EU-Africa summit seeks action on Darfur and Mugabe

By Axel Bugge Reuters - LISBON (Reuters)

Human rights groups urged European and African leaders gathering for their first summit in seven years on Friday to act on Sudan's Darfur crisis and confront Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe over rights abuses.

Activists hoped the 73 leaders from the world's largest trading bloc and its poorest continent would put rights at the top of their agenda at the summit, which will aim to create fresh partnerships on issues like immigration and development.

Previous attempts to hold the summit have failed over Mugabe's attendance but this time the EU, mindful of growing Chinese influence in Africa, decided to hold the summit and invite Mugabe, who arrived late on Thursday.

Mugabe is seen by African leaders as an independence hero and many said they would not attend if he was not invited. Prime Minister Gordon Brown decided to boycott the summit because Mugabe would be there.

Foreign Secretary David Miliband told BBC radio on Friday it would have been "absurd" to sit down next to Mugabe "through a discussion of good governance, of human rights, and pretend there wasn't absolute meltdown going on in Zimbabwe."

Ana Gomes, a Portuguese member of the European parliament, said Europe defends human rights but often fails to act due to the need to secure allies.

"Europe often closes its eyes with the pretext that they are western allies against terrorism, saying there is progress when there is no progress," Gomes said.

A group of 40 African and European parliamentarians was joined by 50 human rights groups in urging the leaders to tackle the plight of thousands of civilians in Sudan's Darfur region.

"MPs, campaigners and human rights activists are all asking the same question: how can our leaders ignore one of the world's worst crises?" asked Glenys Kinnock, a member of the European Parliament.

"Especially when (Sudanese) President (Omar Hassan al-) Bashir, the man primarily responsible for so much of the suffering, is in their midst," she said in a statement.

The U.N. Security Council approved in July a U.N.-African Union peace mission of 26,000 soldiers and police for Darfur. But U.N. peacekeeping chief Jean-Marie Guehenno has cast doubt on the mission due to restrictions imposed by Sudan.

TRADE TENSIONS

Business leaders from the two continents meet on Friday before the summit on Saturday and Sunday, where tension over trade is likely to be a hot topic.

The EU says it needs to clinch new Economic Partnership Agreements with former European colonies in Africa, and other regions of the world, before a World Trade Organization waiver of current preferential treatment expires on December 31.

Some African nations have complained they will face too much competition and are being strong-armed into signing new deals.

"We all agree that we should be allied to Europe ... but the method is outdated," Senegal's President Abdoulaye Wade said on television station France 24 on Thursday. "You can't put us in a strait-jacket, that won't work."

On Friday Ivory Coast initiated an interim trade deal with the EU, making the world's largest cocoa producer the first West African country to sign such a bilateral deal, which will have provisional trade terms until a broader EPA is signed.

But bigger African economies such as South Africa and Nigeria have refused to sign EPAs.

(Reporting by Axel Bugge, Ingrid Melander, Henrique Almeida, Sergio Goncalves and Elisabete Tavares, Editing by Mary Gabriel)

Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! All rights reserved.

China to evict 1.5M for Olympics

By BRADLEY S. KLAPPER, Associated Press Writer
December 5,2007

GENEVA - China continues to evict 13,000 people each month in preparation for the Beijing Olympics, despite worldwide attention and increased scrutiny, a housing rights group said Wednesday.

The Center on Housing Rights and Evictions said a recent trip to the Chinese capital confirmed an estimate it made earlier this year that 1.5 million people would be displaced by the time the 2008 Games are held.

Beijing says the group is grossly inflating the number of people being relocated as a result of the Olympic preparations, and that residents are content with the compensation they have received.

"Despite courageous protests inside China, and condemnation by many international human rights organizations, the Beijing municipality and Beijing Organizing Committee of the Olympic Games have persisted with these evictions and displacements," said Jean du Plessis, the Geneva-based COHRE's deputy director.

The group — which claimed in June that 1.25 million had already been displaced — said it returned to Beijing in August and found that forced evictions were continuing unabated.

In September, the Beijing municipality demolished several buildings in a run-down neighborhood called the "petitioners' village" in Fengtai District, which provided housing for thousands from all over China who came to complain to the central government about land seizures, forced evictions and corruption, COHRE said.

"Evictions in Beijing often involve the complete demolition of poor peoples' houses," the group said. "The inhabitants are then forced to relocate far from their communities and workplaces, with higher transportation costs driving them further into poverty.

"In Beijing, and in China more generally, the process of demolition and eviction is characterized by arbitrariness and lack of due process. In many cases, tenants are given little or no notice of their eviction and do not receive the promised compensation."

The group said it was pleased the International Olympic Committee is taking housing rights more seriously, including guaranteed commitments that local people would not be displaced in its deal with Russia for the 2014 Winter Games, which will be hosted by the Black Sea resort of Sochi.

In August, the director of Beijing's construction committee said only about 40,000 people were being relocated yearly, and about 2,000 were moved to build new venues for the games. Sui Zhenjiang also said residents were adequately compensated, adding that 16,000-17,000 "affordable" houses had been built in the city of 15 million.

"The 1.5 million figure is definitely wrong," Sui said of COHRE's estimation.

COHRE also criticized Myanmar and Slovakia on Thursday for "pervasive housing rights violations" in 2007.

It said Myanmar, also known as Burma, was responsible for the "mass displacement of more than 1 million civilians from their lands and homes."

Slovakia was cited because "municipalities deliberately neglect to improve — or indeed actively strive to worsen — the housing conditions of Roma," also known as Gypsies, said Claude Cahn, COHRE's advocacy chief.

Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Sir Ian Blair- Chief of Police, London UK resignation demanded

News article by Lee Barnes 2nd July 2005

The head of the Metropolitan Police Sir Ian Blair, a close friend of Tony Blair and whose wife is a solicitor and who once worked with the Prime minister’s wife Cherie Blair, should resign.

Sir Ian was found guilty of racial discrimination this week against white police officers after his force was found to have racially discriminated against three white officers who were disciplined after falsely being alleged to have made racist remarks at a training day. The employment tribunal said Sir Ian, barely five months into his post, had hung his own officers “out to dry”. Met Commissioner Sir Ian Blair was found by an employment tribunal to be guilty of prejudicing internal disciplinary proceedings against the three CID officers and of treating them unfavourably.

Sir Ian, who at the time of the allegations was Scotland Yard's deputy commissioner in charge of diversity, was said to have trusted the word of an Asian female officer, Detective Sgt Shabnam Chaudhri, over that of the three white officers, who were later cleared of any wrongdoing by the force's most senior Asian officer, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur.

Blair’s intervention

Det Constable Tom Hassell, 60, Acting Det Inspector Paul Whatmore, 39, and Det Sgt Colin Lockwood, 55, today won their claim for racial discrimination against the Met. The tribunal panel, sitting in Stratford, east London, ruled in favour of all three officers, saying they had been treated differently because of their race. The hearing was told Sir Ian's attempted intervention was made without his having investigated the case or seeing the evidence used by the police investigations board.

The panel ruled their suspension had been justified but Sir Ian's later intervention was wrong. Chairman Ian Pritchard-Witts said: "We take the view that what this deputy commissioner wanted was an example.

"We ta ke the view, using his own words, that white officers were to be hung out to dry. He prejudiced the matter, why else ask for a judicial review of his own officers' decisions. It points unerringly to unfavourable treatment."

Findings “hurtful”

Sir Ian has said that the finding of the tribunal that the Metropolitan Police were institutionally racist against indigenous white officers was hurtful to the force. Rank and file officers believe that he has betrayed their fellow officers now regard the Metropolitan Police as an anti-white racist police force operating to a New Labour political agenda.

Sir Ian described the remarks at the heart of this week's employment tribunal defeat as Islamophobic: "That language was gratuitous, offensive and deliberate. Officers can expect to be disciplined for using language like that. I want this force to have no place for racism".

If I was one of those officers I would now look at suing Sir Ian for Libel and abu se of authority within the Police. Not only is the language not racist as defined in common law, but it is also a fact that Islam is a religion not a race. Therefore Sir Ian is merely further damaging the reputations of the officers themselves. The fact that Sir Ian can still call those officers ' racist', after having been found guilty of racism himself by the Tribunal, shows the arrogance and utter incompetence of the man.

Guardian interview

In an interview with the Guardian Sir Ian Blair reveals that he intends to continue to racially cleanse the police force of white officers for political reasons and make to make his force less white, less male and more in line with the politics of the Labour Party.

Sir Ian said the Met and British policing had no choice but to embrace diversity, because it somehow 'delivered better protection to the public': "Issues about understanding diversity, about respect for different communities, respect for different tra ditions in many occupations is broadly a moral case. For the police service and Metropolitan police in particular, it is a fundamental, brutal business case. You can't police London without understanding the diverse communities we serve.

"How can you police the Chinese community, the Tamil community, emerging east European communities, north African community, how can you do this without understanding and showing respect to the cultures of which this city is made up?

"That's why I'm so unrepentant."

The fact is Mr. Blair, that ' racism ' also includes adopting pro-active racist policies against whites and such anti-white racism does not make up for historical racism against ethnic minorities. It merely increases distrut of the Police themselves. The adoption of racist, sexist policies that seek to ethnically cleanse the Police force of white, male officers would be regarded as illegal and repugnant if the officers to be expelled on the basis of their race wer e black or female. Therefore the adoption of racist policies against white officers is a declaration that the police no longer regard whites in the capital, and within the Force itself, as citizens with equal civil rights compared to ethnic minority Londoners and police. Therefore the Metropolitan Police is now a racist police force whose policing priorities are defined by how successful those racist policies are when measured against the ethnic cleansing of white officers from the police force.

Need to cut crime

The paternalistic racist notion that the various ' communities ' in London give a proverbial toss about how anti-racist the Metropolitan Police actually is demeans those who from all ethnic groups within London who just want the Police to cut crime. The fact that Sir Ian has adopted the Neo-Marxist ideology and rhetoric of 'Identity Politics' shows that he has politicised the Police force itself.

The rise in Identity Politics within the Police Force is a manifestation of the New Left within British Society. The New Left have shifted their ideological struggle against the British State, away from ' State ownership of the means of Production ' to ' State control over the Outcomes of Reproduction '. Instead of creating a Socialist Economy based on Marxist economics, they seek to impose a Marxist society through the struggle for ' Equality '. They have co-opted the language of Liberalism and human rights to enact an agenda that is Marxist and anti-individualistic.

Having lost the Economic struggle in our Global Capitalist system, the New Left now seek to Impose 'Equality' on society by moving the Marxist struggle away from the re-distribution of wealth in society to the re-distribution of rights in society. The Marxist Revolution has shifted from Class Warfare to a pseudo-anti-racist struggle based on ' empowering ' various nominated ethnic groups. The struggle has also moved from economics to a “Culture Struggle”. The New Marxist vanguard are now the ethnic minority groups, and their white lackeys in the Establishment power structures like the Police and the Courts, that seek to destroy the existing social order from within the system itself.

Group rights

In the Doublespeak of the PC Police and Neo-Marxist vanguard , the use of words such as ' chinese community' , ' black community', ' jewish community ', ' Irish community ' etc etc is the Neo-Marxist rhetoric of what is now defined by the New Left as ' Group Rights '. The use of the language of the concept of so called ' Group Rights ' by the Neo-Marxists is used to promote the concept of an ' inclusive society ' or an inclusive Police Force. This is nothing more than a justification for State controlled social engineering and allocation of rights and powers on a discriminatory and arbitrary political basis. But in reality the concept of group rights merely Balkanises society and the police into competing racial, ethnic , religious, sexual and cultural blocs battling for power and position within society or the police itself. This leads eventually to Society or the institution, such as the Police, being torn apart from within. In the name of inclusiveness, the individual’s self identity is denied and nullified and instead they become part of some faceless amorphous bloc where the notion of individuality itself is relegated to an inferior and powerless status. As the power and status of the ' Group ' grows more powerful then the more power it demands, until eventually the whole of society or the institution is in thrall to that group.

In this Balkanised State the politicians and Judges then engineer and control society by allocating power and rights only to those that they allow to claim them, and thereby the Establishment Elite becomes the sole master over all citizens and allocate rights only to those they want to have power in society itself.

If a senior White Police officer had been found guilty of racially discriminating against black officers 'and hanging them out to dry' then they would have been made to resign from the Police force within 24 hours. The fact the journalistic placemen in the media are now lining up to defend Sir Ian shows how corrupt the media itself has become, as it seeks to defend its new Establishment lackeys from being cast out of the power structures they have been put into to subvert from within.

For the sake of the respect for the police and so that White Londoners can have faith in the Metropolitan Police Sir Ian must resign. If he doesn’t then we will have no choice but to regard the Metropolitan police as an institutionally racist body which has embarked upon an overt political and racist agenda against white Londoners.

If Sir Ian stays then we know that the Metropolitan Police is no better than the paramilitary wing of the Labour Party and a political police force perceived by white communities in the capital in the same way that the RUC were in Ireland within the Catholic community.

When Sir Ian became commissioner in February he pledged to modernise the capital's force, and vowed to be more responsive to the public: "I want to ensure that it's the public that shapes the Metropolitan police; that's my absolute determination."

This is utter rubbish, as the public are a non-divisible group who have the same rights and have the same responsibilities as everyone else. By adopting the political language of Group Rights within the Police Force Sir Ian has in fact politicised the police and destroyed the very notion of their existing in London 'the public'. Now Sir Ian must pander to the power of the self appointed spokesman and leaders of 'communities' instead of protecting the public as a non-divisible group.

Sir Ian described the remarks at the heart of this week's employment tribunal defeat as Islamophobic: "That language was gratuitous, offensive and delibe rate. Officers can expect to be disciplined for using language like that. I want this force to have no place for racism".

It is now time that Sir Ian resigned from his job.

Copyright ©2007 by Flameout | All Rights Reserved

Israel and Palestinians Set Goal of a Treaty in 2008

Doug Mills/The New York Times
Officials from 49 nations gathered Tuesday at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., for a one-day conference on Middle East peace.

By STEVEN LEE MYERS and HELENE COOPER
Published: November 28, 2007
ANNAPOLIS, Md., Nov. 27 — The Israeli and Palestinian leaders committed themselves on Tuesday to negotiate a peace treaty by the end of 2008, setting a deadline for ending a conflict that has endured for six decades.

The agreement stopped short of the binding negotiating outline that many Palestinians had hoped for, but it revived a peace process that the United States had left dormant for seven years.

Its success, both sides said, will depend in part on how vigorously President Bush pushes Palestinians and Israelis toward resolving the core issues that have bedeviled peace negotiators since 1979: the dismantling of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the borders of a Palestinian state, the status of Jerusalem and the fate of Palestinian refugees who left, or were forced to leave, their homes in Israel.

In announcing the agreement at an American-sponsored peace conference here, Mr. Bush plunged the United States back into the role of an Arab-Israeli peacemaker — an approach he had previously shunned — at a time when wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have helped bring the American image in the Muslim world to historic lows.

But in Gaza, reaction to the peace conference was far from favorable. Crowds of more than 100,000 protested the conference. A Palestinian man was reported killed at a West Bank protest.

“We meet to lay the foundation for the establishment of a new nation: a democratic Palestinian state that will live side by side with Israel in peace and security,” Mr. Bush told officials from 49 countries gathered at the United States Naval Academy.

Flanked by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel and the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, Mr. Bush cast peace between Israelis and Palestinians as part of a broader struggle against extremism in the Middle East.

It was a moment of diplomatic theater, endorsed by the attendance of a member of the Saudi royal family and framed by many participants’ concerns over the increasing influence of Iran and Islamic radicalism in the region.

The moment was orchestrated by Mr. Bush, who pledged that the United States would “monitor and judge the fulfillment of the commitment of both sides.” The agreement, cast as a “joint understanding” between the Israelis and the Palestinians, fell short of the detailed five-page document that Palestinian officials have been seeking. But it went somewhat further than the Israelis had wanted, calling for an immediate start to wide-ranging talks aimed at reaching a final accord within 13 months.

“We agree to immediately launch good-faith bilateral negotiations in order to conclude a peace treaty, resolving all outstanding issues, including all core issues without exception, as specified in previous agreements,” the joint understanding said. “We agree to engage in vigorous, ongoing and continuous negotiations, and shall make every effort to conclude an agreement before the end of 2008.”

It was not clear until Mr. Bush, Mr. Olmert and Mr. Abbas stepped onto the podium in the ornate frescoed Memorial Hall at the Naval Academy, near a replica battle flag from the War of 1812 declaring “Don’t Give Up the Ship,” whether the Israelis and Palestinians had agreed on anything.

Even on Tuesday morning, Mr. Bush held last-minute talks with Mr. Olmert and Mr. Abbas, while outside the room, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice buttonholed the chief Israeli and Palestinian negotiators, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni of Israel and Ahmed Qurei, a former Palestinian prime minister, to wring agreement on the wording of the accord.

In making the announcement, Mr. Bush read aloud the joint understanding wearing his glasses, suggesting that there had not been enough time to convert the newly completed document to large type for his speech.

Mr. Abbas shook hands with Mr. Olmert and Mr. Bush and then pointedly and emotionally put all of the most divisive issues squarely at the center of the talks that are scheduled to begin on Dec. 12.

“I am not making an overstatement, Mr. President, if I say that our region stands at a crossroad that separates two historical phases: pre-Annapolis phase and post-Annapolis phase,” Mr. Abbas said. “I say that this opportunity might not be repeated. And if it were to be repeated, it might not enjoy the same unanimity and impetus.”

When Mr. Olmert spoke, he too was emotional and highly personal. “We want peace,” he said. “We demand an end to terror, an end to incitement and to hatred. We are prepared to make a painful compromise, rife with risks, in order to realize these aspirations.”

The gathering brought about the highest-level official contacts yet between Israel and Saudi Arabia, which do not have diplomatic relations. Seated across the room and squeezed between the delegates from Senegal and Qatar, Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, took notes during Mr. Olmert’s remarks, his head slightly bowed. When he arrived in Washington on Monday for the conference, Prince Saud vowed that he would not shake Mr. Olmert’s hand.

Mr. Olmert looked directly across the hall at Prince Saud and said that Israel aspired to “normalization” with the Arab world.

“There’s quite a lot that separates us,” Mr. Olmert said. “Nevertheless, there is also a great deal that we share. Like us, you know that religious fanaticism and national extremism are a perfect recipe for domestic instability and violence, for bitterness and ultimately for the disintegration of the very foundations of coexistence based on tolerance and mutual acceptance.”

When the Israeli leader finished his speech, Prince Saud politely clapped. Later, during remarks to the foreign ministers, Prince Saud said that “the time has come for Israel to put its trust in peace after it has gambled on war for decades without success.” He called on Israel to withdraw from the West Bank.

Palestinian officials said one obstacle to the joint statement had been Israel’s refusal to include a reference to the Arab League peace initiative. That initiative, which was reaffirmed by Arab nations this year, called on Israelis and Palestinians to reach an “agreed” resolution of the refugee issue.

Israeli officials do not like that term and have been adamant that Palestinian refugees have a right of return only to a future Palestinian state, not to Israel. They fear that including the Arab League language in the joint statement could handcuff them later in negotiations.

The two sides resolved the issue by leaving mention of the Arab League initiative out of the joint understanding. But Mr. Abbas and Mr. Olmert mentioned it during their speeches.

Mr. Bush cast the reinvigorated negotiations as a historic moment, an opportunity to advance democracy in a region torn by conflict, with the United States and its troops intricately entwined in it. “And when liberty takes root in the rocky soil of the West Bank and Gaza, it will inspire millions across the Middle East who want their societies built on freedom and peace and hope,” he said.

The significance he assigned to overcoming the Israeli-Palestinian conflict echoes the importance he has previously assigned to efforts in Iraq. That country, and the American war there, went unmentioned in Mr. Bush’s remarks on Tuesday, though he did mention Lebanon’s aspirations for peace and independence from Syrian influence.

Iraq declined to attend the conference here, said the State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack.

The White House said Mr. Bush’s role would be as a mediator, willing to weigh in on the negotiations when necessary, but leaving the workaday details of American diplomacy to his secretary of state, Ms. Rice.

“Secretary Rice will be doing a lot of that heavy lifting, in terms of the travel to the region and helping them, as she has been,” said the White House press secretary, Dana Perino, describing the difficult diplomacy ahead. “But what the president told the leaders today is that he’s only a phone call away.”

Middle East experts said that perhaps the best thing to come out of the Annapolis conference was that it had publicly committed Mr. Bush, Mr. Olmert and Mr. Abbas to pressing for peace.

“Annapolis means that everyone has a lot more invested,” said Daniel Levy, a former Israeli negotiator. But, he added, “Now there’s also a lot more to lose.”

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL-Media Briefing

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

Media Briefing

AI Index: EUR 41/009/2007 (Public)
News Service No: 205
14 November 2007

Embargo Date: 14 November 2007 10:00 GMT


Spain: Effective impunity of police officers in cases of torture and other ill-treatment
CASES
Serious concerns regarding torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (ill-treatment) committed by law enforcement officials in Spain, and the failure to end impunity of those responsible, has for many years been expressed by Amnesty International. Similar concerns have been made by other international and national non-governmental organisations together with a range of UN and Council of Europe human rights bodies.

Amnesty International considers that the effective impunity enjoyed by many police officers results from a number of factors ranging from obstacles to lodging a complaint to failure by the authorities to impose appropriate sanctions. Other factors include the lack of independent investigations or the failure to investigate thoroughly; incomplete or inaccurate medical reports; insufficient evidence; intimidation of complainants; lack of impartiality in the investigation and excessive delays in the procedure.

The cases below illustrate these factors and highlight the range of ill-treatment experienced, which in some cases has led to serious injury. In the majority of cases those accused of ill-treatment have not been subject to disciplinary measures. In many instances preliminary criminal investigations were closed at an early stage so officers were not brought to trial. The cases are based on official documents released to Amnesty International and on the stories of victims as told to the organization's delegates.

OBSTACLES TO LODGING A COMPLAINT
Lucian Padurau was arrested on 27 July 2006 by five autonomous regional police officers outside his house in Barcelona, in a case of mistaken identity. He told Amnesty International that he was beaten on the street and that his pregnant wife, who was with him at the time, was also physically assaulted. He was physically assaulted again while in the police car on the way to the police station, threatened with a gun and told "You'd be better off confessing to everything. If the judge lets you off we'll kill you." The next day Lucian Padurau was released from custody after the police realised he was not the man they had been seeking. A few days later, Lucian Padurau reported the ill-treatment to an investigating court. The court official required that Lucian Padurau give the name and identification number of each of the officers involved in order to file the complaint. The official recorded the complaint only after Lucian Padurau threatened to inform the media of what had occurred. Following judicial investigation, the case was pending trial in September 2007.

LACK OF INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION
Sandra Guzmán witnessed a police officer from the autonomous regional police force partially strip search, hit and kick several men of North African origin in a park in La Casilla, Bilbao, on 25 December 2006. The officer's colleagues (approximately seven in total) did nothing to intervene. She told the police officers to arrest the men if they had committed a crime but to stop treating them in such a violent manner. On 27 December, Sandra Guzmán made a complaint regarding the incident at the autonomous Basque government's Department of the Interior and a few days later she registered a criminal complaint at Investigating Court 1 of Bilbao. In mid-January 2007, a police officer from the internal affairs unit visited her elderly parents' house in Bilbao in search of her and tried to convince her mother that Sandra Guzmán should withdraw the complaint. Sandra Guzmán was indignant at the lack of impartiality as she was going to be questioned by an officer of the same force as the agents she had reported and who, in addition, had recommended that she withdraw the complaint.

FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE
Jordi Vilaseca, a young man from Torà in Catalonia, was arrested on 1 April 2003 by autonomous regional police officers while driving home from work. In the police station, he was forced to remain standing in a cell, facing the wall without leaning against it, until he collapsed from exhaustion after 10 hours. Jordi Vilaseca was interrogated by a national police officer who pretended to strangle him with his own dreadlocks and told him that his girlfriend would be arrested and the police officers would rape her. While making his police statement, Jordi Vilaseca was reportedly not allowed to speak to the lawyer present. After three days in detention, he lost consciousness and was hospitalised. When he regained consciousness, he was unable to speak, walk or control his bowels. After being released, he made a complaint against the police for torture. In May 2005 the case was closed on the grounds of lack of evidence and because the prosecutor said there were contradictory versions of events from the complainant and the accused. Jordi Vilaseca's lawyer appealed, arguing that during the initial investigatory stage of proceedings contradictory testimonies were to be expected. The case was re-opened but closed again without new justification. Another appeal was lodged and rejected. Jordi Vilaseca has now lodged a case with the Constitutional Court, which was pending in October 2007.

Sergio L.D. was arrested by national police officers during a demonstration in Barcelona on 16 March 2002. He was beaten violently on his legs and head inside the police van and described being used 'like a battering ram' against the side of a police vehicle. He was further assaulted in the police station, which caused him to suffer muscle seizures and vomiting. A doctor reportedly advised that he be taken to hospital due to his head injuries but officers continued to interrogate him, whipping the soles of his feet with a whip and threatening him with a knife. After losing consciousness several times during the night he was taken to hospital the following day. His physical injuries required several months to heal and he is still receiving psychological counselling. The case against the police officers was originally discharged without further investigation but Sergio appealed to the Provincial Criminal Court of Barcelona which ordered the lower court to open an investigation into a possible crime of torture. The case was still in the initial investigatory stages in October 2007, almost four years after this ruling.

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
Daniel Díaz Gallego, Manuel Matilla Parrilla, Israel Sánchez Jiménez, and Marcos V, participated in a demonstration on 1 December 2001 in the centre of Madrid protesting against a new law relating to higher education. Towards the end of the demonstration a number of violent incidents occurred, which resulted in assaults on police officers, as well as damage to public goods and private property. The four men were arrested on suspicion of involvement in these incidents. They claim that while in police custody they were subjected to serious ill-treatment by police. Upon release they presented criminal complaints against the police for ill-treatment. Daniel Díaz stated that towards the end of the demonstration he was grabbed by a national police officer, pushed to the ground where his head hit the curb, and handcuffed. He was pushed into a police car where a police officer forced his head between his legs, causing him significant pain and impeding his breathing. Upon arrival at Leganitos police station, Daniel Díaz was pushed against a wall and the police officer kicked him from behind before searching him. He continued to be beaten and slapped while being told not to look at the officers present. Daniel Díaz and another detainee was later taken to a health clinic for a medical exam where the beating by the police continued. On 14 January 2002, Daniel Díaz presented this complaint of illegal detention, torture and ill-treatment, threats, degrading treatment and assault on physical integrity to Investigating Court 2 of Madrid, supported by medical reports. On 24 June 2003 the court acquitted both accused police officers on the grounds that it could not be proven that they were responsible for the ill-treatment, despite confirming the evidence of Daniel Díaz's physical injuries. Marcos V, Manuel Matilla and Israel Sánchez also presented complaints alleging ill-treatment very similar to that described by Daniel Díaz but they were all rejected on the grounds of lack of evidence. The three alleged victims of torture and other ill-treatment were all convicted on 27 October 2005 of assault on a public agent.

INTIMIDATION OF COMPLAINANTS
Daniel Guilló Cruz, his girlfriend Tamara Blanco Ovalles and another female friend were stopped by two plain-clothes national police officers just after midnight on 12 January 2007 in Ciudad de los Poetas, Madrid. The police officers told Daniel Guilló to hand over the marijuana cigarette he had in his hand and any other drugs he was carrying. One of the officers then began to beat him as the other pushed him against a car, holding him by the neck. Daniel Guilló and the two women with him believed the men assaulting him were muggers, as they had not identified themselves as police officers. The women used their mobile phones to call for police assistance. Uniformed police reinforcements arrived and joined the officers beating Daniel Guilló. It was only at this time that the victims became aware that the two men who had initially approached them were police officers. Daniel Guilló was handcuffed and told he was under arrest for assault on a public agent. He was then punched in the face several times by one of the plain clothes officers, and suffered a broken nose as a result. His two friends were arrested for assault on a public agent and threats. On the following day, Daniel Guilló was told he was being charged with attempted homicide.

LACK OF IMPARTIALITY, PROMPTNESS AND THOROUGNESS IN INVESTIGATIONS
Juan Daniel Pintos Garrido, Alex Cisterna Amestica and Rodrigo Lanza Huidobro were arrested on 4 February 2006 after a local police officer was gravely injured in disputed circumstances outside a party in a house in Barcelona. All three men deny any involvement in the incident and have also claimed they were subjected to serious physical ill-treatment during arrest and while in police detention. As of September 2007 they continue to be held in remand detention awaiting trial on charges of assault on a public officer and attempted homicide. The three men all made complaints of ill-treatment against the police. Their families and lawyers claim that the investigating judge (who is investigating both the charges against Juan Pintos, Alex Cisterna and Rodrigo Lanza as well as their complaints of ill-treatment against the police) has made comments which demonstrate a biased attitude towards the proceedings in favour of the police officers involved. Although the complaints of ill-treatment were made by the complainants at the same time as the charges were brought against them concerning the injured police officer, at the same investigating court and under control of the same judge, the speed at which each case has been investigated differs greatly. The investigatory stage of the attempted homicide case was completed in June 2006 and the case was pending trial in September 2007. In contrast, nobody was called to make a witness statement on the allegations of ill-treatment until January 2007. The investigating judge provisionally discharged the three complaints of ill-treatment at the end of July. The complainants' have submitted an appeal. Their families have also informed Amnesty International that they question the impartiality of the judge and fear that the trial will be unfair.

Javier S was arrested by two national police officers in Plaza Universitat (Barcelona) on the evening of 3 June 2005 while sitting with a small group of friends who had just participated in a gay pride demonstration. The officers grabbed him, beat him and then handcuffed him before throwing him into a police car. He was not told why he had been arrested. Along with several others who had also been detained he was taken to the police station in Vía Augusta. Upon arrival at the police station the detainees - nine in total - were subjected to insults, including homophobic comments. They were refused permission to use the toilet, to have something to drink or to see a doctor. Immediately after their release from police custody on 7 June 2005, Javier S and four others made formal complaints of ill-treatment at Investigating Court 22. Their complaints were rejected by the judge on 2 September who concluded that the police had acted with the minimal force necessary at the time of the arrest. The judge did not comment on the allegations of ill-treatment inside the police station. Javier S appealed to the Provincial Criminal Court of Barcelona, which on 7 December ordered the lower court to investigate the allegations. On 8 March 2006 the investigating judge closed the case again on the basis that the testimonies given by the police officers who had appeared in court (and who the complainants claimed were not the ones present in the police station during the incident) did not indicate any misconduct had occurred. The only recourse left to the complainants is to petition the Constitutional Court on the grounds of denial of due process, which is a lengthy and expensive procedure.


Public Document
****************************************
For more information please call Amnesty International's press office in London, UK, on +44 20 7413 5566
Amnesty International, 1 Easton St., London WC1X 0DW. web: http://www.amnesty.org

For latest human rights news view http://news.amnesty.org

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL-Public Statement

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

Public Statement

AI Index: AFR 01/008/2007 (Public)
News Service No: 221
14 November 2007


The African Commission: Amnesty International's oral statement on internally displaced persons
Amnesty International welcomes the report of the Special Rapporteur on Refugees, Asylum Seekers and Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) in Africa and would like to thank him for the important work he is carrying out and encourage him to continue to do so.

We would like to take this opportunity to highlight some of our recent findings pertinent to the mandate of the Special Rapporteur.

Chad

According to recent United Nations estimates, 170,000 Chadians have been forcibly displaced within their own country due to the ongoing armed conflict. In addition, over 30,000 Chadians have sought refuge in Sudan. The internal displacement in Chad has occurred within the context of an existing humanitarian emergency created by the influxes since 2003 of more than 240, 000 Sudanese refugees into the eastern region of Chad .

Women and girls who are able to flee often lose everything -- their homes, crops and sometimes even their husbands, older relatives and children. Living for the most part in IDP sites they are depending, for their survival, on the humanitarian aid they receive. Their precarious new environment offers them little security -- indeed many are at risk of rape and similar such assaults, specifically outside the IDP sites when they go out to find firewood and other resources for their families. The alleged perpetrators of these abuses include all the armed elements operating in eastern Chad, namely Chadian and Sudanese armed opposition movements, the Sudanese militia known as the Janjawid from Darfur, and members of the Chadian national army.

In June 2007, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) reported that in IDP sites the mortality rate was double the emergency threshold and that almost one child in five was suffering from acute malnutrition. At around the same time, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced that, given the poor quality of shelter and lack of access to clean water, there was a serious risk of malaria and diarrhea epidemics.

Central African Republic (CAR)

There has been mass displacement of the population in northern Central African Republic (CAR). Tens of thousands of northern CAR citizens have fled to neighboring countries, and several hundred thousand others have been internally displaced as a result of the insecurity prevailing in the region. The people are fleeing from the armed conflict between government forces and armed political groups, as well as from armed bandits who abduct mainly children for ransom.

More than 50,000 people have fled to southern Chad and over 26,000 have crossed to Cameroon, while several thousand have fled from north-eastern CAR to Sudan. The refugees in southern Chad have limited access to healthcare and other humanitarian assistance. During their visit to refugee camps in southern Chad in May 2007, Amnesty International delegates learned that refugees were receiving only 8.4kg of maize meal flour, a few hundred grams of salt and a cupful of oil per month per person from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). In many cases, refugees had to sell some of their meager supply of maize meal flour to buy vegetables to eat with the maize meal. By the start of August 2007, CAR refugees in Cameroon had no access to humanitarian assistance and were largely surviving on assistance provided by the local Cameroonian population and by selling the animals they had been able to flee with.

Over 200,000 people are internally displaced in northern CAR. The internally displaced persons (IDPs) have had to abandon their homes, food reserves and other property, which are often looted or destroyed by government soldiers, armed groups or armed bandits. The displaced people have limited access to humanitarian assistance, and succumb to exposure and lack of medical care when they try to survive in the wild.

Sudan

IDPs
In Darfur the number of IDPs continues to increase -- from the beginning of the year till the end of August 250,000 people were displaced, some for a second, third or fourth time. The Sudanese Armed Forces continues to bomb and attack civilian areas. In May and June 2007 more than 2,500 people made a 10-day trek to the Central African Republic after the government and Janjawid attacked Daffaq in South Darfur. Civilians are also displaced in attacks by the fragmented armed opposition groups on each other and also in those caused by internal fighting between different ethnic groups. Some of the worst ethnic fighting has been between Arab groups, such as the northern Rizeigat and the Tarjem, who have joined the Janjawid and been heavily armed and incorporated into paramilitary forces by the government. Darfur has become awash with arms from government and other sources and with the fragmentation of armed opposition groups, often into factions based on ethnic groups, the IDP camps are becoming militarized and divided and increasingly dangerous.

Refugees
Hundreds of Ethiopian refugees, some with refugee status confirmed by UNHCR, were rounded up in Sudan during June and July. Some had lived as refugees in Sudan since the 1970s; others arrived more recently, during the 1990s. In Ethiopia they were in danger of detention and torture; nevertheless, at least 15 of those detained in Sudan were forcibly returned to Ethiopia in September. Those forcibly returned were reportedly handed into the custody of Ethiopian security personnel and their present whereabouts are unknown.

One of those who was handed to Ethiopian security forces was Atanaw Wasie, aged 74, who suffers from chronic asthma. Atanaw Wasie was a political opponent of the Dergue who has lived in Sudan for more than 20 years. He was arrested in July in the town of Gedaref in Sudan, and forcibly returned from Sudan on 27 September. His family has searched for him and requested information on his whereabouts from the Ethiopian authorities without success. On 11 October UNHCR condemned the deportation of 15 Ethiopian refugees, and said that Khartoum had not responded to its requests for information.

The above highlighted cases require a strong and effective legal framework and implementation mechanism to ensure that governments and other members of the international community take seriously their obligations towards refugees and IDPs. Amnesty international therefore urges the African Commission to support the adoption of a new regional legal framework focusing on the rights of IDPs, based on the Guiding Principles of Internal Displacement which have already been endorsed by the African Commission.

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL-Public Statement

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
Public Statement

AI Index: AFR 01/007/2007 (Public)
News Service No: 221
14 November 2007


The African Commission: Amnesty International's oral statement on human rights defenders
Amnesty International is concerned about the continuing harassment, intimidation, torture and even extra-judicial killings of human rights defenders across Africa.

In the Democratic Republic of Congo, it has become increasingly difficult over the past months, in particular in the East of the country, for human rights defenders to carry out their legitimate work due to threats and harassment from local authorities and from armed groups.

In Egypt, human rights organisations have been operating under the restrictive Law 84 of 2002 on associations. Many of them have been refused registration by the Ministry of Social Solidarity citing "security reasons" and lodged sometimes successfully legal proceedings before the administrative court to appeal such decision. Those whose applications are rejected and who continue to operate live in constant threat of prosecution and closure. Such restrictive measures led to the closure of the Centre for Trade Union and Workers' Services in April 2007 and the Association for Human Rights and Legal Aid in September 2007. The attack against these two leading organisations appears to be linked to their work in support of workers' rights and of victims of torture and their families. Such worrying developments happen at a time when Egyptian human rights organisations await amendments to the already restrictive Law 84 of 2002 on associations amongst fears that the authorities are seeking to further restrict and control their activities through increased administrative measures, purportedly for security reasons.

In Ethiopia, Daniel Bekele and Netsanet Demissie are the two remaining defendants in the trial of the opposition political leaders, journalists and human rights defenders that followed the 2005 elections. They were arrested by police on 1 November 2005 and charged with "outrages against the Constitution". Both Daniel Bekele, policy manager of ActionAid in Ethiopia, and Netsanet Demissie, founder and director of the Organization of Social Justice, are human rights defenders and legal professionals who have been active in Ethiopian civil society. They have denied the charges against them, and said they had no connection with the political opposition. Amnesty International regards them as prisoners of conscience -- people who have not used or advocated violence. The verdict in their trial is due to be announced before the end of November and Amnesty International has called for their immediate and unconditional release.

In the Gambia, two Amnesty International staff members and Gambian journalist Yahya Dampha were arrested on 6 October 2007. They were released from police detention on 8 October with passports held and on the condition that they report back to the police each day until they were unconditionally released on 12 October. Amnesty International has received a formal apology from the Attorney General of The Gambia. However, soon after the Amnesty International staff left the country reports that Gambia's National Intelligence Agency were looking for Yahya Dampha forced him into hiding. Although Yahya Dampha is for the moment safe it is impossible for him to do his work and he fears for himself and his family. The arbitrary nature of the arrest highlights the challenges human rights defenders face in the Gambia and that result is a situation where human rights defenders live in fear for their life, security and freedom.

In Rwanda, long-standing human rights defender Francois-Xavier Byuma was sentenced to 19 years' imprisonment on 27 May 2007, after an unfair trial by the gacaca community court in the Bilyogo sector of Kigali. Turengere Abana, the organisation François-Xavier Byuma chairs, had looked into allegations that the judge presiding over the trial had raped a young girl. The judge therefore had a clear conflict of interest in the trial. The Appeal court decided on 18 August 2007 that the first instance verdict should stand, and the sentence of 19 years' imprisonment would remain. The court did not motivate its verdict, and gave no explanation on whether it had considered the question of impartiality of the judge in first instance. This failure by the court amounts to a gross miscarriage of justice. Amnesty International has called for a review of this case in line with international standards of fair trial.

In Somalia, Ahmed Mohamed Ali "Kiimiko" and Zakaria Mohammed Sheikh Yusuf, respectively the Chairperson and Legal Advisor of the Somali Human Rights Defenders Network (SOHRIDEN), have been investigating, documenting and reporting human rights violations and using advocacy to achieve change and respect for human rights. In recent months, both have received concrete and repeated death threats from opposition armed groups and unknown individuals, and threats and harassment from security forces of the Transitional Federal Government. These threats and attacks on their colleagues forced them to flee their country in October 2007. Amnesty International has urged all parties in the Somali conflict to end the attacks on human rights defenders and respect their work to uphold human rights.

In Zimbabwe, women human rights defenders are suffering increasing repression as they mobilise to confront the government in the face of a spiralling economic and social rights crisis. Many of these women reported being subjected to beatings and other ill-treatment while in police custody, in some cases amounting to torture. Much of the abuse has included sexist verbal abuse and derogatory accusations aimed at discrediting their character and work. Some have been detained with their children or while pregnant in deplorable conditions falling far below international human rights standards. Amnesty International has stressed that the international community must publicly condemn violations of human rights by the government of Zimbabwe, including organised violence by state actors, torture and ill-treatment, and more broadly the denial of human rights of women human rights defenders.

The above highlighted cases are but a few examples of the continuing violations of the human rights of human rights defenders in many parts of Africa. Attacks against human rights defenders violate the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders and international human rights standards guaranteeing the rights to freedom of association and assembly and the rights to freedom of expression among others. According to the Kigali Declaration adopted by the African Union (AU) Ministerial Conference on Human Rights in May 2003, African governments must "take appropriate steps to implement the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders in Africa."

Amnesty International calls on the African Commission to request its Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders to investigate the cases mentioned above and to report back to the Commission at its 43rd ordinary session on the steps the governments are taking to stop the abuses and on effective remedies provided to the victims.

We also call on the African Commission to adopt a resolution condemning attacks against human rights defenders in Africa and calling for the domestication and full implementation of the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders in Africa.