Search Results

Guernica 37 Head of Chambers, Toby Cadman speaks to Lucy Trevelyan at the International Bar Association on the significance of the landmark case in Germany against two members of the Syrian Military Intelligence By Lucy Trevelyan for the International Bar Association. Published here on Monday 23 December 2019 German prosecutors have charged two alleged Syrian secret service officers with crimes against humanity. The trial of Anwar Raslan and Eyad al-Gharib in Koblenz, Germany, will be the first ever for state-sponsored torture in Syria. Raslan allegedly led the infamous Branch 251 jail, where thousands of people were tortured during interrogations, many of whom died. He is charged with murder, rape and aggravated sexual assault. Raslan’s alleged subordinate, Gharib, faces charges of abduction and torture. "This case can bring some form of recognition and hope for survivors, and even foster truth-seeking and create a historic record for some of the atrocities they endured" Danya Chaikel, IBA War Crimes Committee IBA War Crimes Committee Officer and international criminal lawyer, Danya Chaikel, says it will be ‘monumental’ to see alleged former Bashar al-Assad officials in the dock, where they will come face-to-face with survivors. ‘The optics of this alone begins to erode the regime’s relentless ability to escape justice,’ she says. ‘Besides the potential for accountability for leadership crimes committed during Syria’s ongoing civil war, this case can bring some form of recognition and hope for survivors, and even foster truth-seeking and create a historic record for some of the atrocities they endured.’ Toby Cadman is Head of Guernica 37, a specialist International Justice Chambers in London. He says the prosecutions are important, as the absence of international jurisdiction has created a vacuum of accountability: ‘The narrowly construed jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) means the majority of the crimes committed will never fall within its jurisdiction and therefore lawyers have to be more imaginative.’ Cadman, who is also the European Regional Forum Liaison Officer on the IBA War Crimes Committee, says Germany has one of the most open and forward-thinking forms of universal jurisdiction: "It is to be expected that challenges will be brought, but as there is no requirement for the victim or the perpetrator to be a German national or within the jurisdiction, it’s unlikely to be successful." Chaikel points to an emerging international justice system, which she believes made these arrests possible. ‘We’re seeing unprecedented levels of cooperation and coordination among diverse actors, including states, war crimes units, civil society, survivors, defectors, privately funded investigations, NGOs, the EU and UN accountability mechanisms,’ she says. ‘For the German arrests, these actors helped one another piece together elements of an international investigation, which is made even more complex because they arise from an ongoing conflict, so investigations in situ are extremely risky if not impossible.’ There are still enormous challenges in successfully bringing such cases, not least ensuring the presence of defendants. Raslan and Gharib both left Syria and came to Germany as asylum seekers, but many other alleged war criminals are still in Syria. ‘It is clear the regime will not cooperate and due to the severing of diplomatic ties between Germany and Syria it is unlikely that there will be an extradition process,’ Cadman says. ‘However, the issuance of international warrants means their travel outside of Syria will be limited.’ Once the conflict ends, there will hopefully be a resumption of diplomatic relations, making prosecutions easier. ‘One must also be hopeful of a democratic transition of power in the future and Assad and his cronies will be held accountable either in Syrian courts, in European courts under universal jurisdiction, or in the ICC,’ Cadman adds. Stephen Rapp, former US Ambassador-at-Large for Global Criminal Justice and Member of the IBA War Crimes Committee Advisory Board, says it is difficult to develop evidence when the investigators and prosecutors do not have access to the country where the crimes were committed. Rapp explains that in this case, the problem has been overcome because of the evidence provided by ‘Caesar’, the defecting military police officer who brought out 55,000 photos of persons murdered through torture in the Syrian regimes' dungeons. The NGO known as ‘CIJA’ also recovered 800,000 original documents that regime units abandoned during the course of the conflict. However, despite metadata analysis conducted by German forensic institutes having authenticated the Caesar photos, the defence will likely challenge them. The same applies to the regime documents. Indeed, the judges will be confronted by admissibility issues not faced before. Similar prosecutions are in the pipeline, according to Rapp. France has issued arrest warrants for three high-level Syrian regime officials. Official investigations of similar cases are at an advanced stage in Sweden and victims have commenced processes in Austria, Norway and Spain. The new UN Syria Mechanism is consolidating and verifying material from CIJA, the Caesar group and other NGOs to build cases. To ensure more prosecutions are brought, Cadman says the Mechanism ‘should engage in the tracking of alleged perpetrators and encourage a strategic approach to these prosecutions, with different countries pursuing the cases that best fit within their systems’. Cadman points to the need to coordinate efforts, with groups working together to avoid duplication, raising unrealistic expectations and causing victim/witness fatigue. There also needs to be concentrated efforts to eradicate disinformation campaigns and dangerously corrosive propaganda from the likes of Iran and Russia. In addition, he says, countries that have universal jurisdiction should use it: "There is no excuse for not bringing cases where there is an abundance of evidence, witnesses and expertise. The UK for example has done nothing to contribute to the justice and accountability efforts despite the fact that crimes have been committed by British nationals, in the case of members of Da’esh and at least one British victim of the regime, in the case of Dr Abbas Khan." Moreover, there must be recognition that the reconstruction efforts currently being discussed for Syria are about more than bricks and mortar. Cadman says Assad and his inner circle can have no part in establishing a trusted government. "There can be no democratic transition, no institutional framework based on the rule of law, no peace, justice or lasting reconciliation, while Assad is in power."

About this Event Guernica 37 International, Egyptian Revolutionary Council and The Cordoba Foundation present: New Report Launch CALL FOR AN UN-LED INVESTIGATION INTO THE DEATH OF FORMER EGYPTIAN PRESIDENT MOHAMMED MORSI On 17 June 2019, Egypt’s first democratically-elected president Dr Mohammed Morsi died, in a cage, in a Cairo Court. Guernica 37 International, instructed by the family of Dr Morsi and the Egyptian Revolutionary Council, has conducted a detailed investigation into the circumstances surrounding the former President’s arrest, trial and subsequent death in custody. It calls for an UN-led independent inquiry into Dr Morsi’s death and this has been further bolstered, on 9 November 2019, by the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, or Arbitrary Summary Execution and the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention calling for an effective independent and impartial investigation into the unlawful death of Dr Morsi and of all other prisoners who had died in custody since 2012. Speakers: Toby Cadman – Co-author; co-founder and Head of Chambers, Guernica 37 International Justice Chambers. Peter Oborne – Former Chief Political Commentator, The Daily Telegraph; author The Triumph of the Political Class, amongst others. Dr Maha Azzam – Head of the Egyptian Revolutionary Council (ERC); policy expert on the Middle East and political Islam. Carl Buckley – Co-author and Barrister at Guernica 37 International Justice Chambers. Dr Anas Altikriti – Founder and CEO, The Cordoba Foundation Bill Law – A Middle East analyst, formerly a BBC journalist; founder of Gulf Matters. Time: Wednesday 27 November 2019 6:15pm – 8pm Location: The Bloomsbury Building, First Floor, 10 Bloomsbury Way, London WC1A 2SL All welcome Register: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/un-led-investigation-into-the-death-of-former-egyptian-president-mohammed-m-tickets-82835197305 www.thecordobafoundation.com | www.guernica37.org | www.facebook.com/EgyRevCouncil/

The following article was published in the Middle East Monitor (MEMO) by Toby Cadman here. Images by Ahmed Asad/Apaimages, Stranger/Apaimages and Cem Özdel – Anadolu Agency The Arab Spring did not start in Egypt, but it was there where it ended. In 2011, Egyptian citizens took to the streets to protest the rule of Hosni Mubarak, no longer willing to accept living under an autocratic ruler, they demanded change, they yearned for democracy and the fundamental rights and freedoms that this would bring. The protests developed and grew, the spirit and desire for change being infectious, spreading throughout the state, the demands being made in Tahrir Square becoming crystallised throughout the general populace; before long, it became a revolution with hundreds of thousands taking to the streets; Mubarak resigned. Egypt entered a new dawn of democracy. The era of kleptocracy, brutal military rule and oppression was to give way to democratic freedoms, economic stability and the rule of law. The protesters had brought about change and this was going to be delivered by the ballot box rather than the barrel of a gun. In May 2012, Egypt held its first ever truly free, inclusive and democratic election with President Mohamed Morsi being declared its winner. The hopes and dreams of millions of citizens were for the first time, within reality’s grasp, with Egypt set to enter a new age. The reality that developed from the dream however was only to last 12-months and be followed by a brutal crackdown greater than anything experienced during the reign of Mubarak. In July 2013, President Morsi was forcibly removed from office by way of military coup led by Egyptian Army Chief, General Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi. There have been a number that have been loath to characterise President Morsi’s removal as a coup, however, this is exactly what it was, the army took to the streets and demanded he stand down and he was subsequently arrested and thrown in jail. UN: Egypt prison conditions may have led to Morsi’s death The steps taken by the army both to remove President Morsi and that which has occurred since under the leadership of President Al-Sisi, has been the very anthesis of a democracy. We have witnessed new legislation being passed that specifically targets the ability of civil society to protest, to oppose and to seek change. More legislation, supported by the oppressive tactics of the Security Services, has resulted in every citizen living in abject fear that should they disagree with that which has been decreed by Al-Sisi and his regime, that they will become victims of arbitrary detention, enforced disappearance, torture and worse. Egypt has seen tens of thousands imprisoned, disappeared, tortured or killed by a brutal dictatorial regime. On 14 August 2013, Security Forces and the Army, under the command of General Al-Sisi, broke up peaceful demonstrations at Nahda Square and Raba’a Al-Adawiya Square. Human Rights Watch described the military action, resulting in the deaths of more than 1,000 protesters and 4,000 injuries, as “one of the world’s largest killings of demonstrators in a single day in recent history”. Morsi, for the six-years of his detention suffered the most flagrant of human rights abuses. As a man who had pre-existing and serious health conditions, it was essential that he was given access to appropriate medical care. Instead, his diabetes remained untreated, resulting in numerous instances of him lapsing into a diabetic coma and resulting in him losing his sight in his left eye just by way of two examples. Such was the treatment, that not only were those existing conditions exacerbated, but new ones developed; his liver and kidney function declined rapidly, as a direct result of him not receiving sufficient food, and the food that was supplied, being “spoiled”. In short, the treatment of President Morsi was so far below any domestic or international minimum standard for the treatment of prisoners, that it amounted to torture. It is therefore arguable, as highlighted by the UN Special Rapporteur on Summary, Arbitrary or Extra-Judicial Executions, that the Egyptian State is directly responsible for his death, noting: The authorities were warned repeatedly that Dr. Morsi’s prison conditions would gradually undermine his health to the point of killing him. There is no evidence that they acted to address these concerns, even though the consequences were foreseeable. President Morsi is however just one man, although he is symbolic of that which is occurring in Egypt, not just the treatment of individuals held in prison, but also being forced to go through a court process that was replete with almost every fair trial standard violation. The trials, that have resulted in multiple death sentences being handed down following procedures that can only be described as a flagrant denial of justice, demonstrate that the independence of the judiciary has completely collapsed. The military regime has circumvented the rule of law and hijacked the courts and it now operates as an extension of the executive used to persecute any and all political opponents. Tens of thousands of civilians are currently held in Egypt’s prisons, and we can only surmise as to what proportion is detained arbitrarily, how many are being tortured and how many will ever be allowed a fair trial. As much as it is the policies of the current Egyptian regime that has brought about this situation, the international community must shoulder an element of blame, in that it is the inaction of a number of states that has allowed this oppression to proliferate. The United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, all are aware of that which is occurring, and that which has occurred to Morsi, to Shawkan, to Giulio Regeni and to countless others. The stance of the European Parliament does appear to be hardening, given its resolution of 24 October, in which it “condemned” the latest government crackdown, went on to “call for an end” to all acts of intimidation and further opined that “A profound review of the EU’s relations with Egypt is necessary”, and that “…the human rights situation in the country requires a serious revision of the Commission’s budget support operations, which should be restricted to primarily support civil society”. It would appear therefore, that the inferred policy of “turning a blind eye” may be about to end. This, and the calls for a formal and international investigation into the death of President Morsi, has clearly caused significant concern within the Egyptian government. On 30 October, Middle East Monitor reported that a minister in the Egyptian parliament had called on the government to intervene to stop any international probes in to the death of President Morsi, “Tamer El-Shahawy attacked the European parliament after it released a report on human rights in Egypt, saying the body has ‘suspicious objectives’. He added that the report contained false information and baseless lies.” The Egyptian government is therefore concerned. It cannot ignore and obfuscate any longer, nor can it simply dismiss credible and evidenced allegations as “lies”; it cannot go on to justify the mass arbitrary arrest, or execution of civilians with due process, as being “part of the fight against terrorism”. The reality is this; Egypt, eight years ago, was full of hope and excitement as to what might come, but Egypt now is full of fear and despair. This sea of change is a direct result of the current regime, and the crimes being committed by that regime, crimes that do in a number of circumstances satisfy the legal definition of a Crime Against Humanity. If the allegations made are “lies”, and if the reams of evidence available is all fabricated, then I would suggest that the Government of Egypt ratifies the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court; if it has nothing to fear then perhaps it should invite an independent and international body to review that which has been collected. If all of the allegations are lies, then surely there is nothing to fear, and the ICC Prosecutor would simply confirm the fact that none of that which is being alleged actually happened. Of course, this won’t happen, as the government has something to fear, it fears the spotlight and it fears accountability. Our legal team at Guernica has this week submitted a detailed report into the circumstances surrounding the arrest, detention, trial and ultimately death of President Morsi with a demand that an independent and impartial international body conducts an inquiry and makes recommendations for those persons responsible to be held accountable in a Court of Law. Whether that court is ultimately sitting in London, The Hague, Washington DC or indeed Cairo is immaterial. What is important is that it independently and impartially determines the guilt of those persons responsible according to the evidence and not conjecture. As Martin Luther King Jr. once said: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

LONDON, 12 November 2019 – The International Legal Team instructed by the family of former President Mohamed Morsi, and furthermore by the Egyptian Revolutionary Council (ERC), a pro-democracy group that is opposed to military dictatorship and campaigns actively for the establishment of a democratic and civil state, issued the following statement following a detailed investigation into the circumstances surrounding the former President’s arrest, trial and subsequent death in custody. On 17 June 2019, the first, and only democratically elected President of Egypt, Dr. Mohamed Morsi, died, in a cage, in a Cairo Court. The death of Dr. Morsi, although anticipated by some given the horrific prison conditions that he had been forced to endure, still came as a shock to his family, supporters and members of the international community alike. At the very least, his conditions of detention, that did, on any objective assessment, satisfy the definition of Torture and/or Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, were a direct contributor to his death. At the instruction of members of Dr. Morsi’s family, Guernica 37 International Justice Chambers has analysed his treatment whilst detained, including the trial process he was subjected to, and now releases its conclusions and recommendations, including a request that the UN now mandates an independent inquiry mechanism to investigate the unlawful death of Dr. Morsi. On 8 November 2019 the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, or Arbitrary Summary Execution and the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention issued a statement calling for an effective independent and impartial investigation into the unlawful death of Dr. Morsi and of all other prisoners who had died in custody since 2012. In 2011, Egyptian citizens took to the streets to protest the rule of Hosni Mubarek, demanding change, demanding freedom, and demanding democracy; no longer were they content to live under autocratic rule. Such was the scale of the protests, a demonstration became a revolution, and Mubarek resigned. The spirit of change was infectious, and it spread throughout the State, citizens looked to real change, to root and branch reform, and to that which the demands made in Tahrir Square symbolised. For an all too short period, it appeared that the revolution had achieved its objective. In May 2012, Egypt held its first truly free, inclusive, and therefore democratic election, with President Mohamed Morsi being declared its winner. Egypt was set to enter a new age. It did however only last for a further 12-months. In July 2013, President Morsi was forcibly removed from office by way of military coup d’état led by Egyptian Army Chief, General (at that time) Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. Morsi was promptly arrested and detained in respect of a number of criminal allegations, whilst Sisi assumed the Presidency. During the following six years, Morsi was subject to a court process that Amnesty International described as being “a charade based on null and void procedures”. It is quite clear that the Sisi military regime hijacked the courts, stripping them of their independence, circumventing the rule of law and imposing an autocracy based on fear and repression. Egypt entered a new dark era. The report by Guernica 37, which builds on earlier reports released in 2016, 2017 and 2018 clearly demonstrates the trial process was replete with violations of basic fair trial standards, including a refusal to allow the former President appropriate access to his legal team, a refusal to disclose evidence that the Prosecution sought to rely upon, and his ability to speak in his own defence entirely curtailed by virtue of the fact that he was held in a ‘cage’ in court that was difficult to see through, and further, a cage that had its microphones controlled by the presiding judge and therefore could be ‘turned off’ at a whim. This opacity was a theme running throughout the process and detention. The report released this week shows the former President was only allowed visitation rights in extreme rarity. His family report only being allowed to see him on a handful of occasions, his legal team the same, and when he was granted permission to see his instructed counsel, it was always in the presence of prison guards, and therefore nothing was confidential, resulting in preparation for his trial(s) being all but impossible. If this was not bad enough, his treatment was demonstrably worse. The former President was not a well man when he was detained, suffering from a number of documented medical conditions that required regular treatment and assessment, including diabetes. Not only was there a refusal to allow him to access treatment for those conditions, such was the negligence and/or intention of the prison and therefore the Government, the former President developed new conditions that debilitated him further, including the sustained loss of vision in his left eye as a direct result of him being denied treatment for diabetes, recurrent diabetic comas, bone and muscular pain, including a significant and sustain injury to his back and spine as a consequence of being forced to sleep on a cement floor, and further, significant deterioration of liver and kidney function due to malnutrition, what little food that was provided, being spoiled. As Guernica 37 found, it is clear, that on any objective assessment, the former President was subjected to systematic and prolonged ill-treatment of such severity that it constituted torture, and further he was forced to suffer indignities and conditions of detention that fall so far below domestic and international standards, to render them criminal. As the UN Experts reported in its statement of 8 November 2019: "Dr. Morsi was held in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day…He was not allowed to see other prisoners, even during the one hour a day when he was permitted to exercise. He was forced to sleep on a concrete floor with only one or two blankets for protection. He was not allowed access to books, journals, writing materials or a radio. [He] was denied life-saving and ongoing care for his diabetes and high blood pressure. He progressively lost the vision in his left eye, had recurrent diabetic comas and fainted repeatedly. From this, he suffered significant tooth decay and gum infections….The authorities were warned repeatedly that Dr. Morsi’s prison conditions would gradually undermine his health to the point of killing him. There is no evidence they acted to address these concerns, even though the consequences were foreseeable." It is no mere assumption that this treatment contributed to his death, and there is a compelling argument that it was the treatment at the hands of the State of Egypt that killed him and that that was the intended result. It is as a result of this clear criminality, that Guernica 37 now calls upon the UN, specifically the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the relevant Special Rapporteurs and Working Groups, to commission an independent investigative mechanism to consider the death of the former President, and the wider issues, in the absence of any intention by the Government to conduct any meaningful investigation. The death of former President Mohamed Morsi is tragic and although it is only one man, it is symbolic of the position adopted by the Government of Egypt, and how the intention to silence opposition and dissent at all costs pervades every element, including the prisons and Court system. Guernica 37 has previously published a report into fair trial violations in Egypt and highlighted the reality of that which faces anyone who dares to voice opposition or criticism of the Sisi military regime, but this report is not enough. The systematic use of arbitrary arrest, torture in custody and use of the courts in a manner that can only be described as a flagrant and persistent denial of justice can no longer be ignored. Resultingly, Guernica 37 calls upon the UN to not merely consider the case of Morsi, but to widen any the terms of reference of any investigation into Egypt; it must encompass all elements, and allow a light to be shone on the regime in Egypt, a regime that Toby Cadman, one of the report’s authors notes: “has sought to reduce the space for democracy to such an extent, that the word has little, if any meaning in today’s Egypt; Egypt is a Dictatorship.” It simply cannot be acceptable for any regime to escape the focus of the international community and the UN, particularly when that regime, as another of the report’s authors, Carl Buckley notes: “is one that believes it can ignore its obligations under domestic and international human rights law, that it is not bound by those treaties, and therefore has carte blanche to act in any way it chooses.” Dr. Maha Azzam, Head of the ERC said: “Irrespective of individual Egyptians political ideology or belief, Dr Morsi represented the very first time Egyptians exercised their democratic right to elect a President of their choosing. His death, therefore, is an affront to all Egyptian citizens and is a crime against their sovereignty. We intend to pursue all those responsible for torture and murder of the president and political dissidents in Egypt by all legal means and bring them to justice.” Should the investigation into Dr Morsi’s death find that he was murdered whether by torture or direct means, the ERC has indicated that it intends to instruct Guernica 37 to bring the case before the appropriate national or international judicial authority. Likewise, should the wider investigation find that there is compelling evidence of premeditated use of torture as a form of extrajudicial killing of detainees the ERC has indicated it will also seek to take the case to the the appropriate national or international judicial authority. We call on the UN Office of the High Commission for Human Rights, UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, or Arbitrary Summary Execution, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and other Special Procedures mandate holders to establish, as a matter of urgency, an effective independent and impartial investigation into the unlawful death of Dr. Morsi and of all other prisoners who had died in custody since 2012. Finally, we call on the member states of the United Nations who have signed the Convention Against Torture (to which Egypt is a signatory) to urge Egypt, through all appropriate means, to immediately cease from what is effectively their practice of torture and allow medical and humanitarian aid to reach all political detainees in Egyptian jails

The Appellate Division of the Bangladesh Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of former Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami Assistant Secretary-General, Azharul Islam, for his alleged involvement in the “killing mission” in Rangpur during Bangladesh’s War of Liberation. Guernica Co-founder Toby Cadman acted for Mr. Islam during his trial and has raised a number of serious concerns as to the fair trial procedures before the now highly discredited Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal and the failure of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court to properly consider the legitimate concerns as to fair trial guarantees, prosecutorial and judicial misconduct, lack of credible and reliable evidence and the failure to apply basic principles of international humanitarian and international human rights law. It is of particular relevance that over thirty petitions have been filed with the UN Special Procedures Branch alleging instances of arbitrary detention, lack of fair trial guarantees, lack of judicial independence being compromised etc., in terms of individuals who have appeared before the ICT. Each and every one of those petitions have been upheld by the relevant Working Group or Special Rapporteur, and on each and every occasion, the Bangladesh Government has ignored the finding, and refused to adopt any reform to the procedures of the International Crimes Tribunal. It is quite clear that the International Crimes Tribunal, and the incumbent Government, has been roundly criticised for its conduct in what can only be described as a flagrant denial of justice and an intention to circumvent the rule of law. It is quite clear that during in 1971 there were crimes committed on all sides of the conflict. As with other conflicts, the commission of international crimes demands a response that is aimed at holding those persons criminally accountable in a court of law through a process that is transparent and credible. Victims on all sides of the conflict deserve a process that is aimed at justice and accountability. Regrettably, we have not seen such an approach in Bangladesh. What we have seen can only be described as a political purge. Despite being a welcomed development in principle, and an opportunity to both offer justice and reconciliation domestically, as well as further the cause of international justice internationally, it has done neither, and this is solely because of the manner in which it was both developed, and its practical application. It is now clear that the Tribunal was never about offering justice or ‘closure’ to victims of the conflict. Its intention, was to further a position espoused by the Awami League, ensure that historical prejudices and anger remained, and further, to seek to undermine any political opposition to such an extent, that Bangladesh would become a de facto one party State. The most basic principles of international humanitarian law have been consistently violated during the trials. Given the unfairness of the proceedings and the gravity of the due process violations, the verdicts must be considered contrary to the standards set out in international human rights law. The death penalties imposed therefore, amount to summary or arbitrary executions. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court upheld the death sentence handed down by the International Crimes Tribunal on three charges involving murder and genocide. Subsequently, the Court also affirmed the tribunal’s five-year prison sentence on charges of abduction and torture. It is deeply regrettable that the decision of the Supreme Court fails to address the serious violations committed once again by the International Criminal Tribunal and once again is consisted an affront to justice focused more on punishing political opponents than it is on achieving justice and accountability. Despite legislation being in place promising that trials would be fair, it is more than evident from the trials that have taken place, that the assurances have been anything but fulfilled. Modelled upon international tribunals such as those governing the conflicts in former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the Tribunal has lacked the modern rules of evidence and provisions to ensure that defendants were properly represented, including mechanisms in place for objecting to judges who were partial or lacked independence, amongst many other failings. Despite any hopes of grandeur and deliverance of justice that one might have had for the Tribunal, it is little more than a façade designed to strip away all of the constitutional protections for the most basic of human rights. It is founded upon legislation that has failed to move forward and conform to the international legal and moral standards that it purports to follow and be based upon. When one turns to consider the rules of evidence and procedure that govern any criminal proceedings before the Tribunal, it is clear that the body stands alone from all other judicial mechanisms merely owing to the fact that Tribunal does not in fact have any discernible rules. This is a tribunal that is not bound by any rules and as a result is not considered in the same breath as various other ad hoc bodies that sought to deliver justice following periods of conflict. It has been condemned by a host of highly credible international human rights organisations, jurists, parliamentarians and UN human rights experts. It is, and the case of Azhurul Islam bears painful testimony to the fact, a very clear example of what to not to do in a quest for justice. As a result of all of the above, we find ourselves confronted by convictions that are based on guilt by association and little more. Salacious gossip and hearsay evidence is adduced without a shred of evidence to corroborate the nature of the accusation and it is on this basis that men such as Azharul Islam are sentenced to die. Following the revelations published in 2012 detailing the lack of impartiality and the blatant ignorance and refusal to abide by international legal standards throughout the first trials, there has been no reform. The Government sought to prevent the “leaks” from being published and targeted whistle-blowers. A witch-hunt against newspapers and human rights bodies that sought to expose the failings of the tribunal began; most notably of all leading to Human Rights Watch being accused of making “biased, baseless, utterly false, fabricated and ill-motivated allegations.” This is a legal entity that seeks to shut down those that expose its failings rather than abide by international legal standards to deliver truth and justice by means of due process. The rule of law is extinct. Bangladesh is once again re-entering a dark phase in its short history. Despite the plethora of situations around the world, despite the human rights crisis we now see, the international community must wake up to the very real danger in looking away. It is right that those responsible be held accountable through a fair and transparent process. However, we should not permit the lowering of the evidentiary standard in holding those accountable. The scale and gravity of the crimes does not permit the lowering of the standard – on the contrary – it requires a high standard to be applied. The process can only be described as a flagrant denial of justice and political show trials will not bring justice to Bangladesh. A democracy is not measured by how it treats its most treasured subjects, but how it treats those accused of the most serious crimes and its commitment to the rule of law.

Chambers is pleased to announce that a vacancy has arisen for a Clerk to assist with developing work in its London office. Duties Responsible for running the administration and business activities of Chambers. The candidate will be integral to the success of Chambers, both as a legal practice and as a business. Candidates will need to be familiar with court procedures and etiquette and will develop an expertise in the type of law undertaken by Chambers. This is a demanding but rewarding role, for which candidates need to possess a combination of commercial acumen, legal knowledge and strong interpersonal skills. Responsibilities Manage the diary and practice, including all activities relating to the barrister getting to and from court negotiating fees; Liaise with Chambers’ Finance on invoicing fees; Arranging meetings on behalf of the barrister with the instructing solicitor and client to discuss the case; Market and develop the business to maintain the supply of work; Planning the workload of members of Chambers; Proactively seeking work for Chambers and undertaking other marketing activities, such as holding seminars and hosting events; Be aware of compliance matters as these are the standards and accreditations to which chambers have to adhere. Deliver urgent documents; Make travel and accommodation arrangements for members of Chambers, and carry out general administrative duties. Salary Chambers offers a combination of salary plus bonus payments directly related to the income of Chambers. Working Hours Working hours are typically standard office hours, but Candidates should be prepared to work long and irregular hours on occasions - for instance, in preparation of a major case and for business development events. Skills Excellent interpersonal and presentation skills; Excellent communication and negotiation skills; Commercial awareness; Attention to detail and accuracy; Computer literacy; and The ability to work under pressure. Interested candidates should send a CV and cover letter setting out their interest in joining Chambers to Nenad Vucijak (nenadv@guernica37.org). No telephone enquiries. The deadline for applications is 8 November 2019.

Accountability in Syria Published by Ciara Church. for The Bowerman and Greig Blog - International Law, Women's Rights here About the author - Ciara Church is a Second Year Durham law student hoping to work in international law with a particular interest in human rights, women's rights and the rights of the child. The Syrian conflict began with a peaceful uprising, but in the past 8 years has managed to displace between half and two-thirds of the population, both internally and as refugees. Combined with the death toll 511,000[1], the need for accountability grows each day, from the government, terrorist organisation such as IS and from intervening states. Combined with the 8 million refugees, each a victim, there have been countless human rights violations, war crimes and crimes against humanity within the territory. Whilst headway is being made by countries such as France and Germany exercising their use of Universal Jurisdiction, issuing several warrants for arrest, there is a struggle to gain accountability for several complex issues. The Issue The first problem is that Syria is not a signatory of the Rome Statute and therefore not a state party to the International Criminal Court (ICC). Set up in 2002 as a method of prosecuting for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, the ICC has faced strong criticism for being ineffective and at times even racist.[2]Despite such criticism, it remains the most obvious method of holding the Syrian government to accountability however, the ICC does not have jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute Syria. Whilst the UN Security Council has the power to refer an investigation, all countries must agree; With Russia as a permanent member of the council, it is unlikely that they will allow a reference to be made. The Guernica Solution A potential solution to this has been found by the Guernica37 group[3]. The Amicus Curiae brief submitted to the Pre-trial Chamber questioned the jurisdiction to persecute for crimes against the Rohingya people from Myanmar through Bangladesh. As the Rohingya refugees were physically forced into Bangladesh (an ICC state) from Myanmar (not an ICC state) it was ruled that persecution could be brought via Bangladesh as the crime was committed on their ground. In addition, the judge ruled that if it could be proven that if either an element of a crime mentioned in article 5 of the Statute or part of such a crime is committed on the territory of a State that is party to the Statute under article 12(2)(a) of the Statute then the court has jurisdiction. In 2019 Guernica submitted two Article 15 communications to the Office of the Prosecutor to apply the ‘Myanmar decision’ arguing that the situation is analogous, this is still to be decided upon. At present, this may be the most viable solution for gaining some accountability from the Syrian government. A Special Tribunal An alternative mechanism would be the establishment of a Special Tribunal, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) set up to persecute persons responsible for genocide and other serious violations of human rights. The ICTR indicted 93 individuals, sentencing 62.[4]Yet, the scale of Assad’s regime is much larger and much more complex. Members of the government, foreign fighters and complying businesses must all be brought to justice to attain full responsibility. It has been suggested a multi-state tribunal may be formed in compliance with internal laws. However, this process would take great diplomacy and time. The decision as to where to locate a tribunal is complex enough; should it be in one of the member states, Jordan or Syria itself? Simply the mass of cases itself is an issue as those awaiting trial could wait so long, they would effectively be interned, which is problematic in itself. Issue of foreign fighters Then comes the issue of foreign fighters of which there are around 27,000[5] all whom must be held for accountability. The UK government defines foreign fighters as UK nationals travelling overseas to serve with extremist groups presenting a potential threat to the UK, both while they are overseas and when they return to the UK.[6]However, whilst they pose a serious threat, focussing the conversation of terrorist action on foreign fighters can be seen as westernising the conflict, rather than gaining accountability for the Syrian refugees and victims. Nations, such as Great Britain, are currently refusing to repatriate IS fighters and place them on trial nationally due to them being deemed a security risk and have threatened to withdraw citizenship. This would not only deny a basic human right but would also negligently avoid the responsibility of seeking accountability to another nation. In April, the German Government approved a draft bill allowing it to strip Germans with a second nationality who fight abroad for recognised terrorist organisation’s of their German citizenship.[7]This arguemtn only makes the situation more complex and difficult to trial such persons. The unwillingness of countries to repatriate to persecute is common and yet, such unwillingness only hinders the ability of victims to seek accountability. However, Iraq has accepted the repatriation of 250 fighters[8]from Syria and each shall be trialled for the Human Rights abuses they have committed according to Iraqi law. This is still problematic due to concerns over whether Iraq’s capacity to ensure judicial integrity has been breached. Moreover, the Iraq justice system has been strongly accused of using ‘draconian’[9]methods of abuse, arbitrary arrests and sexual violence. Finally, Iraqi law permits the use of the death penalty[10], which Europe is strongly against. Whilst it is imperative justice must be brought, it must also be the right sort of justice and respect the right to a fair trial and not invoke further violation human right violations. Women and Families- A Short Insight Due to the recent case of Shamima Begum, the issue of women and children has been highlighted. Both groups can be split between two categories, the innocent and the indoctrinated. The innocent group features women coerced and forced by their husbands to go to Syria. Largely put in domestic jobs or used as sex slaves these women are also victims of the conflict. However, there are also those who whilst were non-combative, are still dangerous members of IS[11]. Some known to help abuse other women such as the Yazidis and important for the indoctrination of children. Children too are victims, indoctrinated from a young age, and yet some may still pose a serious threat if simply returned to the nation countries. The philosophical questions are endless. Who is more dangerous and holds more responsibility? A mother, who chooses to go to Syria and indoctrinates her children with the aim of them becoming soldiers for the organisation, or the son who has never known any different but commits acts of violence to enact his mother’s beliefs? The answer is arguably both, and yet it would be difficult to create a space which can conduct thorough substantive investigations of both and apply the correct sanctions. Gender is a key issue. Due to a narrative of female victimisation and unsuitable legislation, women are able to manipulate the court in cases with a lack of substantive evidence against them making it difficult to prosecute females who may pose as much of a threat as their male counterparts. However, this is obviously also not the case of many women who are true victims. Katherine Brown, a University of Birmingham academic emphasised the necessity of case by case basis to ensure justice whilst reminding the UK that ‘We do not have a revenge-based justice system and in the process of justice we need to consider rehabilitation.’[12]In all cases questions of the age of indoctrination and the impacts of cultural gender imbalance must be considered when investigating the crimes of foreign fighters, particularly in regard to women and young people. Thus, there are issues when fighters are repatriated and issues when they are not. Whilst the setting up of a specialist Tribunal appears the most sensible (and technically legally possible), it is difficult to recommend such an approach due to its complexity. But it remains imperative that accountability must ultimately be sought. References [1]https://www.hrw.rg/world-report/2019/country-chapters/syria [2]https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/many-criticisms-of-international-criminal-court-have-validity-1.1418128 [3]https://www.guernica37.com/countries [4]https://unictr.irmct.org/en/tribunal [5]https://intpolicydigest.org/2016/10/15/how-many-foreign-fighters-in-syria-are-there/ [6]https://www.mi5.gov.uk/foreign-fighters [7]https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/07/german-court-rules-repatriation-syria-isil-fighter-family-190711164005146.html [8]https://www.persecution.org/2019/03/14/iraq-receives-repatriated-isis-fighters/ [9]https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/01/31/iraq-broken-justice-system [10]https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-foreign-fighters-iraq-prosecuted-death-penalty-families-mosul-a7987831.html [11]http://www.live-let-live.org/archives/challenge-returnees-balkans/ [12]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/14/after-isis-what-happens-to-the-foreign-nationals-who-went-to-syria

The Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) is a tribunal of international character. The STL was inaugurated on 1 March 2009 and has four organs: Chambers; The Office of the Prosecutor; The Defence Office and Registry. The STL's headquarters are on the outskirts of The Hague, the Netherlands and the tribunal also has an office in Beirut, Lebanon. Its primary mandate is to hold trials for the people accused of carrying out the attack of 14 February 2005 which killed 22 people, including the former prime minister of Lebanon, Rafik Hariri, and injured many others. The tribunal was established following a request by the government of Lebanon to the United Nations. The agreement between Lebanon and the UN was not ratified, and the UN brought its provisions into force through UN Security Council Resolution 1757. It is an independent, judicial organisation composed of Lebanese and international judges. It is neither a UN court nor part of the Lebanese judicial system. It does, however, try people under Lebanese criminal law. The tribunal is also the first of its kind to deal with terrorism as a discrete crime. To read more click here. Current Vacancies 1)  P1 Assistant Legal Officer - deadline 02 October 2019 - one post and for rostering purpose Requested qualifications include, among other things, at least two years of progressively responsible professional experience, including experience in the practice of domestic or international criminal law.  Possession of an advanced University degree in a relevant field may be considered in substitution of years of experience. https://apps.stl-tsl.org/PHFOnline/viewVacancy.aspx?Qry=rxzh0SaxgqrTxuSCqUyH9A== 2)  Legal Intern - open call, selection on rolling basis Requested qualifications include, among other things, a university degree obtained less than two years ago in law (first degree, Master, SJD/PhD), or being in the final stage of university studies (for example Bachelor of Laws, Juris Doctor, Master of Laws or Doctoral students) https://www.stl-tsl.org/en/employment/internship-program/internship-vacancies/legal-intern

Guernica 37 International Justice Chambers is pleased to announce that it is supporting the UK launch of the "The Investigator: emons of the Balkan War" by Vladimir Dzuro.  Co-founder of The Guernica Group, Toby Cadman will join the illustrious panel at The Frontline Club including  Guernica Advisory Council Member, HHJ Joanna Korner QC, Channel 4 News’s Lindsey Hilsum and ICTY investigator, Kevin Curtis. To attend the event please book a ticket here. Event Summary The conflict in the former Yugoslavia saw unspeakable acts of violence committed against civilians, soldiers and prisoners of war. One of the many sites where atrocities took place was Ovčara, near the town of Vukovar, where, in November 1991, 261 men, mostly Croatians, were executed by Serbian paramilitaries and buried in a mass grave. One of the investigators tasked with tracking down and arresting those responsible for that massacre was Vladimir Dzuro, a former homicide detective from Prague. Ahead of the English publication of his book, The Investigator, Dzuro will be at Frontline to talk about how he and his team tracked down and arrested one of the key perpetrators, Slavko Dokmanovic, the mayor of Vukovar and the first in a long list of war criminals to be tried and convicted by the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Dzuro will be joined by Joanna Korner, Senior Prosecutor for the ICTY between 1999-2004 and 2009-2012, who was responsible for prosecuting high-level leaders charged with grave breaches of international humanitarian law, as well as Kevin Curtis, a former colleague and ex-English police officer who participated in the arrest of Slavko Dokmanovic and who also arrested Slobodan Milosevic. Channel 4 News’s Lindsey Hilsum, who reported from the Balkan wars during the 1990s, will moderate the discussion and bring her own insights from the conflict. How successful was the ICTY in punishing those responsible for war crimes and did it deliver justice for the victims and survivors of their crimes? This event is organised in collaboration with the Czech Centre London. For more information on the book, please visit this website. Reviews for The Investigator: “The Investigator is a raw and unique first hand account of an extraordinary pursuit of justice in the face of absolute horror.” – Julian Borger, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and World Affairs Editor for the Guardian “Personal accounts of investigations of war crimes, such as this one… breathe life into the abstract project of accountability and show the challenges of operating a criminal justice system in an international environment.” – Louise Arbour, Chief Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (1996-99)

R (on the application of Miller) (Appellant) v The Prime Minister (Respondent) Cherry and others (Respondents) v Advocate General for Scotland (Appellant) (Scotland) On appeals from: [2019] EWHC 2381 (QB) and [2019] CSIH 49 24 September 2019 JUSTICES: Lady Hale (President), Lord Reed (Deputy President), Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lady Arden, Lord Kitchin, Lord Sales In giving the judgment of the Court Lady Hale said: We have before us two appeals, one from the High Court of England and Wales and one from the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland. It is important, once again, to emphasise that these cases are not about when and on what terms the United Kingdom is to leave the European Union. They are only about whether the advice given by the Prime Minister to Her Majesty the Queen on 27th or 28th August, that Parliament should be prorogued from a date between 9th and 12th September until 14th October, was lawful and the legal consequences if it was not. The question arises in circumstances which have never arisen before and are unlikely to arise again. It is a “one-off”. Briefly, the Scottish case was brought by a cross party group of 75 members of Parliament and a QC on 30th July because of their concern that Parliament might be prorogued to avoid further debate in the lead up to exit day on 31st October. On 15th August, Nikki da Costa, Director of Legislative Affairs at No 10, sent a memorandum to the Prime Minister, copied to seven people, civil servants and special advisers, recommending that his Parliamentary Private Secretary approach the Palace with a request for prorogation to begin within 9th to 12th September and for a Queen’s Speech on 14th October. The Prime Minister ticked ‘yes’ to that recommendation. On 27th or 28th August, in a telephone call, he formally advised Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament between those dates. On 28th August, Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg, Leader of the House of Commons and Lord President of the Privy Council, Mr Mark Harper, chief whip, and Baroness Evans of Bowes Park, Leader of the House of Lords, attended a meeting of the Privy Council held by the Queen at Balmoral Castle. An Order in Council was made that Parliament be prorogued between those dates and that the Lord Chancellor prepare and issue a commission for proroguing Parliament accordingly. A Cabinet meeting was held by conference call shortly after that in order to bring the rest of the Cabinet “up to speed” on the decisions which had been taken. That same day, the decision was made public and the Prime Minister sent a letter to all Members of Parliament explaining it. As soon as the decision was announced, Mrs Miller began the English proceedings challenging its lawfulness. Parliament returned from the summer recess on 3rd September. The House of Commons voted to decide for themselves what business they would transact. The next day what became the European Union (Withdrawal) (No 2) Act passed all its stages in the Commons. It passed all its stages in the House of Lords on 6th September and received royal assent on 9th September. The object of that Act is to prevent the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a withdrawal agreement on 31st October. On 11th September, the High Court of England and Wales delivered judgment dismissing Mrs Miller’s claim on the ground that the issue was not justiciable in a court of law. That same day, the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland announced its decision that the issue was justiciable, that it was motivated by the improper purpose of stymying Parliamentary scrutiny of the Government, and that it, and any prorogation which followed it, were unlawful and thus void and of no effect. Mrs Miller’s appeal against the English decision and the Advocate General’s appeal against the Scottish decision were heard by this court from 17th to 19th September. Because of the importance of the case, we convened a panel of 11 Justices, the maximum number of serving Justices who are permitted to sit. This judgment is the unanimous judgment of all 11 Justices. The first question is whether the lawfulness of the Prime Minister’s advice to Her Majesty is justiciable. This Court holds that it is. The courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over the lawfulness of acts of the Government for centuries. As long ago as 1611, the court held that “the King [who was then the government] hath no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him”. However, in considering prerogative powers, it is necessary to distinguish between two different questions. The first is whether a prerogative power exists and if so its extent. The second is whether the exercise of that power, within its limits, is open to legal challenge. This second question may depend upon what the power is all about: some powers are not amenable to judicial review while others are. However, there is no doubt that the courts have jurisdiction to decide upon the existence and limits of a prerogative power. All the parties to this case accept that. This Court has concluded that this case is about the limits of the power to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament. The second question, therefore, is what are the limits to that power? Two fundamental principles of our Constitution are relevant to deciding that question. The first is Parliamentary sovereignty - that Parliament can make laws which everyone must obey: this would be undermined if the executive could, through the use of the prerogative, prevent Parliament from exercising its power to make laws for as long as it pleased. The second fundamental principle is Parliamentary accountability: in the words of Lord Bingham, senior Law Lord, “the conduct of government by a Prime Minister and Cabinet collectively responsible and accountable to Parliament lies at the heart of Westminster democracy”. The power to prorogue is limited by the constitutional principles with which it would otherwise conflict. For present purposes, the relevant limit on the power to prorogue is this: that a decision to prorogue (or advise the monarch to prorogue) will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive. In judging any justification which might be put forward, the court must of course be sensitive to the responsibilities and experience of the Prime Minister and proceed with appropriate caution. If the prorogation does have that effect, without reasonable justification, there is no need for the court to consider whether the Prime Minister’s motive or purpose was unlawful. The third question, therefore, is whether this prorogation did have the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification. This was not a normal prorogation in the run-up to a Queen’s Speech. It prevented Parliament from carrying out its constitutional role for five out of the possible eight weeks between the end of the summer recess and exit day on 31st October. Proroguing Parliament is quite different from Parliament going into recess. While Parliament is prorogued, neither House can meet, debate or pass legislation. Neither House can debate Government policy. Nor may members ask written or oral questions of Ministers or meet and take evidence in committees. In general, Bills which have not yet completed all their stages are lost and will have to start again from scratchafter the Queen’s Speech. During a recess, on the other hand, the House does not sit but Parliamentary business can otherwise continue as usual. This prolonged suspension of Parliamentary democracy took place in quite exceptional circumstances: the fundamental change which was due to take place in the Constitution of the United Kingdom on 31st October. Parliament, and in particular the House of Commons as the elected representatives of the people, has a right to a voice in how that change comes about. The effect upon the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme. No justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court. The only evidence of why it was taken is the memorandum from Nikki da Costa of 15th August. This explains why holding the Queen’s Speech to open a new session of Parliament on 14th October would be desirable. It does not explain why it was necessary to bring Parliamentary business to a halt for five weeks before that, when the normal period necessary to prepare for the Queen’s Speech is four to six days. It does not discuss the difference between prorogation and recess. It does not discuss the impact of prorogation on the special procedures for scrutinising the delegated legislation necessary to achieve an orderly withdrawal from the European Union, with or without a withdrawal agreement, on 31st October. It does not discuss what Parliamentary time would be needed to secure Parliamentary approval for any new withdrawal agreement, as required by section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The Court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification. The next and final question, therefore, is what the legal effect of that finding is and therefore what remedies the Court should grant. The Court can certainly declare that the advice was unlawful. The Inner House went further and declared that any prorogation resulting from it was null and of no effect. The Government argues that the Inner House could not do that because the prorogation was a “proceeding in Parliament” which, under the Bill of Rights of 1688 cannot be impugned orquestioned in any court. But it is quite clear that the prorogation is not a proceeding in Parliament. It takes place in the House of Lords chamber in the presence of members of both Houses, but it is not their decision. It is something which has been imposed upon them from outside. It is not something on which members can speak or vote. It is not the core or essential business of Parliament which the Bill of Rights protects. Quite the reverse: it brings that core or essential business to an end. This Court has already concluded that the Prime Minister’s advice to Her Majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect. This means that the Order in Council to which it led was also unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed. This means that when the Royal Commissioners walked into the House of Lords it was as if they walked in with a blank sheet of paper. The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued. This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 Justices. It is for Parliament, and in particular the Speaker and the Lord Speaker to decide what to do next. Unless there is some Parliamentary rule of which we are unaware, they can take immediate steps to enable each House to meet as soon as possible. It is not clear to us that any step is needed from the Prime Minister, but if it is, the court is pleased that his counsel have told the court that he will take all necessary steps to comply with the terms of any declaration made by this court. It follows that the Advocate General’s appeal in the case of Cherry is dismissed and Mrs Miller’s appeal is allowed. The same declarations and orders should be made in each case. NOTE: This summary is provided to assist in understanding the Court’s decision. It does not form part of the reasons for the decision. The full judgment of the Court is the only authoritative document. Judgments are public documents and are available at: www .supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/index.html

The recent actions over Kashmir, by the Indian Government, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, have shocked and appalled the international community. Co-founder of Guernica 37 IJC, Toby Cadman, was in Pakistan last week and spoke about the serious and persistent human rights violations committed under the guise of the Public Safety Act (PSA), a “draconian” law from 1978 that permits the shield of law for these violations over civilians, manyof them minors. Toby Cadman spoke regarding the dramatic situation in Kashmir after the suppression of the autonomy declared by Indian Government last month "The arrest and detention of children is disturbing enough in itself. The only country (besides India) I am aware of is Israel, were Palestinian children are being detained." On 18 September 20119, Toby was interviewed by the Pakistani journalist Meshal Malik, from the network Indus News, where he expressed that fundamental rights, that in most states would have been taken for granted, in Kashmir “are just being removed”. Of course, we are talking about the PSA, a “lawless law” (as described by Amnesty International) that has been used for detaining children, besides other violations to human rights and fundamental freedoms, such as permitting the detention of a person for two years without being charged. That is something that we in The Guernica Group consider to be intolerable and shameful and requires a strong stance to be taken by the international community that claims to put the rule of law at the forefront of global policy. A Problem of Enforceability There is no doubt that notifying a person about the reasons for their arrest and detention, guaranteeing transparency in the process, besides letting their family know about the whole situation and giving access to a lawyer, constitute the guiding principles of any process according to international law. Moreover, another important aspect to take into consideration in this recent and shocking situation, of a state committing abuses over civilians, is in terms of its enforceability. India is not a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and has not ratified the additional protocol of ICCPR. that permits individual complaint to the UN Human Rights Committee. Therefore, there remains a vacuum of accountability. “But of course there are ways in which through the UN Human Rights Council the diplomatic pressure can be put on India. We are not talking about some isolated cases, there are tens of thousands of individuals who have been arbitrarily and unlawfully detained without charge." The End of a ‘Draconian Act’ Discussing the PSA, Toby stated that it has to be immediately scrapped. It is being used by the Indian State to circumvent the rule of law and that is something he finds to be “deeply disturbing”. In order to that, we should also point out that under this Act on 16 September 2019, Farooq Abdullah (83 years old), a veteran Kashmiri parliamentarian and former Chief Minister, was detained. Undoubtedly, this scandalous episode should be condemned. Finally, one should not forget that the PSA also violates freedom of expression and freedom of assembly of those persons who are exercising their legitimate right to protest, and that there is no information emerging as to how they are  being treated whilst in detention. In terms of what actions can be taken, Toby emphasised the role of the UN Human Rights Council and the UN Special Procedures Branch that has the jurisdiction to look at arbitrary arrest and detention, fair trial considerations, allegations of torture, enforced disappearances and summary execution. It is quite clear that the unilateral annexation of Kashmir is prohibited under international law and that the conduct of the Indian State against the Kashmiri people may constitute war crimes and/or crimes against humanity. It is therefore entirely appropriate that the matter be taken to the International Court of Justice in The Hague and thereafter put on the agenda of the UN General Assembly.

التحديث الأسبوعي: أغسطس ١٣ إلى ٢٠ أغسطس تشمل الجولة الإعلامية التالية الأخبار ذات الصلة بالقضايا الدولية والسياسة الخارجية من جميع أنحاء العالم العربي ما بين الأسبوع الممتد من تاريخ ١٣ أغسطس إلى ٢٠ أغسطس. توفر جيرنيكا ٣٧ تحديثات إعلانية أسبوعية من المحكمة الجنائية الدولية والمحكمة الأوروبية لحقوق الإنسان والأمم المتحدة والاتحاد الأوروبي ومصادر أخرى. إذا كنتم ترغبون في المساهمة أو تقديم ملخص إعلامي أو مقال رأي أو مدونة ، يرجى إرسالها إلى نيناد فوتشيياك للنظر فيها. السودان: ١٧ أغسطس ٢٠١٩ وقع المجلس العسكري الانتقالي في السودان وممثلو المعارضة اتفاق تقاسم السلطة، الذي ينص على تكوين مجلس حاكم انتقالي من المدنيين والعسكريين، ويمهد الطريق نحو انتخاب حكومة مدنية. ويبدأ السودان بذلك مرحلة انتقالية جديدة، بعد أشهر من الاحتجاجات ومواجهات دامية بين متظاهرين وقوات الأمن. للمزيد هنا السودان: ١٩ أغسطس ٢٠١٩ بدأت محاكمة الرئيس السوداني المعزول عمر البشير بمفاجأة، إذ نُقل عنه قوله إنه تلقى أموالا من السعودية الإمارات. من جانبها طلبت منظمة العفو الدولية بألا يتم تجاهل التهم الموجهة إلى البشير من المحكمة الجنائية الدولية. للمزيد هنا مصر: ٢٠ اغسطس ٢٠١٩ أجلت الأمم المتحدة مؤتمرا في القاهرة بشأن التعذيب كان من المقرر عقده في سبتمبر أيلول وذلك بعد انتقادات من جماعات لحقوق الإنسان تقول إن التعذيب شائع في مصر.وعبر نشطاء حقوقيون عن غضبهم من قرار الأمم المتحدة عقد المؤتمر في مصر ويقولون إن الرئيس عبد الفتاح السيسي أشرف على أسوأ حملة قمع للحريات في تاريخ مصر الحديث. للمزيد هنا تونس: ١٤ اغسطس ٢٠١٩ قالت هيئة الانتخابات العليا المستقلة في تونس، اليوم، الأربعاء، إنها وافقت على قبول 26 مرشحا كقائمة أولية ورفضت ملفات 71 آخرين، الذين يبقى لهم الحق في تقديم الطعون لدى المحكمة الإدارية في مدة أقصاها 31 آب/أغسطس. وستبدأ الحملة الانتخابية في الأول من أيلول/سبتمبر وتستمر أسبوعين.للمزيد هنا ليبيا: ١٦ اغسطس ٢٠١٩ قالت "هيومن رايتس ووتش" اليوم إنه ينبغي لـ "الحكومة المؤقتة" في الشرق الليبيبذل جميع الجهود الممكنة لضمان عودة آمنة لسهام سرقيوة، النائبة في "مجلس النواب" التي اختُطفت من منزلها في مدينة بنغازي في شرق البلاد يوم 17 يوليو/تموز 2019. للمزيد هنا سوريا: ١٩ اغسطس ٢٠١٩ وبعد ثمانية أعوام من الحرب الأهلية، بات شمال غرب سوريا هو المعقل الكبير الأخير لمعارضي الأسد، وتشن القوات الحكومية أحدث هجماتها هناك منذ نهاية أبريل نيسان بمساعدة روسية.وتقول الأمم المتحدة إن التصعيد أدى إلى مقتل ما لا يقل عن 500 مدني ونزوح مئات الألوف الذين تقطعت السبل بعدد كبير منهم بالقرب من الحدود مع تركيا.للمزيد هنا سوريا ١٨ اغسطس ٢٠١٩ أعلنت سلطات منطقة جبل طارق البريطانية الأحد رفضها لطلب الولايات المتحدة احتجاز ناقلة النفط الإيرانية التي تستعد لمغادرة مياهها الإقليمية، موضحة أن العقوبات الأمريكية التي بموجبها ترغب واشنطن باحتجاز الناقلة غير قابلة للتطبيق في الاتحاد الأوروبي.وأوضحت سلطات جبل طارق العقوبات الأمريكية المفروضة على سوريا والتي على أساسها تريد واشنطن احتجاز السفينة أمر غير قابل للتطبيق في منطقة الاتحاد الأوروبي.للمزيد هنا فلسطين: ١٦ اغسطس ٢٠١٩ بدعم من الرئيس الأمريكي، منعت إسرائيل عضوتان في الكونجرس من السفر إليها. رشيدة وإلهان أول امرأتين مسلمتين تنتخبان في الكونغرس، وهما من الجناح التقدمي للحزب الديمقراطي، وأبدت الاثنتان دعمهما لحركة "المقاطعة وسحب الاستثمارات وفرض العقوبات" (بي دي أس) المؤيدة للفلسطينيين.للمزيد هنا تواصل معنا هنا