture and baby theft trial underway

The trial of the 18 defendants accused of committing crimes against humanity in military detention centers in Argentina between 1976 and 1983 has begun.  The charges relate to acts of torture, killings, and the abduction of babies. [October 28, 2020]