Search Results

The trial of suspects in the downing of MH17 has begun in Amsterdam. International human rights lawyer and co-founder of Guernica 37 Toby Cadman weighs in. By TRT World

Guernica 37 International Justice Chambers Expresses Grave Concern Over the Treatment of Osama Morsi, the Son of the Former President, and Calls for the UN Special Rapporteur on Summary Execution to Urgently Intervene On behalf of the family we call upon the Egyptian State Authorities to recognise their obligations to Osama Morsi to ensure that he is treated in accordance with the standards prescribed by national and international law. Osama has been detained since his arrest on 16 December 2016 on the most spurious of allegations and in 2017 he was convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment in a trial process that can only be described as a flagrant denial of justice. Osama’s case is expected to proceed today, in his absence, and despite attempting to lodge complaints with the Prosecutor General, the authorities have refused to receive any complaints and refused to take any steps to protect his rights and his life is now believed to be in imminent danger. Acting as the lawyer for the family, we express our very real concern that his life is in danger and he is under constant threat. There is a very credible risk of him being poisoned in prison and that he is being subjected to the same dangers to his life as his late father. In order to highlight these concerns, he has initiated a hunger strike. We must highlight the fact that Osama’s father and younger brother both died as a result of their opposition to the Military Regime led by Egyptian Army Chief, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. It is believed that they were killed by the authorities and we call upon the United Nations to launch a full investigation into their deaths. We remind the Egyptian State Authorities that is a specific obligation to respect, and refrain from breaching, any and all the rights secured by international human rights law (negative obligation) and to ensure their protection to all individuals within their territory (positive obligation). Accordingly, State responsibility may arise in terms of negative obligations requiring that a State, and all its organs and agents thereto, abstain from taking any action that violates human rights or fundamental freedoms, such as arbitrary arrest and arbitrary or incommunicado detention; acts of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment; and extra-judicial execution by agents of the State; including police, military, intelligence operatives or other public officials. State responsibility may also arise in terms of positive obligations requiring that the State take positive action to protect human rights in order to prevent violations. This obligation requires that the State and its public authorities take the measures necessary to prevent others from violating the rights of individuals within its territory. The failure to secure and protect the rights of all members of the Morsi family will not remain unpunished, and all accountability avenues, domestic and international, will be pursued, to bring those responsible to account. It is important to highlight that the crimes of torture and murder have no statute of limitation, and where there is evidence there will be full investigations, and eventual prosecutions, against those persons responsible.

Leading a Revolution through a Lens By Toby M. Cadman As the Russian-Iranian supported Syrian Army continues its attack on Idlib and more than one million civilians are forced to flee their homes and take refuge in freezing cold temperatures carrying what they could gather in the dead of night as an aerial bombardment rained down, the Syrian conflict takes a further step towards the greatest humanitarian disaster in modern times. This conflict has witnessed unimaginable atrocities and during the past eight years the world has been a spectator to the mass human rights violations being committed with appalling frequency; from allegations of chemical attacks, to the use of indiscriminate military tactics, such as barrel bombs; to rape and sexual violence; mass extermination of political detainees; to the deliberate targeting of civilians, schools and medical staff, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. During that time, a conservative estimate of more than half a million Syrians have been killed in the conflict, although the real numbers are likely to much higher, over a million have been severely injured, and over twelve million people have been displaced, either internally, or externally in other countries. More than half the pre-war population have either been killed, disappeared or have been forced to leave their homes and with the ongoing offensive in Idlib the numbers are like to rise dramatically. A significant proportion of those that were forced to flee, forced due to circumstances outside of their control due to the brutal conduct of the Syrian State Security Forces, have not been able to return for the very same reasons that forced them to leave, but also the prospect of being targeted as traitors because they fled for their lives, or forcibly conscripted into the Syrian Army where they would be confronted with the choose of committing crimes or being thrown in jail or killed. Tens of thousands have been imprisoned, tortured, and murdered, at the hands of the Syrian regime. The Syrian revolution has been a part of my life for eight long years. It has shaped my career and has touched me beyond words. I have met some truly extraordinary people from activists, to refugees in the camps of Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, to the heroic individuals, like the activist codenamed ‘Caesar’, who have put their own lives and the lives of their families at risk to document and tell the world what is happening on the ground, and more recently Waad Alkateab who documented the reality of the Syrian conflict with a handheld camera. In 2016, some four years ago, I wrote an op-ed entitled “It’s your turn Doctor”, the words that started the revolution against the brutal dictator, and ophthalmologist, Bashar al Assad. Assad trained as an ophthalmologist in the UK and his wife still holds British citizenship, why you might ask. In the spring of 2011, a group of seven teenagers in the Syrian town of Dara'a, inspired by the winds of freedom and democracy blowing from the Arab Spring in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, adorned their school walls with these words in defiance of the autocratic and brutal rule of the Assad dynasty, the Syrian family who had tyrannically ruled the country for four decades, led a that by a doctor who specialized in ophthalmology and had trained in London. The result of this act of defiance was barbaric and unprecedented. The Syrian Security Forces treated with savage violence the young authors of the graffiti, which led the town of Dara'a to light the flames of revolution, initiating with their action a conflict that has lasted for eight years and has no end in sight. It is difficult not to be touched by the Syrian people. They are a sincere, passionate and deeply committed people. They have fought, and continue to fight, for the very rights that most of us take for granted. Freedom. Democracy. The Rule of Law. Before meeting Waad Alkateab for the first time I was told not to be confused by her diminutive stature, she stood not much more than 5’ 4” and yet her presence was all inspiring and somewhat intimidating. Her dazzling blue eyes, her heavily accented English, but what struck me the most was her determination. I was not prepared for what would follow. We have now met several times and spoken on numerous occasions about what she wants her film “ForSama” to achieve and it is with a sense of pride, and more than a little trepidation, that our team at Guernica embark on a project to take her video footage to a court of law to hold the perpetrators of the greatest atrocities to justice – the Russian State. This is no mean feat and will take years, but it must be done. For the sake of Syrians, for the sake of us all. The mantra never again has to have some meaning. For Waad it means everything, and she is leading the charge. I first watched her film For Sama at a special screening by Channel 4 last year. It is the most powerful film I have ever seen. Not the most powerful documentary, the most powerful film I have ever seen. It will make you cry. It will make you laugh. It will fill you with inspiration in equal measure to anger and hatred. There is one scene in the film – a baby that has stopped breathing – the doctor is desperately trying to resuscitate the baby. The scene reaches down and rips your heart out of your chest and when the baby suddenly starts to cry, to breath, life is returned, and it is the most magical moment anyone of us are likely to experience in our lives. We see it on a screen. Waad, Hamza and Sama experienced it daily. We get to see that, and we get to see their lives unfold through marriage, pregnancy, birth, devastation of a needless conflict and the ultimate escape from the inferno of war. Leaving Syria, leaving her beloved Aleppo, leaving her friends, her homeland was a devastating experience for Waad and Hamza, but with the help of an incredible team from Channel 4, particularly Edward Watts, her experience now shows the Syrian conflict in its raw reality, minus the poisonous propaganda and apologist denial, and what it means to Syrians. The Syrian revolution was a peaceful movement for democracy, and I have no time for those that try to paint it in a different light and try to justify Assad as the protector of western ideals and the saviour of Christians. The Assad Regime, along with its Russian and Iranian military support, has devastated an entire country and broken an entire people. I have no time for rationalising the inaction of the international community. I have no time for those that colour the conflict as complex and multi-dimensional. No, it is one dimensional. Civilians are being killed still today. Idlib has now fallen and Assad has won the war. The question is what we do now. Do we support Assad in reconstructing a devastated and fractured State, a devastation that he has caused, or do we hold him and his partners accountable? In this regard let me quote Waad in her own words that she would have delivered had her film won the Oscar. It is disappointing that honour was not bestowed upon her and her team, despite winning every other honour: I am standing here as a proud Syrian. As a survivor, I want to teach Sama and Taima how precious freedom is. When we, hundreds of thousands of Syrians, demanded democracy, Bashar Al Assad and the Russians, destroyed our cities, tortured and killed so many, and forced half of our population to flee. They are still doing so today in Idlib. When they bombed us, hundreds of doctors, including my husband Hamza and Dr Amani, plus civil defence and nurses - they found a way to save lives. They couldn't break us. When they tried to wipe us from the memory, I used my camera to save the story. They will never break us. I am proud to announce that with the help of our legal team at Guernica 37, we are launching a legal case against Russia and Syria for the deliberate targeting of hospitals. I dedicate this honour to the incredible heroes who are still fighting for freedom in Syria, Brazil, Iran, Lebanon, Iraq, and all over the world - especially for the women. This is not just For Sama. This is For Syria. In closing, it is clear that there can be no peace without justice, there can be reconciliation without recognition, and no State without the Rule of Law. As we approach the end of the conflict, we have to ask ourselves this question again. Should justice be a part of the peace negotiations? In my view, no, it should be the central pillar of any peace negotiations.

22–24 April 2020 The Westin Palace, Madrid, Spain Topics include: - Worldwide trends in extradition law - Protection of individuals - Ill-gotten gains and asset recovery - Environmental crimes - #MeToo: sexual harassment and whistleblower protection in the workplace - ‘Transparency and open justice’ or ‘guilty until proven innocent’? - Legal privilege in an era of increasing cross-border information sharing Toby Cadman, Head of Guernica 37 International Justice Chambers in London, will take part in the Thursday panel: Protection of individuals: The panel will explore the various customs, laws and strategies used to protect individuals from liability or exposure, and cross- border defence implications. For more information about this conference visit IBA web site: https://www.int-bar.org/Conferences/Conf1035/binary/1035-Madrid-Transnational-Crime-2020-programme.pdf

From: UN Human Rights Arabic version below Saudi Arabia: UN women’s rights committee urges Loujain Al-Hathloul’s release from detention GENEVA (28 February 2020) – The UN women’s rights committee has urged Saudi Arabia to release human rights defender Loujain Al-Hathloul from prolonged pre-trial detention and ensure without further delay her right to a fair trial. On 27 February 2018, Al-Hathloul attended a public meeting in Geneva to brief members of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) on the human rights situation of women in Saudi Arabia. Her briefing formed part of the Committee’s review of Saudi Arabia’s implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.* A few weeks later, on 15 May 2018, she was arrested in Saudi Arabia on national security grounds and has been in detention ever since. According to the charges, her arrest was partly based on her engagement with CEDAW. “Two years on from briefing and engaging with us, Loujain Al-Hathloul remains in detention. We are calling on Saudi Arabia to release her from detention and protect her right to liberty and security of person at all times,” said Nahla Haidar, CEDAW member and the Committee’s rapporteur on reprisals. “CEDAW, together with the other UN Treaty Bodies, is clear that no one should face reprisals or intimidation for cooperating or having cooperated with us. Al-Hathloul should be released immediately and Saudi Arabia should ensure her right to a fair trial with full respect for procedural guarantees established by international human rights law, and free from gender bias,” she added. Al Hathloul had been instrumental in the movement in Saudi Arabia to allow women to drive and the push to end male guardianship laws. The next hearing of her trial is reported to be scheduled for 11 March. The Committee, which has intervened repeatedly on behalf of Al-Hathloul under its reprisals mandate, has made its latest call in a statement issued to mark the second anniversary of her participation in the review of Saudi Arabia. In it, members voice their appreciation of the engagement with the Permanent Representative of Saudi Arabia to the United Nations on her case. They also note the efforts that the Government of Saudi Arabia has made to reform discriminatory legislation. However, the Committee remains concerned by the situation of women human rights defenders in Saudi Arabia, the statement says. BackgroundThe Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women monitors States parties’ adherence to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which to date has 189 States parties. The Committee is made up of 23 members who are independent human rights experts drawn from around the world, who serve in their personal capacity and not as representatives of States parties. The Committee’s concluding observations are an independent assessment of States’ compliance with their human rights obligations under the treaty.*Saudi Arabia ratified the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women in 2000. See CEDAW’s latest report on Saudi Arabia.For media inquiries, please contact the UN Human Rights Office Media Section at +41 (0) 22 928 9855 / media@ohchr.orgLearn more with our animations on the Treaty Bodies and on the Women’s Rights Committee! المملكة العربيّة السعودية: لجنة الأمم المتّحدة المعنية بحقوق المرأة تحثّ السلطات المعنيّة على إطلاق سراح لجين الهذلول جنيف (في 28 شباط/ فبراير 2020) - حثّت لجنة الأمم المتّحدة المعنية بحقوق المرأة المملكة العربية السعودية، على إطلاق سراح المدافعة عن حقوق الإنسان لجين الهذلول من الاحتجاز المطوّل قبل المحاكمة، وضمان حقها في محاكمة عادلة بدون المزيد من التأخير. ففي 27 شباط/ فبراير 2018، شاركت لجين الهذلول في اجتماع عام في جنيف أطلعت خلاله أعضاء اللجنة المعنية بالقضاء على التمييز ضد المرأة على حالة حقوق الإنسان للمرأة في المملكة العربية السعودية. وشكلت إحاطتها الإعلامية تلك جزءًا من استعراض اللجنة تنفيذ المملكة العربية السعودية اتفاقية القضاء على جميع أشكال التمييز ضد المرأة.* وفي 15 أيّار/ مايو 2018، أي بعد بضعة أسابيع على الاجتماع المذكور، اعتُقلت لجين الهذلول في المملكة العربية السعودية لأسباب تتعلق بالأمن القومي وهي لا تزال محتَجَزة منذ ذلك الحين. وتشير التهم الموجّهة إليها إلى أنّ اعتقالها استند جزئيًا إلى تواصلها مع اللجنة المعنية بالقضاء على التمييز ضد المرأة. وقد أعلنت عضو اللجنة المعنية بالقضاء على التمييز ضد المرأة ومقرّرة اللجنة المعنية بالأعمال الانتقامية نهلة حيدر قائلة: " لا تزال لجين الهذلول رهن الاحتجاز بعد مرور عامين على رفعها إحاطتها أمام اللجنة والتواصل معها. ندعو المملكة العربية السعودية إلى إطلاق سراحها من الاحتجاز وحماية حقّها في الحرية والأمن الشخصي في جميع الأوقات." وتابعت قائلة: "تؤكّد اتفاقية القضاء على جميع أشكال التمييز ضد المرأة وهيئات رصد معاهدات الأمم المتحدة الأخرى، بكلّ وضوح على أنّه لا ينبغي لأحد أن يواجه أي أعمال انتقامية أو تخويف بسبب تعاونه أو تعاونه السابق معنا. يجب إطلاق سراح الهذلول فورًا، وعلى المملكة العربية السعودية أن تضمن حقّها في محاكمة عادلة مع الاحترام التام للضمانات الإجرائية المنصوص عليها في القانون الدولي لحقوق الإنسان، وبعيدًا عن أيّ تحيّز جنسي." وقد أدّت لجين الهذلول دورًا فاعلاً في الحركة التي انطلقت في المملكة العربية السعودية المطالبة بالسماح للمرأة بقيادة السيارات وإلغاء قوانين الوصاية الذكورية. وتفيد التقارير بأن الجلسة التالية من محاكمتها ستعقد في 11 آذار/ مارس. وقد تدخّلت اللجنة أكثر من مرّة في القضيّة نيابة عن الهذلول، بحكم تفويضها الخاص بمكافحة الأعمال الانتقامية، وأطلقت آخر دعوة لها في بيان صدر لمناسبة الذكرى الثانية لمشاركة الهذلول في استعراض المملكة العربية السعودية. وعبّر أعضاء اللجنة في بيانهم عن تقديرهم لتدخّل ممثل المملكة العربية السعودية الدائم لدى الأمم المتحدة في القضية. كما لحظوا الجهود التي بذلتها حكومة المملكة العربية السعودية لإصلاح التشريعات التمييزية. ومع ذلك، لا تزال اللجنة تشعر بالقلق حيال وضع المدافعات عن حقوق الإنسان في المملكة العربية السعودية، بحسب ما جاء في البيان. ENDSالخلفيّةترصد اللجنة المعنيّة بالقضاء على التمييز ضدّ المرأة امتثال الدول الأعضاء لاتّفاقية القضاء على جميع أشكال التمييز ضدّ المرأة، وهي تضمّ حتّى اليوم 189 دولةً طرفًا. وتتألّف اللجنة من 23 عضوًا هم من الخبراء المستقلين المعنيين بحقوق الإنسان ومن كافة أنحاء العالم، ويعملون بصفتهم الشخصيّة ولا يمثّلون الدول الأطراف. وملاحظات اللجنة الختامية هي تقييم مستقل لامتثال الدول لالتزاماتها في مجال حقوق الإنسان بموجب المعاهدة.*صدّقت المملكة العربية السعودية على اتفاقية القضاء على جميع أشكال التمييز ضد المرأة في العام 2000. أنظروا آخر تقرير لاتفاقية القضاء على جميع أشكال التمييز ضد المرأة بشأن المملكة العربية السعودية.لاستفسارات وسائل الإعلام، الرجاء الاتّصال بالوحدة الإعلاميّة التابعة لمفوضيّة الأمم المتّحدة السامية لحقوق الإنسان (+41 (0) 22 928 9855 / media@ohchr.org ) تعرّفوا على صورنا ورسومنا المتحرّكة بشأن هيئات رصد المعاهدات ولجنة حقوق المرأة ! تابعوا مفوّضية الأمم المتّحدة السامية على وسائل التواصل الاجتماعيّ على تويتر @UNHumanRights،وفايسبوك unitednationshumanrights وانستاغرام @unitednationshumanrights

Guernica 37 Associate Member, Dr. Mark Kersten, writing in the Canadian daily The Globe and Mail published here. Mark Kersten is a senior consultant at the Wayamo Foundation and the author of the book and blog Justice in Conflict. THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Sudan's then-President Omar al-Bashir attends a ceremony at the Presidential Palace in Ankara, Turkey, on July 9, 2018. Former Sudanese dictator Omar al-Bashir may soon face trial before judges of the International Criminal Court. Take a moment. Read that again. Let it sink in. The ICC shook the diplomatic world in 2009 when it issued a warrant for Mr. al-Bashir over the atrocities in Darfur, where a horrendous conflict had already cost the lives of thousands in what is widely acknowledged as a genocide. It marked the first time the court had indicted a sitting head of state. Many worried the announcement would complicate conflict-resolution efforts there, but for more than a decade, there was no movement to hold Mr. al-Bashir accountable. Sudanese authorities now say they are prepared to let the ICC prosecute the deposed president. The details of exactly how he may be “surrendered” to the ICC remain unclear. According to journalists in close contact with the Sudanese government, authorities want to hand over Mr. al-Bashir to ICC officials for possible prosecution in Sudan, not the court’s home of The Hague. While theoretically possible, the court has previously rejected opportunities to sit and prosecute individuals in the countries in which the atrocities were committed. Having the trial in Sudan would make the ICC dependent on Sudanese authorities for security, witness protection and logistics. That could undermine attempts to bring to justice other alleged or implicated perpetrators – including key members of Sudan’s current transitional leadership. The possibility is nevertheless worth careful consideration. It would ensure greater access for victims to any trial of Mr. al-Bashir, and a partnership between the ICC and Sudanese judiciary could potentially contribute to rebuilding the rule of law in Sudan. At the same time, Mr. al-Bashir’s prosecution by the ICC is far from a done deal. It was apparently a concession to victims of violence in Darfur during peace talks to end the conflict there. Justice for Mr. al-Bashir appears to be a bargaining chip in negotiations. Still, some optimism is warranted. Since Mr. al-Bashir’s ousting last year, Sudan’s political scene has transformed. While key members of its transitional leadership are themselves allegedly implicated in atrocities, the new regime is eagerly seekingreconciliation with the international community as well as relief from sanctions. It is no coincidence that officials declared that Mr. al-Bashir would be surrendered to the ICC within just hours of the United Nations Secretary-General calling for Sudan to be removed from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. More concessions like this may be needed to push Sudanese authorities to commit to putting Mr. al-Bashir before ICC judges. That said, the latest developments also illustrate the extent to which the ICC depends on domestic political dynamics for opportunities to prosecute alleged war criminals. It also shows how limited an impact the court has on the situations in which it intervenes. After all, in the decade since the warrant was released, many states dithered in their support of the ICC. Members of the court that were legally obliged to surrender Mr. al-Bashir should he enter their territories hosted him at diplomatic conferences on their soil. Even pro-ICC European countries were happy to work with Mr. al-Bashirin their effort to stem migration to their countries from Africa. If it is indeed Sudan’s plan to “hand over” Mr. al-Bashir, the ICC needs to be ready: His trial would be the highest profile in its history. It would be the first time the ICC hears allegations of genocide, a notoriously difficult crime to prove given the need to show genocidal intent. Complicating matters, numerous high-profile cases, including that of Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta, collapsed, while other prosecutions, such as that of former president of Ivory Coast Laurent Gbagbo, led to acquittals. Many believe shoddy investigations were largely to blame. And in 15 years of investigations, ICC officials have never set foot in Darfur, limiting their ability to effectively investigate atrocities committed there. Additional state pressure may be needed to encourage Sudan’s new rulers to give investigators the type of evidence that is necessary for a successful prosecution. ICC justice, however, is no panacea for justice. The court can contribute positively to bringing some perpetrators to account in some places, some of the time. But the scope and scale of atrocities committed under Mr. al-Bashir is enormous. The thirst for justice won’t be satiated with a handful of high-profile prosecutions; tools such as truth commissions could help fill the gaps. Still, after a decade of frustrated efforts to bring Mr. al-Bashir to account, it is nothing short of remarkable that this watershed trial – in The Hague, Sudan, or anywhere – may be imminent.

Tomorrow, Fernando Flores —Advisory Member of Guernica 37 International Justice Chambers— and Victoria Bernabéu —Head of Administration and Finance— will attend the ceremony in which the Foundation for Justice (FxJ, Fundación por la Justicia) and the Valencian Council of Bar Associations (CVCA, Consejo Valenciano de Colegios de Abogados) will award the 2019 Human Rights Prize to Uruguayan senator and former president of the Republic of Uruguay, José Alberto Mujica Cordano, also known as “Pepe Mujica”. Date: 5 February 2020 Venue: Auditorium of the Valencia Bar Association, Plaza Tetuán no. 16, Valencia (Spain) Time: 19:00 h The ceremony will take place in the auditorium of the Valencia Bar Association (ICAV, Ilustre Colegio de Abogados de Valencia). Pepe Mujica will also lead a colloquium the day after the ceremony at the Center del Carme Cultura Contemporània. The prize, which was awarded by the jury last December after assessing another 19 applications, recognizes the former President’s trajectory and personal and institutional commitment to human rights and justice. More information at: http://fundacionporlajusticia.org/es/que-hacemos/sensibilizacion/fxj-y-el-cvca-entregaran-mujica-el-premio-ddhh-2019-el-5-de-febrero-en

Blog post written by Katelyn Masket, Stanford Law Student, who accompanied the recent Guernica Group Annual Summit in Bilbao. We are most grateful to Katelyn and think its certainly worth reading The Blog was originally posted here January 23, 2020 By Katelyn Masket, JD '21 Related Organization(s): International Human Rights Clinic When we think about international human rights work, our minds quickly conjure up images of Amal Clooney-like figures arguing before international and regional court systems, fact-finding missions in far away places, and UN meetings full of diplomats in Geneva. While human rights lawyers certainly do this work every day, the job doesn’t stop there. Those at the helm of human rights organizations must spend a great deal (perhaps even the majority) of their time building the organizational infrastructure necessary to enable this work in the first place. And unlike the court appearances or fact-finding missions, this operational work occurs behind the scenes, without glamor or fanfare, in ordinary offices and conference rooms—or in this case, a seminar room at the University of Deusto in Bilbao, Spain. In October 2019, I was fortunate enough to attend the Guernica Group’s annual meeting in Bilbao. The organization, comprised of international human rights lawyers from around the world, works to ensure accountability and redress for international crimes and human rights violations. During my week with the team, I had the opportunity to partake in discussions on global accountability for grave atrocities. We even traveled to the town of Guernica (from which the group takes its name) for the day, where one cannot help but contemplate the importance of this work in the spot of one of modern history’s most heinous war crimes—the 1937 bombing of the town by German and Italian warplanes resulting in more than 1,600 civilian deaths. During the week, the team also carved out time to reflect on organizational achievements and challenges, and plan for the upcoming year. To my delight, observing these conversations felt almost as if I was listening to an episode of one of my favorite podcasts, “How I Built This” with Guy Raz, featuring some of the brightest minds in the human rights space. This behind the scenes look was incredibly valuable in understanding just how much operational work must be done to build a strong organization capable of carrying out the international human rights work we all envision. Below are five key takeaways for those entrepreneurial human rights lawyers looking to build an effective and impactful organization: 1. Determine your theory of change and stay true to it: Identity is important—an effective organization knows who they are and lets that inform their mandate. It’s no surprise that no one organization can do everything. But it can be a bit painful to actively constrain scope when there is so much work to be done in human rights field. What region(s) and thematic topic(s) will you choose to pursue? Are you going to take an activists’ approach, pledging your loyalty to a cause, or will you instead serve as lawyers whose allegiance always falls with the individual client? When organizations spread themselves too thin, they sacrifice their ability to have a meaningful impact in any one area. Concretely defining your theory of change makes this process a little bit easier, as it then becomes more clear what falls within or outside the organization’s scope. 2. Think outside the box and choose a structure fit for purpose: One size does not fit all and human rights organization is not synonymous with non-profit. The Guernica Group for example, comprises both an internationally focused Barrister Chambers (operating under a for-profit business model) in the UK and non-profit organization in the US, which allows them to represent the full range of clients looking to pursue justice and accountability.  Other public interest organizations like the International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) have similarly developed creative organizational models to better advance their mission. IRAP employs a lean central team and engages a formidable army of volunteer law students and pro bono attorneys to expand their reach around the world. 3. Build one team and one vision: With the level of travel inherent in this field of work, decentralized or remote staffing models seem to be relatively commonplace. They allow organizations to cover more regions of the world and also provide flexibility for employees. Yet this set up also provides challenges for organizations as they work to develop strong team dynamics and a cohesive identity. It is important to ensure those working in the field are regularly liaising with central command to make sure they act as one team representing a common vision. Whether this involves regular full team retreats, a video-conferencing policy for meetings, an organization-wide newsletter, or the like, organizations should not skimp on efforts to build staff cohesion around a common vision. 4. Strategic communication is key: As discussed in #3, organization-wide communication is crucial in developing a cohesive organizational vision internally. And external messaging is equally important. When I find a cause I care about a cause, I instinctually want to shout about it from the rooftops to any and everyone that will listen. However, external communications should be used strategically, always keeping in mind the audience you intend to reach in order to accomplish your stated mission. This may mean for example, forgoing a large public advocacy campaign to focus efforts on legislative decision-makers, or vice versa. This strategic communications plan should map on to the theory of change mentioned in #1. 5. Professionalize processes: Staff in conflict and crisis settings often put their lives at risk to further the work of the organization. But with this risk comes the organization’s obligation to ensure they’ve done everything they can to protect staff safety. It is tempting to get caught up in more exciting, substantive work, especially as organizations are just getting off the ground, but robust standard operating procedures are critical for both protecting staff and putting their minds at ease. Everything from clear reimbursement processes to pre-determined transportation procedures in the field, while seemingly distant from the core mission, help build the foundation for an effective organization. My week with the Guernica team made it clear that while there is no shortage of important and exciting human rights work to be done, none of it is possible without a strong organizational foundation.

- Press Statement - GUERNICA 37 INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE CHAMBERS FILES INVESTIGATIVE REPORT WITH THE METROPOLITAN POLICE COUNTER TERRORISM COMMAND (SO15) SEEKING THE ARREST OF ABDEL FATTEH EL-SISI ON CHARGES OF TORTURE AND MURDER LONDON, 18 January 2020 – In light of the forthcoming visit to the UK of Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Barristers at Guernica 37 International Justice Chambers, instructed by the Egyptian Revolutionary Council, has filed a criminal complaint with the Metropolitan Police Service Counter Terrorism Command (SO15), requesting that an investigation be opened into allegations of torture and murder and that an arrest warrant be issued. Abdel Fattah el-Sisi is believed to be visiting the United Kingdom on 19-20 January 2020, and accordingly, Guernica 37 International justice Chambers is requesting that SO15 commence an investigation into credible allegations of torture made against the Egyptian Government and its State organs. This is a matter that has been taken to the U.N. Special Rapporteur, Dr. Agnes Callemard, for the opening of an inquiry to the death of the former President, and his son, Abdullah Morsi. Due to the fact that Sisi is due to the visit the United Kingdom on 19-20 January 2020, it is incumbent upon the authorities to properly investigate these serious allegations and seek the consent of the Attorney General to arrest the military leader and bring torture charges against him. The United Kingdom cannot be seen as a safe haven for those who consider themselves immune from prosecution In particular, the complaint will request that the death of former Egyptian President, Dr. Mohamed Morsi, and the treatment suffered prior to his death, which constitutes torture, be investigated. There can be no doubt that the treatment suffered amounted to torture, and further, that this directly contributed to his death in a Cairo Court on 17 June 2019. Dr Morsi having been removed from office by way of a military coup d’état led by the then Army Chief, General Sisi, following which, he was detained for six years following allegations without any credible foundation, and following a judicial process replete with fair trial violations that had been almost universally condemned globally. It has been made clear that the judicial process constituted, according to basic standards, a flagrant denial of justice. Throughout his detention, the Egyptian Military Government was warned on countless occasions that Dr. Morsi’s deteriorating health was a direct consequence of the treatment he was suffering in prison and that if he were not granted his basic humanitarian rights, he would die. These warnings were ignored and Dr Morsi lost his life whilst being held in a cage in a Cairo Court, having said to have suffered a heart attack. The instances of torture that the former President suffered whilst being detained in Egypt’s notorious ‘Scorpion’ Prison are numerous; he was refused access to medical treatment for the various health conditions that he suffered, including diabetes; that denial of treatment resulting in the loss of vision in his left eye and recurrent diabetic comas. Dr. Morsi also suffered bone and muscular pain, including a significant and sustained injury to his back and spine as a consequence of being forced to sleep on a cement floor. Further, he demonstrated a significant deterioration in his liver and kidney function due to malnutrition, Dr. Morsi telling both his son and court on numerous occasions that the food he was receiving was of such poor standard and voicing concerns that it had been poisoned. These allegations, despite the protestations of the Military Government to the contrary, were given further credence in a report released in November 2019, by a group of U.N. Human Rights Experts who detailed how Dr. Morsi was held in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day and prevented from seeing other prisoners, even during the one hour a day when he was permitted to exercise. This report was highlighted in that published and filed with the U.N. Special Rapporteurs, by members of Guernica 37. It is inconceivable to consider that Abdel Fattah el-Sisi was unaware of the torture of Dr. Morsi, his very appointment being the direct result of the ousting of the first democratically elected President. It is no mere assumption that the treatment of Dr. Morsi contributed to his death and there is a compelling argument that it was his treatment at the hands of the Military Regime that killed him and that this was the intention. The ongoing impunity for his death cannot be allowed to continue, and where there is opportunity to investigate and prosecute, it must be taken. To that end, we would highlight that the United Kingdom is under a duty to investigate and prosecute any offences of torture wherever they may have been committed, accordingly, it is argued to be incumbent, in light of the impending visit, for appropriate action to be taken. - ENDS -

It is with great sadness but immense pride that Guernica 37 International Justice Chambers must say farewell to one of its most prominent members of its UK Advisory Board. Her Honour Judge Joanna Korner CMG QC, has been nominated as the United Kingdom candidate to be appointed as a Judge of the International Criminal Court (ICC).  We wish her the greatest success in the selection process noting her formidable qualifications to the highest judicial post and note that the ICC will be greatly enriched by her appointment to the Court. Judge Korner, was called to the Bar of England and Wales in 1974, and was appointed as Queens Counsel in 1993.  She has practised at the Bar for over 40 years, including as a Senior Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), between 1999-2004, and 2009-2012, prosecuting high-level leaders charged with grave breaches of international humanitarian law.  Further, she was appointed as a Special Advisor to the Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2004 where she worked alongside Guernica co-founder Toby Cadman on the establishment of the Special Department for War Crimes and the transfer of cases from the ICTY to the Bosnian State Court. Her vast experience has been instrumental not merely to the work undertaken by Guernica 37, but also to the development of future generations of advocates having organised and taught numerous advocacy training courses both in the UK and internationally. He work as a senior prosecutor at the ICTY and as special advisor to the Bosnian Chief Prosecutor ensured that innumerable victims received justice for that which occurred during the Balkan conflicts of 1991-1995.. More recently, Judge Korner has led judicial training programmes in Europe, North America, Latin America and parts of Africa. Judge Korner is therefore the ideal candidate to be appointed as a Judge to the ICC, where that experience can be used within an essential accountability mechanism, and one that is arguably needed today more than it ever has been since its inception.

1 January 2020 Guest Article published in Middle East Monitor here by Guernica 37's Toby Cadman and Carl Buckley On 20 December, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Fatou Bensouda, made an important announcement on the conclusion of the preliminary examination of the situation in Palestine and sought a ruling on the scope of the Court’s territorial jurisdiction. In her statement, Bensouda declared unequivocally that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation into the situation in Palestine and that she is satisfied that war crimes have been or are being committed in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip; that potential cases would be admissible and there are no substantial reasons to believe that an investigation would not serve the interests of justice. She further made clear that as there has been a referral from the State of Palestine, there is no requirement to seek the Court’s authorisation to open an investigation. However, she pointed out that, “given the unique and highly contested legal and factual issues attaching to this situation, namely, the territory within which the investigation may be conducted,” she has sought a ruling from the Court on the territorial limits of her jurisdiction. This decision has received mixed responses. Some international legal commentators have stated that it is wholly unnecessary and is pandering to political considerations, whilst others have stated that it is a wise move to address a highly controversial subject. The State of Palestine has responded positively, albeit critical that it has taken 5 years to reach such a position. The response from the State of Israel has been less than welcoming of the decision. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has accused the ICC of anti-Semitism. He has challenged the jurisdiction of the Court on a number of bases. First, it is contrary to the founding principle of the Rome Statute regarding complementarity. His argument is that Israel has a functional judicial system and that Israel is — and this is an oft repeated claim — the only democracy in the Middle East. Second, Palestine is not a State. The irony here should not be lost. The Netanyahu administration has long criticised Palestine and its supporters for refusing to recognise Israel as a State and it now challenges the ICC’s jurisdiction of the Occupied Palestinian Territory by refusing to recognise it as a State. Third, he accuses the ICC Prosecutor of hypocrisy for not seeking to prosecute Iran, Turkey and Syria. Netanyahu described the Prosecutor’s decision as a “black day for truth and justice” and a “baseless and scandalous decision.” Israel’s Attorney General, Avichai Mandelblit, issued an opinion challenging the ICC’s jurisdiction by affirming that, “The state of Israel is a democratic, law-abiding country, which is committed to honouring international law and humanitarian values, and acts to promote them.” There have been other, less diplomatic statements, by members of the Israeli government calling for the dismantling of the Palestinian Authority. Mandelblit declared that the Palestinian Authority clearly does not meet the criteria for statehood under international law and the Rome Statute, that Israel has a valid legal claim over the same territory and that it the ICC move is contrary to the peace negotiations. Despite these strong statements it is quite clear that the Prosecutor considers that there is a sound basis to establish jurisdiction over the Occupied Palestinian Territory. She further considers that there is a credible basis to conclude that war crimes have and continue to be committed that warrant a full investigation. Whilst the question of jurisdiction is ordinarily dealt with at trial, and some legal commentators have made this very point, Bensouda has very sensibly taken the position as a preliminary issue, and invited submissions from other interested groups on the question of jurisdiction in order to ensure that significant resources are not spent investigating a situation in which the court may restrict the limits of her jurisdiction. It is worth noting here that the Prosecutor’s jurisdiction is limited to the territory, namely the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and crimes committed by citizens in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. That means that it is not directed against any person or any group. The Prosecutor is at liberty to investigate and prosecute any person who is alleged to have committed a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court. In this regard it is likely that she will look into alleged crimes committed by Israeli forces, Palestinian resistance groups and any other groups engaged in hostilities. She will not, contrary to the strong statements from the Netanyahu administration, target only Israeli suspects and she will do so independently and impartially. Human beings generally are bound by rules, customs and laws. We submit ourselves to the rule of law as we acknowledge that there must be a mechanism in place for us to seek accountability for a wrong that we may have suffered, whether physical, financial or mental. As countries, states and peoples have developed throughout history, such rules and laws vary to a greater or lesser extent, but the universal theme that flows throughout all is the notion of justice, a concept synonymous with fairness. Hence “lustitia” — Lady Justice — is depicted as blindfolded. A problem arises however where a national or domestic system of justice “fails”, breaks down or simply isn’t equipped, for any number of reasons, to address the most serious of wrongs; those crimes that may be committed as a result of armed conflict, or those crimes that are committed at the state level as part of a state policy or organisational plan. This very problem was identified in the aftermath of the Second World War. Thus, starting with the International Military Tribunals in Nuremberg and Tokyo, a goal of international justice was set in motion. This was achieved in 1998 with the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the first permanent tribunal the purpose of which is to provide justice for atrocity crimes, such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, where national and domestic systems fail to do so. Over the years the ICC has had its detractors, being criticised for seemingly only investigating African nations, or, on the face of it, seemingly ignoring clear areas of conflict such as Syria, Yemen and Myanmar. Further, it has been seen as politicised, given that many decisions are subject to the whim of the UN Security Council and its five permanent members who cannot be said to be acting objectively and in ignorance of domestic interests. The ICC has now come under further scrutiny and criticism following its decision to consider a question of territorial jurisdiction with regard to the situation in Palestine, a situation that is undoubtedly unique. However, the decision taken by the Prosecutor, rather than being evidence of a politically motivated decision as has been alleged by some, is quite the opposite. It does, in fact, demonstrate the essential ingredient of independence that the Prosecutor has always shown. For instance, the Prosecutor refused to open an investigation following allegations into the 2010 attack on the Gaza Flotilla, in which members of the Israel Defence Forces killed nine activists on board the Mavi Marmara, on the basis that it did not reach the gravity threshold required for such investigation. Conversely, despite there being strong objections from some quarters, including the appalling decision by the United States to revoke her visa, Bensouda has maintained her position that an investigation into Afghanistan is warranted. In referring a question of jurisdiction to the Court, the Prosecutor has underpinned her independence and impartiality, and confirmed that she is bound by a ruling of the Court. The allegations of anti-Semitism and political motivation are unwarranted and undignified. Criticisms of politicisation, jurisdiction or any other issue which the detractors of the ICC seek to highlight, only detract from the salient issues that crimes prohibited by international law, and by the Rome Statute, have been committed and that victims on all sides of the conflict have the right to seek justice in a court of law through a credible and transparent process. It is quite right that the ICC is a court of last resort and its foundational principle is complementarity. In this regard, it is important to highlight three points: it is beyond question that Palestine is under occupation and any argument to the contrary is simply ludicrous; it is beyond question that settlements in an occupied territory and the transfer of population into the occupied territory are unlawful as a matter of international law; and it is beyond question that Palestine is a State Party to the Rome Statute and has referred the situation to the ICC. There can be an academic argument about sovereignty and historical claims to land. However, settlements are unlawful; the deliberate targeting of civilians — the shooting of members of the press, of healthcare professionals and children, to name but a few, for example — is unlawful and constitutes war crimes and/or crimes against humanity, much the same as the firing of rockets into civilian neighbourhoods constitutes war crimes and/or crimes against humanity. It is on that last point that accusations of politicisation fail; if the Prosecutor was motivated by politics, the investigation wouldn’t be looking at “all sides”, it would target one specific area, but it does not. Bensouda has been quite clear that the actions of Hamas and Palestinian resistance groups will be investigated as well as the actions of Israel and the IDF. Again, therefore, she is showing herself to be independent, and to be blind to outside factors that may seek to influence her position. This is not, as Netanyahu claims, a “black day for truth and justice.” On the contrary, the statement by ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda is long overdue and much needed. As the well-known quotation states, the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. Toby Cadman and Carl Buckley are barristers at Guernica 37 International Justice Chambers in London. Guernica 37 International Justice Chambers has submitted an application for leave to file an amicus curiae brief with the Pre-Trial Chamber on the issue of jurisdiction of the Occupied Palestine Territory. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

Wishing You All A Happy and Prosperous New Year in 2020 As the end of the year approaches, we would like to take this opportunity to thank you for all your support to Guernica 37 over the past year.  Now in our third year, we have consolidated our work in the Middle East and North Africa, Central Africa, the Balkans, South Asia, Latin and Central America and developed new areas collaborating with our not for profit sister organisation The Guernica Centre for International Justice, based in San Francisco. During 2019 we achieved a number of important milestones. Notably, we have been instrumental in enhancing accountability for victims in Myanmar and Syria by contributing to the International Criminal Court's determination of jurisdiction for non-Member States where the crimes transcend borders of Member States. We signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Procuraduría General de la Nación (Office of the Inspector General) in Colombia for provision of legal support for combatting Anti-Corruption. We signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Office of the Attorney General of Antigua for the provision of legal support in the Government's criminal justice reform. We facilitated the Government of Pakistan in the landmark initiative of removing the death penalty in cases involving extradition or the transfer of evidence from States opposed to the death penalty. We also have been instructed in the first cases before the Kosovo Specialist Chambers in The Hague. Furthermore, we provided a report to the UN Special Procedures on the circumstances of the suspicious death of former President Mohamed Morsi of Egypt and his son. Chambers further expanded its area of work into international commercial law and arbitration in 2019 with counsel in the longest running ICSID arbitration (Víctor Pey Casado and President Allende Foundation v. Republic of Chile) and in a multi-million pound and multi-jurisdiction commercial dispute in the Commercial Court in London (Aersale 27469 Aviation Ltd & Another v. Abdul Wahab & Another). Our work has involved the following countries Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burma/Myanmar, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Guantanamo, Iraq, Israel, Kenya, Kosovo, Libya, Maldives, Mexico, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Palestine, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Syria, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom and United States of America. 2019 has been characterised by a devastating decline in the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms around the globe with autocratic regimes circumventing the rule of law, shrinking the space for civil society to act and spreading disinformation campaigns and dangerously corrosive propagand. We face a vacuum of accountability where impunity prevails. Democratic Governments and international institutions have become ineffective and fatigued by their inability to protect human rights and enforcing due process. In these times of renewed conflicts and instability, we believe our work is more important than ever. From The Heart of London Guernica 37 is a specialist Barristers’ Chambers experienced in advising and assisting States as they commence a process of structural reform and transformation following periods of political instability, post-conflict, post-authoritarian regimes or prolonged periods of state institutions controlled by systemic and structural corrupt practices. Our range of clientele come from the political, institutional and economic sectors as key stakeholders in any lasting and sustainable transformation. Our team of expert international lawyers designs, supports and implements, depending upon the needs of the State, a comprehensive, yet realistic, tailored strategy based on a fundamental understanding of the situation, quality, and geopolitical position. In our work, we take into consideration each and every aspect and vectors for a feasible and successful process.