Web pages about "Trials And Legal Systems"

Stronger witness protection needed to ensure accountability for war crimes

Fri, 04 Jul 2008 13:48:57 +0100

Amnesty International yesterday expressed disappointment at the deportation from the UK of Sri Lankan national Vinayagamoorthi Muralitharan, known as Karuna, who is alleged to have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in Sri Lanka. He was deported following his conviction on immigration charges.

"The deportation of Karuna now means that the investigation by the UK authorities into these allegations has come to an end. Karuna is entitled to be presumed innocent, until and unless guilt can be proved beyond reasonable doubt in a fair trial. We will, however, be writing to the authorities of Sri Lanka to ask for an investigation to be started there into these allegations," said Amnesty International.

"We are also concerned that the investigation collapsed because the UK government did not dedicate the necessary resources to it and did not sufficiently reassure the victims or their relatives of their safety under a witness protection programme."

A number of non-governmental organizations had presented information to the Metropolitan Police (London's police force) relating to grave allegations of human rights abuses committed by Karuna. These included statements by victims and witnesses, and names of witnesses who were prepared to provide relevant details about Karuna’s alleged responsibility for or involvement in Sri Lanka in incidents of torture, hostage-taking, and the recruitment and use of children as soldiers in combat.

Amnesty International had also received testimonies from potential witnesses, but they were unwilling to testify or present their testimonies to the Metropolitan Police for fear of reprisals in the UK and in Sri Lanka. The organization is aware of at least one witness in Sri Lanka who provided information to the Metropolitan Police and who is still in Sri Lanka, without having been given any protection in that country, or having been given the choice of being relocated elsewhere. Amnesty International is concerned that this witness may now face a real risk of reprisals for having given information to the police investigation into Karuna.

“We have expressed our concerns to the Metropolitan Police that not enough may have been done to protect witnesses, and reassure potential witnesses, as they conducted their investigation. We would like to see the UK authorities introduce new measures in the future to try war criminals and protect witnesses,” said Amnesty International.

Amnesty International calls on the UK authorities to establish effective witness protection programmes for investigations into allegations such as these, modelled on the witness protection programmes of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the International Criminal Court. The organization also calls on the UK authorities to set up an independent and specialized police and prosecution unit with sufficient resources to deal with crimes against humanity, torture and war crimes.

Background
Karuna was a prominent leader of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), an armed opposition group fighting for an independent Tamil homeland in Sri Lanka. He left the LTTE to set up his own splinter group, the Tamileel Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal, or People's Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (TMVP), which also has a political wing. Since March 2004, the group appears to have been operating with the support of the Sri Lankan Army to challenge the LTTE in eastern Sri Lanka.

He was residing in the United Kingdom when he was taken into custody and charged by UK authorities in November 2007 in relation to immigration offences, for which he was subsequently convicted.

Although the allegations against Karuna relate to actions in Sri Lanka, the courts in the UK could have exercised jurisdiction over a number of the offences he is alleged to have committed:

over acts of torture committed since March 2004 (the date when Karuna became allied with government forces), in violation of Section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988; courts in the UK can try any individual for this offence if committed by, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official or person acting in an official capacity, no matter what the nationality of the perpetrator or where the alleged offence was committed: it is an offence of so-called ‘universal jurisdiction’;
acts of hostage taking committed since 1982, in violation of Section 1 (1) of the Taking of Hostages Act 1982: again, this is an offence of universal jurisdiction, for which the courts in the UK can try someone of any nationality, no matter where the offence was committed;
war crimes and crimes against humanity committed since September 2001, in violation of the International Criminal Court Act 2001: by virtue of s.51(2)(b) of that Act, the courts in the UK can try someone for a war crime or crime against humanity committed outside the UK, provided that the person is either a UK national, a UK resident or a person subject to UK service jurisdiction, such as serving members of the UK armed forces. To the best of Amnesty International's knowledge, Karuna was resident in the UK, for the purposes of this Act, at the time of his arrest in November 2007.

Amnesty International wrote to the Metropolitan Police raising concerns about the investigation on 14 May and again on 4 June 2008 but has not yet received any replies to these letters.

UK: Stronger witness protection needed to ensure accountability for war crimes

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 18:33:44 +0100

Amnesty International today expressed disappointment at the deportation from the UK of Sri Lankan national Vinayagamoorthi Muralitharan, known as Karuna, who is alleged to have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in Sri Lanka. He was deported following his conviction on immigration charges.

"The deportation of Karuna now means that the investigation by the UK authorities into these allegations has come to an end. Karuna is entitled to be presumed innocent, until and unless guilt can be proved beyond reasonable doubt in a fair trial. We will, however, be writing to the authorities of Sri Lanka to ask for an investigation to be started there into these allegations," said Amnesty International.

"We are also concerned that the investigation collapsed because the UK government did not dedicate the necessary resources to it and did not sufficiently reassure the victims or their relatives of their safety under a witness protection programme."

A number of non-governmental organizations had presented information to the Metropolitan Police (London's police force) relating to grave allegations of human rights abuses committed by Karuna. These included statements by victims and witnesses, and names of witnesses who were prepared to provide relevant details about Karuna’s alleged responsibility for or involvement in Sri Lanka in incidents of torture, hostage-taking, and the recruitment and use of children as soldiers in combat.

Amnesty International had also received testimonies from potential witnesses, but they were unwilling to testify or present their testimonies to the Metropolitan Police for fear of reprisals in the UK and in Sri Lanka. The organization is aware of at least one witness in Sri Lanka who provided information to the Metropolitan Police and who is still in Sri Lanka, without having been given any protection in that country, or having been given the choice of being relocated elsewhere. Amnesty International is concerned that this witness may now face a real risk of reprisals for having given information to the police investigation into Karuna.

“We have expressed our concerns to the Metropolitan Police that not enough may have been done to protect witnesses, and reassure potential witnesses, as they conducted their investigation. We would like to see the UK authorities introduce new measures in the future to try war criminals and protect witnesses,” said Amnesty International.

Amnesty International calls on the UK authorities to establish effective witness protection programmes for investigations into allegations such as these, modelled on the witness protection programmes of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the International Criminal Court. The organization also calls on the UK authorities to set up an independent and specialized police and prosecution unit with sufficient resources to deal with crimes against humanity, torture and war crimes.

Background
Karuna was a prominent leader of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), an armed opposition group fighting for an independent Tamil homeland in Sri Lanka. He left the LTTE to set up his own splinter group, the Tamileel Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal, or People's Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (TMVP), which also has a political wing. Since March 2004, the group appears to have been operating with the support of the Sri Lankan Army to challenge the LTTE in eastern Sri Lanka.

He was residing in the United Kingdom when he was taken into custody and charged by UK authorities in November 2007 in relation to immigration offences, for which he was subsequently convicted.

Although the allegations against Karuna relate to actions in Sri Lanka, the courts in the UK could have exercised jurisdiction over a number of the offences he is alleged to have committed:

over acts of torture committed since March 2004 (the date when Karuna became allied with government forces), in violation of Section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988; courts in the UK can try any individual for this offence if committed by, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official or person acting in an official capacity, no matter what the nationality of the perpetrator or where the alleged offence was committed: it is an offence of so-called ‘universal jurisdiction’;
acts of hostage taking committed since 1982, in violation of Section 1 (1) of the Taking of Hostages Act 1982: again, this is an offence of universal jurisdiction, for which the courts in the UK can try someone of any nationality, no matter where the offence was committed;
war crimes and crimes against humanity committed since September 2001, in violation of the International Criminal Court Act 2001: by virtue of s.51(2)(b) of that Act, the courts in the UK can try someone for a war crime or crime against humanity committed outside the UK, provided that the person is either a UK national, a UK resident or a person subject to UK service jurisdiction, such as serving members of the UK armed forces. To the best of Amnesty International's knowledge, Karuna was resident in the UK, for the purposes of this Act, at the time of his arrest in November 2007.

Amnesty International wrote to the Metropolitan Police raising concerns about the investigation on 14 May and again on 4 June 2008 but has not yet received any replies to these letters.

ENDS/

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

Child "enemy combatants" face Guantánamo hearings

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:52:09 +0100

Two people who were under 18 at the time of their detention by the US military in Afghanistan are facing military commission hearings in Guantánamo. Pre-trial hearings resumed this week in the cases of Mohammed Jawad and Omar Khadr.

These are the first commission hearings to take place since the US Supreme Court ruled last week that the Guantánamo detainees had the right to challenge their detention in the federal civilian courts. Amnesty International has an observer at the hearings.

As well as challenging the legality of the proceedings, their lawyers raised disturbing allegations of torture and ill-treatment and continuing concerns about the detainees’ physical and mental health.

Mohammed Jawad is an Afghan national who was aged 16 or 17 when detained in Kabul in December 2002. His lawyer, Air Force Major David Frakt, filed a motion to dismiss attempted murder charges against him on the ground that the US military had tortured him in Guantánamo through severe sleep deprivation and other ill-treatment.

Records revealed that Mohammed Jawad was subjected to what is known as the "frequent flyer program" in the course of a two-week period in May 2004. He was transferred to different Guantánamo cells 112 times every two hours. Mohammad Jawad had already tried to commit suicide some months before.

At the time he was subjected to the treatment, according to his lawyer, his custody records showed he had already been determined to have "no intelligence value". His record further showed only minor disciplinary infractions, such as calling out to fellow detainees in Pashto (his own language) while in isolation.

During his last appearance before a military commission in March, Amnesty International's observer noted that Mohammed Jawad was visibly agitated. At one point he removed the headphones he was wearing for interpretation, saying he had a severe headache. He put his head down on the table and did not raise it again for the rest of the proceedings.

Omar Khadr was only 15 years old when taken into US custody. The Canadian national also faces a military commission hearing today, at which the charges against him are expected to be challenged again. He is reported to have complained recently of feeling unwell and suffering dizziness, although a military health professional who visited him reported yesterday that he found him to be "in good health with no complaints or problems."

Amnesty International's observer made a request jointly with other NGO observers from Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First and the ACLU on Tuesday to be allowed to view the cells where Mohammed Jawad and Omar Khadr are currently held, because of concerns raised about the impact of their conditions on their mental and physical health. No response has yet been received from the authorities to this request.

Amnesty International has said that that no-one under 18 should ever have been transferred to Guantánamo or that anyone who was a child at the time of the alleged crime should be subjected to a military commission. Apart from fundamental flaws in the proceedings generally, the commission have no juvenile justice provisions as required under international law.

Amnesty International has called on the US authorities to abandon the fundamentally unfair military commissions in all cases; to close Guantánamo promptly and either release or charge and try the detainees held there in US federal civilian courts.

UK MPs vote to extend pre-charge detention

Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:26:31 +0100

UK Members of Parliament voted on Wednesday to extend yet further the maximum period of pre-charge detention for terror suspects. Amnesty International has called the vote "a dangerous and disappointing development."

"It risks moving the law in the UK even further away from fundamental principles of fairness and the protection of human rights," the organisation said.

This afternoon, the House of Commons – the lower, elected house of the UK Parliament – supported, by 315 votes to 306, proposals to give a government minister the power to extend from 28 to 42 days the period for which people suspected of involvement in terrorism can be detained by the police in the UK without being charged with any offence.

"No government minister should be able to invoke a power which would allow the police to hold people for six weeks without charging them with a criminal offence," said Amnesty International.

"People who are detained have a right to be charged promptly, or to be released: the law in the UK is moving further and further away from this basic principle and in so doing is increasing the scope for arbitrary detention and other violations of human rights."

Today's vote showed that members of the House of Commons may have been persuaded by last-minute concessions by the government that were claimed to provide safeguards for the exercise of this power. Amnesty International said that these concessions do not address the fundamental injustice of allowing an individual to be held for up to six weeks on the strength of a mere suspicion, without being charged with any offence.

The legislation now goes to the upper house – the House of Lords – for their consideration. Amnesty International said that the organisation will be calling on the members of the House of Lords to reject this proposal, and to give very careful scrutiny to some other worrying aspects of the Counter-Terrorism Bill.

Amnesty International renewed its call to the UK government to listen to the large number of MPs who voted against this dangerous and ill-conceived measure, and to the wide range of experts who have expressed the most pressing concerns about it, and to abandon it once and for all.

"Instead of allowing people to be held for longer and longer without being charged, the UK government should be committing itself to a root-and-branch review of all counter-terrorism legislation in the UK, with the aim of bringing it into line with basic international human rights standards – standards which protect the rights of individuals, including the right to be treated fairly and the right not to be detained arbitrarily for a prolonged period of time," Amnesty International said.

"The idea that countering terrorism somehow requires removing or eroding basic guarantees of individual liberty and physical safety is a dangerous and discredited one; the government should reject it once and for all."

Kurdish boy executed in Iran

Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:52:50 +0100

A Kurdish boy, believed to be 16 or 17 years old at the time of execution, was executed in Iran on Tuesday. Mohammad Hassanzadeh was hanged in Sanandaj prison following his conviction for the murder, when aged about 15, of another boy, then aged 10.

A 60-year-old man, Rahim Pashabadi, also convicted of murder, was executed alongside him. Amnesty International condemned the execution.

"This latest execution of a juvenile offender is yet another blatant violation by the Iranian authorities of their international obligations under the UN's International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child not to sentence to death those under the age of 18 at the time of the offence," said the organisation.

"It runs against hopes created by yesterday's decision by the Head of Iran's Judiciary to grant a one-month reprieve to two juvenile offenders to allow more time to seek a resolution with the families of the victims."

The two juvenile offenders who were due to be executed on Wednesday were granted the reprieve by Ayatollah Mahmoud Shahroudi on Tuesday. Behnoud Shojaee and Mohammad Feda’i were accused of premeditated murder and sentenced to qesas, or retribution, for which the penalty is death. Both had claimed that they did not intend to kill.

"We call on Iran to end, once and for all, such executions, including those of at least 85 other juvenile offenders on death row," said Amnesty International. "These juveniles should not have been sentenced to death in the first place."

Amnesty International has said that the organisation is also concerned about reports that Saeed Jazee, a third juvenile offender now aged 21, is also scheduled to be executed on 25 June.

Amnesty International has longstanding concerns with trial procedures that fall short of international standards which Iran is obliged to uphold.

In a recent letter by Mohammad Feda’i that was publicised on 7 June, he said that, while in detention, officials kicked and tortured him to the point that he agreed one night to sign a confession without knowledge of its content.

"I am a 21-year-old, a young man, who was only 16 when he entered prison. Like any other teenager, [I was] still living my childhood dreams […]," he wrote, adding "I was beaten and flogged repeatedly […] They hanged me from the ceiling [and] left me with no hope of living."

Amnesty International has recorded the names of at least 85 other juvenile offenders at risk of execution in Iran and fears there may be many others also at risk. Iran remains by far the most prolific executioner of juvenile offenders. In recent years, only two other countries – Saudi Arabia and Yemen – have carried out such executions.

Amnesty International said that the organisation recognises the right and responsibilities of states to bring those suspected of criminal offences to justice in fair proceedings, but opposes the death penalty in all cases.

"We call on Iran’s leaders, its judiciary and its new parliamentarians to ensure that Iran joins the global trend away from the use of the death penalty, powerfully expressed in the UN General Assembly’s resolution calling for a worldwide moratorium on executions on 18 December 2007," said Amnesty International.

Iran urged to overturn sentences against women activists

Tue, 20 May 2008 18:09:05 +0100

Amnesty International has written to the Head of the Judiciary in Iran, urging him to ensure that appeals hearings against the convictions and sentences of six women’s rights defenders (WRDs) passed in recent weeks in connection with their peaceful exercise of their rights to freedom of expression and association are heard promptly and impartially.

If the sentences are confirmed at appeal, the organization is calling on the Head of the Judiciary, Ayatollah Hashemi Shahroudi, to review the cases and to overturn the convictions of the women, all of whom will become prisoners of conscience if imprisoned.

Amnesty International also asked the Head of the Judiciary to ensure that all women’s rights defenders were free to leave and return to the country, in accordance with Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Iran is a state party.

All the sentences are suspended, but could be implemented if the women are convicted of a similar offence during the period of suspension. If any of them were to be imprisoned in the future as a result of these sentences, Amnesty International would call for their immediate and unconditional release as prisoners of conscience.

The organisation also urged the Head of the Judiciary to ensure that the flogging sentences imposed on the women are not implemented under any circumstances. Flogging is a form of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment, which amounts to torture, and is outlawed under Article 7 of the ICCPR.

The six women received suspended sentences between February and May 2008, in connection with their participation in a peaceful gathering on 4 March 2007 outside a court where five women’s rights activists were on trial for their involvement in an earlier demonstration in June 2006 demanding an end to discriminatory legislation. Thirty-three women in total were arrested at that time. All have been prosecuted under vaguely-worded laws on “security offences”. At least 12 others have been acquitted of all charges in connection with the March 2007 demonstration.

Marzieh Mortazi Langaroudi received a sentence of six months’ imprisonment and 10 lashes, suspended for two years, in February 2008.
Zeynab Peyghambarzadeh received a suspended sentence of two years in March 2008. She was convicted of “participating in an illegal gathering and collusion with intent to disrupt national security”.
Nasrin Afzali received a suspended sentence of six months and 10 lashes after conviction of “disturbing public order” in April 2008. She was acquitted of “participating in an illegal gathering and refusal to obey the orders of the police”.
Nahid Ja’fari received a sentence of six months and 10 lashes suspended for two years, in April 2008. She was convicted of “disturbing public order” but acquitted of “collusion with the intent of endangering national security and refusal to obey the orders of the police”. During her arrest on 4 March 2007, Nahid Jafari was beaten which resulted in some of her teeth being broken. She later lodged a complaint against those who arrested her in connection with the injuries she received. Her complaint has yet to be investigated by the courts.
Rezvan Moghaddam received a sentence of six months and 10 lashes, suspended for 3 years, several days later.
Parvin Ardalan received a sentence of two years imprisonment, suspended for three years, on charges of " gathering and collusion with the intent of endangering national security." In March 2008, prior to the issuing of her verdict, Parvin Ardalan was also banned from travelling to Sweden where she was due to collect the Olof Palme Human Rights Award. She was later summoned to Branch 13 of the Revolutionary Court in Tehran, where she was questioned in relation to her involevement with writing and editing on the websites of Change for Equality and Zanestan. She was also told that she must present invitations to conferences abroad as a precondition for the removal of her travel ban, although Iranian law does not require individuals to seek prior permission to travel. At the end of the court session, Parvin Ardalan was charged with “propaganda against the system”, although she was not detained pending her trial on this charge. Amnesty International is not aware of any date scheduled for her trial.

Amnesty International is calling on the Head of the Judiciary to overturn any convictions that may be confirmed in appeal hearings against the six women’s rights defenders found guilty in recent weeks in connection with the peaceful exercise of their rights to freedom of expression and association while demanding an end to discriminatory legislation in Iran.

Amnesty I is also urging the Head of the Judiciary to suspend immediately all sentences of flogging, including any imposed in connection with peaceful activities on behalf of women’s rights, and lift the travel ban imposed on Parvin Ardalan and any other women’s rights defenders who may be prevented from travelling abroad and return freely to Iran.

UK inquiry into torture and death of Iraqi in UK custody must be independent

Fri, 16 May 2008 16:01:04 +0100

Amnesty International has welcomed the public inquiry into the case of an Iraqi hotel receptionist who died after being tortured over a period of 36 hours while detained by UK troops in Basra.

Baha Mousa, a 26-year-old father of two, died in September 2003. A post-mortem examination revealed 93 separate injuries on his body.

Amnesty International said: "This recognition by the UK authorities of the need for a full public inquiry into the case is long-overdue. The family of Baha Mousa and their legal representatives, along with NGOs, including Amnesty International, have spent years campaigning for such an inquiry.

"It should not have taken so long for the UK authorities to acknowledge that an inquiry was needed, given the shocking facts of this case and the obvious inadequacies of the initial investigations," the organization said.

“What is now needed – at the very least – is a genuinely full, independent, impartial and thorough investigation into all of the circumstances of the torture and death of Baha Mousa, and the torture of a number of other Iraqi nationals detained at around the same time as him,” said Amnesty International.

Amnesty International has called for the inquiry to be given a broad enough remit to allow it to fully investigate how, when, where, why and by whom the advice was given that it was lawful for members of the UK armed forces to ‘condition’ detainees by the use of techniques such as hooding, sleep deprivation and placing in stress positions.

These techniques have long been outlawed in the UK, but had become, in the words of the judge presiding over the court martial arising from the case in 2007, “standard operating procedure” among the troops responsible for detaining Baha Mousa. The judge hearing the court martial described it as “a serious failing in the chain of command all the way up to Brigade and beyond”.

The terms of reference of the inquiry in this case are yet to be announced, but it has been confirmed that the intention is to hold it under the controversial Inquiries Act 2005. Amnesty International believes that this would damage the inquiry’s independence, impartiality and thoroughness. An inquiry under the Inquiries Act would allow the Secretary of State for Defence – the minister with responsibility for the armed forces, whose conduct will be the subject of the inquiry – significant and wide-ranging powers to impose restrictions on the inquiry if he thinks it is necessary “in the public interest” to do so.

These include the power to set the terms of reference for the inquiry, and to change them during the inquiry; to appoint the chair of the inquiry and, in consultation with the chair, to appoint all the members of the inquiry panel; to bring the inquiry to an end at any point; to impose restrictions on public access to the inquiry hearings, and public disclosure of the evidence considered in the inquiry; and to withhold any material from the final published report of the inquiry.

Amnesty International is worried that any inquiry held under this legislation into an allegation of serious human rights violations may not be independent enough from the government to meet the standards required by international human rights law.

Pakistan: Restore judges deposed under emergency law

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:15:10 +0100

Ahead of a 30 April deadline set by the ruling coalition, Amnesty International calls on the Pakistan government to reinstate around 60 judges of the higher courts removed by President Pervez Musharraf under emergency law, in defiance of the country’s constitution.

“The restoration of the judges is a necessary step toward ensuring an independent judiciary,” said Amnesty International. “Judges are in a unique position to challenge human rights policies, overturn abusive laws and protect individuals from violations.”

“Without an effective, independent judiciary, the human rights situation will remain bleak in Pakistan.”

“Unless all deposed judges are reinstated, future presidents and military leaders may feel justified in removing judges whenever they are unhappy with courts’ decisions.”

Amnesty International urges the Pakistan government and national parliament to formulate urgently a clear mechanism for appointing higher court judges, with a view to restoring an independent judiciary in line with UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. The mechanism should ensure that judges are free from conflicts of interest, intimidation or undue influence and have security of tenure. They must not be viewed as expendable tools by those in power.

Background
On 3 November 2007 President Pervez Musharraf imposed emergency rule in his capacity as Army Chief and removed around 60 judges from the Supreme Court and provincial High Courts. The Supreme Court was about to decide his eligibility for another term as President while also being Chief of Army staff. Among other things, the Court had vigorously pursed the cases of hundreds of “disappeared”, whose cases have been sidelined by President Musharraf’s hand-picked replacement judges.

For more information, please see the report: Pakistan Repairing the damage: Ensuring robust human rights safeguards (AI Index ASA 33/001/2008)

Pakistan must restore judges deposed under emergency law

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:35:38 +0100

The Pakistan government must reinstate around 60 judges of the higher courts removed by President Pervez Musharraf under emergency law ahead of a 30 April deadline set by the ruling coalition, Amnesty International has said.

"The restoration of the judges is a necessary step toward ensuring an independent judiciary," said Amnesty International. "Judges are in a unique position to challenge human rights policies, overturn abusive laws and protect individuals from violations."

"Without an effective, independent judiciary, the human rights situation will remain bleak in Pakistan."

"Unless all deposed judges are reinstated, future presidents and military leaders may feel justified in removing judges whenever they are unhappy with courts’ decisions."

Amnesty International has urged the Pakistan government and national parliament to formulate urgently a clear mechanism for appointing higher court judges, with a view to restoring an independent judiciary in line with UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. The mechanism should ensure that judges are free from conflicts of interest, intimidation or undue influence and have security of tenure. They must not be viewed as expendable tools by those in power.

On 3 November 2007, President Pervez Musharraf imposed emergency rule in his capacity as Army Chief and removed around 60 judges from the Supreme Court and provincial High Courts. The Supreme Court was about to decide his eligibility for another term as President while also being Chief of Army staff. Among other things, the Court had vigorously pursed the cases of hundreds of "disappeared", whose cases have been sidelined by President Musharraf’s hand-picked replacement judges.

Iraq executions follow apparently unfair trials

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:25:43 +0100

Twenty-eight people have been executed in Iraq this week following what appear to have been hasty and unfair trials. Those executed were arrested in clashes that took place in the past three weeks.

Amnesty International has said that, for them to be arrested, sentenced and executed within such a short period raises serious concerns about the trial process. The organization has called on the Iraqi authorities to disclose all relevant information about these trials, including whether those executed had access to legal representation or not.

"The circumstances of these executions make it urgent for the Iraqi authorities to establish a moratorium on the death penalty," Amnesty International said today.

Amnesty International has repeatedly expressed its concerns about the trials conducted by criminal courts in Iraq, and whose procedures fall short of international standards for fair trials.

"The Iraqi government argues that reinstating capital punishment would curb the widespread violence in the country," said Amnesty International. "The reality, however, is that violence has continued unabated and the death penalty has not been a deterrent."

The death penalty is being used extensively since its reintroduction in 2004 and hundreds of people have been sentenced to death after grossly unfair trials. Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all circumstances as a violation of the right to life and as the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.