Couverture médiatique – The Observatory For Defenders https://observatoryfordefenders.org/fr/ Wed, 22 Jan 2025 11:36:38 +0000 fr-FR hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4 https://observatoryfordefenders.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/cropped-OB-eye-orange-32x32.png Couverture médiatique – The Observatory For Defenders https://observatoryfordefenders.org/fr/ 32 32 Sri Lanka: Intimidation against prominent human rights lawyer Ambika Satkunanathan https://observatoryfordefenders.org/fr/alert/sri-lanka-intimidation-against-prominent-human-rights-lawyer-ambika-satkunanathan/ Mon, 14 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0000 https://pods.local/?post_type=alert&p=17888

JOINT NGO STATEMENT IN SOLIDARITY WITH SRI LANKAN HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDER AMBIKA SATKUNANATHAN

We the undersigned human rights organizations, express our deep concern about the statement issued by the Sri Lankan Foreign Ministry on February 4, 2022, in which the government denounced testimony given by Ambika Satkunanathan, a leading human rights lawyer, to the European Parliament on January 27. The government statement clearly constitutes an act of harassment and intimidation. We condemn the Sri Lankan government’s tactics to intimidate human rights defenders, and express our full solidarity with Ms. Satkunanathan, a well-known, respected and courageous human rights defender. Targeting her for providing accurate testimony about the human rights situation in Sri Lanka to the European Parliament is completely unacceptable, and sends a chilling message to all Sri Lankan civil society, especially those in the north and east, who are already operating under considerable duress under the current administration. Sri Lanka’s international partners, including the European Union, should publicly condemn the Sri Lankan government’s statement and express solidarity with Ms. Satkunanathan, who has been targeted for her international engagement, and increase their efforts to engage with Sri Lankan civil society at large. The Foreign Ministry’s statement contains numerous false claims in an attempt to disparage and delegitimize a distinguished human rights advocate, placing her at risk of physical danger in retribution for her brave work. The government’s claim that her testimony was “reminiscent of LTTE [Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam] propaganda that once stoked hatred among communities,” and that “such allegations need to be refuted in the interest of social harmony” Is particularly insidious and dangerous. The government’s statement mirrors its repeated practice of falsely equating human rights defenders and human rights advocacy with those pursuing “terrorism.” The statement’s language aligns these baseless allegations with vague and frequently abused provisions under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), exposing Ms. Satkunanathan to a heightened risk of threats, attacks and persecution. Ms. Satkunanathan was a commissioner of the National Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka before that body’s independence was compromised under the current administration and led the first national study on Sri Lanka’s prisons. Prior to that, she was for many years a legal consultant to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. She is the author of an important recent report on abuses committed during the so-called “war on drugs.” We are concerned that the government’s statement seeks to place the blame on human rights defenders if the European Union determines that Sri Lanka failed to meet its human rights commitments under GSP+, the preferential tariff system. The European Union should remind the Sri Lankan government that the responsibility to uphold its international human rights obligations rests with the government. The government’s treatment of human rights defenders reflects its lack of respect for international human rights law. We support Ms. Satkunanathan’s testimony to the European Parliament, which accurately described a situation already reported by the United Nations and many domestic and international human rights organizations. The government’s response contains numerous false statements, including:
  • The government claims to be “engaged in long standing cooperation with the UN human rights mechanisms and the UN Human Rights Council.” On the contrary, in February 2020, soon after taking office, the government of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa withdrew Sri Lankan support from consensus resolutions of the council, repudiating commitments made by the previous government. Special Procedures mandate holders of the Council issued a statement on February 5, 2021, noting that their recommendations, including on torture, the independence of the judiciary, arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances, minority rights, counterterrorism, freedom of religion or belief, and freedom of assembly and association, had been ignored.
  • The government claims to be “strengthen[ing] rule of law, access to justice and accountability.” However, President Rajapaksa campaigned on a platform of protecting “war heroes” from prosecution, and has appointed individuals implicated in war crimes to senior government posts. His presidential commission on “political victimization” has sought to interfere in judicial proceedings and block trials and investigations in human rights cases implicating the president’s associates and the president himself. The president pardoned Sunil Ratnayake, one of very few members of the armed forces ever convicted of human rights violations, who murdered eight Tamil civilians including children.
  • The government denies that civic space is shrinking, as Ms. Satkunanathan described in her testimony. Yet under the current government, many human rights defenders have said that they are subjected to continual government intimidation, intrusive surveillance, and attempts to block their access to funds. In her most recent update to the Human Rights Council, High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet wrote that, “surveillance, intimidation and judicial harassment of human rights defenders, journalists and families of the disappeared has not only continued, but has broadened to a wider spectrum of students, academics, medical professionals and religious leaders critical of government policies.” The UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery in his end-of-mission statement last December documented government intimidation of civil society and a “shrinking civic space.”
  • The government claims there is no “concrete evidence of discrimination against minorities.” In fact, for nearly a year the government banned the burial of people said to have died with Covid-19, causing immense distress to the Muslim community without any medical justification in what is only but one example of discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities. Such burials are now permitted only at a single remote site. In January 2021 High Commissioner Bachelet found that, “Tamil and Muslim minorities are being increasingly marginalized and excluded in statements about the national vision and Government policy... Sri Lanka’s Muslim community is increasingly scapegoated.” The High Commissioner’s findings are in line with reports by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and others that the Prevention of Terrorism Act is used almost exclusively against members of the Tamil and Muslim communities. The government continues to deny efforts to commemorate war victims belonging to the Tamil community..
  • The government denies Ms. Satkunanathan’s description of alleged extrajudicial killings committed in the context of Sri Lanka’s “war on drugs.” However, these abuses are widely documented. In September, High Commissioner Bachelet said, “I am deeply concerned about further deaths in police custody, and in the context of police encounters with alleged drug criminal gangs, as well as continuing reports of torture and ill-treatment by law enforcement officials.”
The Sri Lankan government’s statement attacking Ambika Satkunanathan for her testimony to the European Parliament’s Sub-Committee on Human Rights exemplifies threats faced by human rights defenders, particularly when they engage with foreign and international forums, and it further shows the government’s refusal to address the ongoing serious human rights violations taking place in the country. Instead of trying to silence those who seek to defend human rights, the government should give serious consideration to their input and contributions, and take urgent action to ensure that they can work in a safe environment without fear of reprisals.
]]>

JOINT NGO STATEMENT IN SOLIDARITY WITH SRI LANKAN HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDER AMBIKA SATKUNANATHAN

We the undersigned human rights organizations, express our deep concern about the statement issued by the Sri Lankan Foreign Ministry on February 4, 2022, in which the government denounced testimony given by Ambika Satkunanathan, a leading human rights lawyer, to the European Parliament on January 27. The government statement clearly constitutes an act of harassment and intimidation. We condemn the Sri Lankan government’s tactics to intimidate human rights defenders, and express our full solidarity with Ms. Satkunanathan, a well-known, respected and courageous human rights defender. Targeting her for providing accurate testimony about the human rights situation in Sri Lanka to the European Parliament is completely unacceptable, and sends a chilling message to all Sri Lankan civil society, especially those in the north and east, who are already operating under considerable duress under the current administration. Sri Lanka’s international partners, including the European Union, should publicly condemn the Sri Lankan government’s statement and express solidarity with Ms. Satkunanathan, who has been targeted for her international engagement, and increase their efforts to engage with Sri Lankan civil society at large. The Foreign Ministry’s statement contains numerous false claims in an attempt to disparage and delegitimize a distinguished human rights advocate, placing her at risk of physical danger in retribution for her brave work. The government’s claim that her testimony was “reminiscent of LTTE [Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam] propaganda that once stoked hatred among communities,” and that “such allegations need to be refuted in the interest of social harmony” Is particularly insidious and dangerous. The government’s statement mirrors its repeated practice of falsely equating human rights defenders and human rights advocacy with those pursuing “terrorism.” The statement’s language aligns these baseless allegations with vague and frequently abused provisions under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), exposing Ms. Satkunanathan to a heightened risk of threats, attacks and persecution. Ms. Satkunanathan was a commissioner of the National Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka before that body’s independence was compromised under the current administration and led the first national study on Sri Lanka’s prisons. Prior to that, she was for many years a legal consultant to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. She is the author of an important recent report on abuses committed during the so-called “war on drugs.” We are concerned that the government’s statement seeks to place the blame on human rights defenders if the European Union determines that Sri Lanka failed to meet its human rights commitments under GSP+, the preferential tariff system. The European Union should remind the Sri Lankan government that the responsibility to uphold its international human rights obligations rests with the government. The government’s treatment of human rights defenders reflects its lack of respect for international human rights law. We support Ms. Satkunanathan’s testimony to the European Parliament, which accurately described a situation already reported by the United Nations and many domestic and international human rights organizations. The government’s response contains numerous false statements, including:
  • The government claims to be “engaged in long standing cooperation with the UN human rights mechanisms and the UN Human Rights Council.” On the contrary, in February 2020, soon after taking office, the government of President Gotabaya Rajapaksa withdrew Sri Lankan support from consensus resolutions of the council, repudiating commitments made by the previous government. Special Procedures mandate holders of the Council issued a statement on February 5, 2021, noting that their recommendations, including on torture, the independence of the judiciary, arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances, minority rights, counterterrorism, freedom of religion or belief, and freedom of assembly and association, had been ignored.
  • The government claims to be “strengthen[ing] rule of law, access to justice and accountability.” However, President Rajapaksa campaigned on a platform of protecting “war heroes” from prosecution, and has appointed individuals implicated in war crimes to senior government posts. His presidential commission on “political victimization” has sought to interfere in judicial proceedings and block trials and investigations in human rights cases implicating the president’s associates and the president himself. The president pardoned Sunil Ratnayake, one of very few members of the armed forces ever convicted of human rights violations, who murdered eight Tamil civilians including children.
  • The government denies that civic space is shrinking, as Ms. Satkunanathan described in her testimony. Yet under the current government, many human rights defenders have said that they are subjected to continual government intimidation, intrusive surveillance, and attempts to block their access to funds. In her most recent update to the Human Rights Council, High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet wrote that, “surveillance, intimidation and judicial harassment of human rights defenders, journalists and families of the disappeared has not only continued, but has broadened to a wider spectrum of students, academics, medical professionals and religious leaders critical of government policies.” The UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery in his end-of-mission statement last December documented government intimidation of civil society and a “shrinking civic space.”
  • The government claims there is no “concrete evidence of discrimination against minorities.” In fact, for nearly a year the government banned the burial of people said to have died with Covid-19, causing immense distress to the Muslim community without any medical justification in what is only but one example of discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities. Such burials are now permitted only at a single remote site. In January 2021 High Commissioner Bachelet found that, “Tamil and Muslim minorities are being increasingly marginalized and excluded in statements about the national vision and Government policy... Sri Lanka’s Muslim community is increasingly scapegoated.” The High Commissioner’s findings are in line with reports by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and others that the Prevention of Terrorism Act is used almost exclusively against members of the Tamil and Muslim communities. The government continues to deny efforts to commemorate war victims belonging to the Tamil community..
  • The government denies Ms. Satkunanathan’s description of alleged extrajudicial killings committed in the context of Sri Lanka’s “war on drugs.” However, these abuses are widely documented. In September, High Commissioner Bachelet said, “I am deeply concerned about further deaths in police custody, and in the context of police encounters with alleged drug criminal gangs, as well as continuing reports of torture and ill-treatment by law enforcement officials.”
The Sri Lankan government’s statement attacking Ambika Satkunanathan for her testimony to the European Parliament’s Sub-Committee on Human Rights exemplifies threats faced by human rights defenders, particularly when they engage with foreign and international forums, and it further shows the government’s refusal to address the ongoing serious human rights violations taking place in the country. Instead of trying to silence those who seek to defend human rights, the government should give serious consideration to their input and contributions, and take urgent action to ensure that they can work in a safe environment without fear of reprisals.
]]> Tunisia: Serious threat to freedom of association in Tunisia https://observatoryfordefenders.org/fr/alert/tunisia-serious-threat-to-freedom-of-association-in-tunisia/ Fri, 11 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0000 https://pods.local/alert/tunisia-serious-threat-to-freedom-of-association-in-tunisia/ Geneva-Paris, 11 February 2022 – As a draft amendment of the decree-law on associations seems about to be adopted by the Tunisian government, the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders (OMCT-FIDH) expresses its deep concern over the threat posed by this amendment to freedom of association and calls on the authorities of Tunisia to withdraw it.
The draft amendment of Decree-Law No. 2011-88 of 24 September 2011, on the organisation of associations, which has recently been leaked, appears to demonstrate a desire by the Tunisian authorities to provide themselves with legal tools to control and foreseeably muzzle civil society, especially since it arises in a climate of increased attacks against human rights defenders in the country and of complete lack of dialogue between the authorities in place and civil society actors.In the first place, the draft undermines freedom of association by making the creation of an association subject to the intervention of the authorities. Whereas, in current legislation, an association is legally incorporated as from the submission of the declaration of incorporation to the general secretariat of the government, in the draft decree-law (article 12) this legal existence will be subject to publication of the announcement of creation in the Official Gazette of the Tunisian Republic (JORT). In practice, several associations have already experienced a serious delay in this publication well beyond the legal time limits which, henceforth, will have the effect of preventing the very existence of the association. Moreover, to publish the announcement of creation of their association in the JORT, the founders will be required to provide a copy of the bylaws signed by the authorities whereas, at present, it is sufficient for them to submit proof of receipt of the application for creation.Furthermore, article 10 of the decree-law gives the authorities power to refuse the incorporation of an association. Until now, it has been easy to incorporate any association and it is up to the authorities to take legal action should they deem, for example, that the mandate of the association is incompatible with the prohibition of incitement to hatred or discrimination and other principles listed in articles 3 and 4 of the current legislation. This power to refuse incorporation, which was already provided for international associations wishing to set up in Tunisia, would be extended to national associations. Although the refusal could be challenged before the administrative court, the excessive delays in the issuing of rulings even for urgent proceedings (at least three months for a judgment suspending execution) may hinder the right of associations that are victims of abuse to gain access to justice.Other provisions of the draft that give serious cause for concern include the introduction, in article 4, of the prohibition for associations to “threaten the unity of the State or its republican and democratic regime”. The notions of threat or attack against the security of the State tend to be subject to extensive interpretation in Tunisia. The introduction of this provision raises fears of abusive use in a political climate marked by the rhetoric of the traitor and the internal enemy used to discredit discordant voices. Article 4 adds that it is forbidden for the leaders of an association to stand for election during the three years preceding the date set for the election, an excessive and disproportionate prohibition that denies leaders of an association the constitutional right to stand for election.Article 10 of the draft also provides that the aims and activities of an association must not “fall within the competence of public bodies” or be “subject to a special legal system outside the scope of application of the decree-law”. This extremely vague provision is likely to lend itself to a broad and arbitrary interpretation and thus considerably restrain the right to freedom of association. Another provision that gives serious cause for concern introduces a procedure to control foreign funding of associations. Thus, article 35 of the draft forbids associations from accepting foreign aid, gifts or donations not authorised by the Tunisian Financial Analysis Commission. This commission, created in 2015 by the law on the fight against terrorism and the suppression of money laundering, is therefore entitled to issue an approval prior to any foreign funding that originates from a government, a foundation or an association. Moreover, the issue of the authorisation will not be subject to any time limit. This new procedure should be strictly regulated to guarantee that it cannot be used to hinder the funding and therefore the functioning of associations with activities or opinions that upset the public authorities. As well as voluntary dissolution and legal dissolution, the draft contemplates a new form of dissolution of an association: automatic dissolution based on a reasoned decision of the department responsible for the affairs of associations within the presidency of the government (article 33). This would be the case if an association, legally incorporated and registered in the National Register of Associations, were considered by the authorities as no longer having real and effective existence owing to the non-holding of its regular meetings or of the non-performance of its activities during three successive sessions. This is a new prerogative granted to the authorities to increase their control over the activities of associations. The automatic dissolution can be challenged before the administrative court, but the procedure is excessively slow as has been stated above. The Observatory considers that the draft amendment, were it to be adopted, would considerably restrict the legitimate activities of civil society and of human rights defenders, in violation of the right to freedom of association, a right protected by international human rights instruments to which Tunisia is a party, and especially by article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as by article 35 of the Tunisian Constitution. The Observatory therefore calls on the authorities of Tunisia to withdraw this draft, to guarantee the right to freedom of association in the country and to ensure that human rights defenders can perform their legitimate activities of defence of human rights without hindrance or fear of reprisal.
]]> Geneva-Paris, 11 February 2022 – As a draft amendment of the decree-law on associations seems about to be adopted by the Tunisian government, the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders (OMCT-FIDH) expresses its deep concern over the threat posed by this amendment to freedom of association and calls on the authorities of Tunisia to withdraw it.
The draft amendment of Decree-Law No. 2011-88 of 24 September 2011, on the organisation of associations, which has recently been leaked, appears to demonstrate a desire by the Tunisian authorities to provide themselves with legal tools to control and foreseeably muzzle civil society, especially since it arises in a climate of increased attacks against human rights defenders in the country and of complete lack of dialogue between the authorities in place and civil society actors.In the first place, the draft undermines freedom of association by making the creation of an association subject to the intervention of the authorities. Whereas, in current legislation, an association is legally incorporated as from the submission of the declaration of incorporation to the general secretariat of the government, in the draft decree-law (article 12) this legal existence will be subject to publication of the announcement of creation in the Official Gazette of the Tunisian Republic (JORT). In practice, several associations have already experienced a serious delay in this publication well beyond the legal time limits which, henceforth, will have the effect of preventing the very existence of the association. Moreover, to publish the announcement of creation of their association in the JORT, the founders will be required to provide a copy of the bylaws signed by the authorities whereas, at present, it is sufficient for them to submit proof of receipt of the application for creation.Furthermore, article 10 of the decree-law gives the authorities power to refuse the incorporation of an association. Until now, it has been easy to incorporate any association and it is up to the authorities to take legal action should they deem, for example, that the mandate of the association is incompatible with the prohibition of incitement to hatred or discrimination and other principles listed in articles 3 and 4 of the current legislation. This power to refuse incorporation, which was already provided for international associations wishing to set up in Tunisia, would be extended to national associations. Although the refusal could be challenged before the administrative court, the excessive delays in the issuing of rulings even for urgent proceedings (at least three months for a judgment suspending execution) may hinder the right of associations that are victims of abuse to gain access to justice.Other provisions of the draft that give serious cause for concern include the introduction, in article 4, of the prohibition for associations to “threaten the unity of the State or its republican and democratic regime”. The notions of threat or attack against the security of the State tend to be subject to extensive interpretation in Tunisia. The introduction of this provision raises fears of abusive use in a political climate marked by the rhetoric of the traitor and the internal enemy used to discredit discordant voices. Article 4 adds that it is forbidden for the leaders of an association to stand for election during the three years preceding the date set for the election, an excessive and disproportionate prohibition that denies leaders of an association the constitutional right to stand for election.Article 10 of the draft also provides that the aims and activities of an association must not “fall within the competence of public bodies” or be “subject to a special legal system outside the scope of application of the decree-law”. This extremely vague provision is likely to lend itself to a broad and arbitrary interpretation and thus considerably restrain the right to freedom of association. Another provision that gives serious cause for concern introduces a procedure to control foreign funding of associations. Thus, article 35 of the draft forbids associations from accepting foreign aid, gifts or donations not authorised by the Tunisian Financial Analysis Commission. This commission, created in 2015 by the law on the fight against terrorism and the suppression of money laundering, is therefore entitled to issue an approval prior to any foreign funding that originates from a government, a foundation or an association. Moreover, the issue of the authorisation will not be subject to any time limit. This new procedure should be strictly regulated to guarantee that it cannot be used to hinder the funding and therefore the functioning of associations with activities or opinions that upset the public authorities. As well as voluntary dissolution and legal dissolution, the draft contemplates a new form of dissolution of an association: automatic dissolution based on a reasoned decision of the department responsible for the affairs of associations within the presidency of the government (article 33). This would be the case if an association, legally incorporated and registered in the National Register of Associations, were considered by the authorities as no longer having real and effective existence owing to the non-holding of its regular meetings or of the non-performance of its activities during three successive sessions. This is a new prerogative granted to the authorities to increase their control over the activities of associations. The automatic dissolution can be challenged before the administrative court, but the procedure is excessively slow as has been stated above. The Observatory considers that the draft amendment, were it to be adopted, would considerably restrict the legitimate activities of civil society and of human rights defenders, in violation of the right to freedom of association, a right protected by international human rights instruments to which Tunisia is a party, and especially by article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as by article 35 of the Tunisian Constitution. The Observatory therefore calls on the authorities of Tunisia to withdraw this draft, to guarantee the right to freedom of association in the country and to ensure that human rights defenders can perform their legitimate activities of defence of human rights without hindrance or fear of reprisal.
]]> Sudan: Sentencing of women’s rights defender Waad Bahjat https://observatoryfordefenders.org/fr/alert/sdn-001-0121-obs-007-1-waad-bahjat/ Thu, 08 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0000 https://pods.local/?post_type=alert&p=17135 Honduras: Criminalización a 13 defensores del derecho al agua de Guapinol y San Pedro en Tocoa https://observatoryfordefenders.org/fr/alert/honduras-criminalizacion-a-13-defensores-del-derecho-al-agua-de-guapinol-y-san-pedro-en-tocoa/ Mon, 24 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0000 https://pods.local/?post_type=alert&p=16356 Porfirio Sorto Cedillo, José Abelino Cedillo, Kelvin Alejandro Romero, Arnol Javier Alemán, Ever Alexander Cedillo, Orbin Nahún Hernández y Daniel Márquez, quienes se encuentran privados de libertad en el Centro Penal de Olanchito, así como para el Sr. Jeremías Martínez, privado de libertad en el Centro Penal La Ceiba. En cuanto a la prisión preventiva de estas ocho personas, la Corte de Apelaciones se pronunció sobre un recurso presentado por la defensa el 7 de noviembre de 2019, en el que solicitaba revocar la medida cautelar de prisión preventiva. Sin embargo, en su dictamen, la Corte de Apelaciones, hizo referencia a un expediente completamente diferente. En su tercer fallo, la Corte de Apelaciones denegó la solicitud de audiencia de revisión de medidas cautelares, presentada por la representación legal de las personas defensoras el 11 de marzo de 2020, afirmando no tener competencia para celebrar tal audiencia. En el cuarto fallo, la Corte revocó el sobreseimiento definitivo por los delitos de “incendio agravado” y “privación injusta de libertad” para los Sres. Juan Antonio López, Leonel George, Reynaldo Domínguez, Marco Tulio Ramon y José Adalid Cedillo, cinco de los doce defensores a favor de los cuales se habían desestimado dichos cargos en marzo de 2019. En su decisión, la Corte de Apelaciones no individualizó los cargos ni proporcionó ningún argumento legal que justifique su decisión. En este caso, el equipo de defensa legal ha presentado reposiciones para impugnar el fallo de la Corte. Asimismo, la Corte de Apelaciones ratificó el sobreseimiento definitivo por el delito de “asociación ilícita” para todas las personas defensoras de Guapinol criminalizadas que se habían presentado voluntariamente ante los tribunales, y cambió el sobreseimiento definitivo por el delito de “robo” a un sobreseimiento provisional. Sobre los delitos de “usurpación” y “daños” que 14 del total de 20 defensores criminalizados también enfrentan, la Corte de Apelaciones no se ha pronunciado. (ver Antecedentes). El Observatorio destaca que los cuatro fallos fueron emitidos el 3 de marzo de 2020. Sin embargo, la Corte de Apelaciones no lo notificó oficialmente hasta el 13 de agosto, hecho que representa una grave denegación de justicia. Asimismo, la Corte se negó a aceptar y a considerar en su fallo un documento suplementario presentado por el equipo legal de los defensores el 6 de agosto de 2020. Éste contenía los cambios en el nuevo Código Penal de Honduras y sus impactos favorables en el caso. En las próximas semanas, el expediente del caso debe de ser trasladado al Juzgado de Letras de Jurisdicción Nacional, quien deberá convocar una audiencia para notificar a las partes y para decidir las medidas que se deben aplicar a los cinco defensores nuevamente criminalizados. Durante la audiencia, la representación legal solicitará el cambio de medidas para los ocho defensores en prisión preventiva. El Observatorio reitera su condena al uso indebido del derecho penal para controlar, neutralizar y castigar a las personas que ejercen el derecho a la resistencia en defensa de la tierra y el territorio y muestra su preocupación por el mantenimiento de la medida cautelar de prisión preventiva para los Sres. Porfirio Sorto Cedillo, José Abelino Cedillo, Kelvin Alejandro Romero, Arnold Javier Alemán, Ever Alexander Cedillo, Orbin Nahún Hernández y Daniel Márquez y Jeremías Martínez. En este sentido, el Observatorio recuerda que el 19 de marzo de 2020, sus representantes legales presentaron una acción de habeas corpus ante la Corte Suprema de Justicia con el fin de garantizar la salud y la vida de los defensores en el actual contexto de crisis sanitaria. Sin embargo, ésta fue rechazada, a pesar de los llamamientos públicos hechos por la Alta Comisionada de las Naciones Unidas para los Derechos Humanos, Michelle Bachelet, exhortando a los Estados a tomar medidas alternativas a la privación de libertad para aquellas personas detenidas sin motivos jurídicos suficientes [2]. Asimismo, el Observatorio condena enérgicamente la continuación de la criminalización contra los defensores del derecho al agua de Guapinol, así como las violaciones al debido proceso, particularmente el incumplimiento de los plazos procesales para la emisión de resoluciones judiciales. Por todo lo anterior, el Observatorio reitera su llamado a las autoridades de Honduras a tomar medidas concretas y urgentes para asegurar el respeto del derecho al debido proceso de las personas defensoras anteriormente mencionadas y a poner fin de inmediato a todo acto de hostigamiento —incluido a nivel judicial— en contra de los pobladores de Guapinol y Sector San Pedro, así como de todas las personas defensoras de derechos humanos en Honduras, particularmente en el marco de la defensa del derecho a la tierra y al territorio frente a empresas mineras. Antecedentes: El 1 de agosto de 2018, pobladores de comunidades del sector de Guapinol instalaron un campamento en protesta a las actividades de la empresa minera «Inversiones Los Pinares» que trabajaba en la apertura de una carretera dentro del Parque Nacional Montaña de Botaderos donde se ubican dos concesiones, pasando a unos 20 metros del río Guapinol. Según los pobladores, el arrastre de los sedimentos de la apertura de la carretera hizo que los sistemas de agua potable se llenaron de lodo. Además, pobladores de 13 comunidades del sector de San Pedro se sumaron a la protesta ya que la explotación minera está ubicada en la zona donde nace el río San Pedro, que les abastece de agua. Los pobladores consideran ilegal e injusta la autorización sin consulta de concesiones mineras en la zona núcleo de un área protegida donde nace el agua que usan para sobrevivir. El 7 de septiembre de 2018, un joven resultó herido luego de ser atacado por un grupo de guardias contratados por la empresa “Inversiones Los Pinares”, en el sitio en donde mantenían el campamento los pobladores de Guapinol y Sector San Pedro, hecho que no ha sido investigado ni sancionado. El 27 de octubre de 2018, aproximadamente 1500 efectivos militares y policiales llevaron a cabo un desalojo violento del campamento. El 21 de febrero de 2019, 13 de 18 personas del municipio de Toco se presentaron voluntariamente al juzgado de La Ceiba ante la orden de detención emitida en su contra por supuestos delitos de “usurpación” y “daños” contra la empresa “Inversiones Los Pinares” y el Estado de Honduras. Al presentarse al juzgado, las personas defensoras y sus abogados fueron sorprendidos con la existencia de una segunda solicitud de captura en contra de 31 personas, dentro de las cuales, 12 de las 13 personas que se habían presentado, se les acusaba de delitos adicionales, incluidos “privación injusta de la libertad”, “incendio agravado”, “robo” y “asociación ilícita”. Ante esa situación, los abogados defensores interpusieron un recurso de recusación en contra del juez de La Ceiba y el caso fue trasladado a un juez de Jurisdicción Nacional con sede en Tegucigalpa. Las 13 personas fueron trasladadas a Tegucigalpa con fuertes medidas de seguridad militar y policial. Al día siguiente, se celebró la audiencia de declaración de imputado ante el juez de Jurisdicción Nacional Víctor Méndez quien ordenó la detención judicial para 12 de las 13 personas [3], en virtud de que entre los delitos por los cuales se les acusaban, figuraba el delito de “asociación ilícita”, que conlleva automáticamente la prisión preventiva, algo que ha sido denunciado reiteradamente como un tipo penal utilizado para criminalizar la defensa de derechos humanos. Los doce defensores estuvieron en el Centro Penal de Tamara hasta el 28 de febrero cuando inició su primera audiencia inicial por el primer requerimiento de “usurpación” y “daños” ante el mismo Juez Méndez. A las 2:35 de la madrugada del 2 de marzo de 2019 el juez de Jurisdicción Nacional dictó sobreseimiento definitivo para los delitos de “usurpación” y “daños” contra la empresa "Inversiones los Pinares" de los que se acusaba a las 13 personas defensoras según el expediente inicial número 148-2018 emitido por el Juzgado de Jurisdicción Nacional en San Pedro Sula en octubre de 2018. Horas después, empezó la segunda audiencia inicial por la segunda causa en el caso de criminalización contra las doce personas defensoras del derecho al agua que permanecían privadas de libertad bajo prisión preventiva. El 4 de marzo el Juez Méndez de Jurisdicción nacional dictó sobreseimiento definitivo para los delitos de “privación injusta de la libertad”, “incendio agravado”, “robo” y “asociación ilícita” y las 12 personas defensoras fueron puestas en libertad el día 6 de marzo. El Observatorio mostró su preocupación por el lamentable papel jugado por el Ministerio Público durante las casi 50 horas de audiencias en las que quedó patente que carecía completamente de pruebas. A modo de ejemplo, como parte de las pruebas presentadas por el Ministerio Público, aparecía una matriz que señalaba a los integrantes de “La Banda de la Aldea de Guapinol” en la que aparecía como presunto integrante del supuesto grupo criminal la fotografía y nombre del Sr. Antonio Martínez Ramos, quien aparecía en el segundo requerimiento fiscal a pesar de haber fallecido en el 2015 por lo que evidentemente no podía ser culpable de los delitos que se le atribuían. La empresa apeló la decisión de sobreseimiento definitivo y la Corte de Apelación aceptó el recurso. El lunes 26 de agosto de 2019 un grupo siete defensores de derechos humanos [4] de los 31 criminalizados, se presentaron voluntariamente ante la jueza de Jurisdicción Nacional, Lisseth Vallecillo, buscando poner fin al proceso de criminalización en su contra y que se reconociera su inocencia en el marco del caso “Guapinol” en el que, en marzo de 2019, 12 personas defensoras que enfrentaban las mismas acusaciones fueron absueltas. Durante la audiencia de presentación de imputados celebrada el 26 de agosto, la Jueza Lisseth Vallecillo de Jurisdicción Nacional dictó detención judicial contra los siete defensores y contra el Sr. Jeremías Martínez Díaz [5] al existir una acusación por “asociación ilícita” en su contra. Los defensores fueron privados de libertad en la penitenciaría nacional Marco Aurelio Soto en Támara, Departamento de Francisco Morazán. El 28 de agosto de 2019, el Sr. Argueta Tejada, uno de los defensores criminalizados en el caso Guapinol que había decidido voluntariamente no presentarse ante el juez, fue asesinado a balazos por personas desconocidas. Entre el 31 de agosto y el 1 de septiembre tuvo lugar la audiencia inicial contra los ocho defensores. Se dictó sobreseimiento definitivo por los delitos de “robo” y “asociación ilícita” y auto formal de procesamiento por los delitos de “incendio agravado” y “privación injusta de libertad” y dictó prisión preventiva, aunque estos delitos no requieren de esta medida, para los ocho defensores y para el Sr. Antonio Martínez Ramos, quien había fallecido cuatro años antes. El 6 de noviembre de 2019 tuvo lugar la audiencia de revisión de medidas, en la que la jueza confirmó las medidas de prisión preventiva para los defensores. Al día siguiente, , sus representantes legales presentaron un recurso de apelación ante la Corte de Apelaciones, que no fue recibida hasta el 25 de febrero de 2020. El 11 de marzo de 2020, se presentó una nueva solicitud de audiencia para revisar la medida.]]> Porfirio Sorto Cedillo, José Abelino Cedillo, Kelvin Alejandro Romero, Arnol Javier Alemán, Ever Alexander Cedillo, Orbin Nahún Hernández y Daniel Márquez, quienes se encuentran privados de libertad en el Centro Penal de Olanchito, así como para el Sr. Jeremías Martínez, privado de libertad en el Centro Penal La Ceiba. En cuanto a la prisión preventiva de estas ocho personas, la Corte de Apelaciones se pronunció sobre un recurso presentado por la defensa el 7 de noviembre de 2019, en el que solicitaba revocar la medida cautelar de prisión preventiva. Sin embargo, en su dictamen, la Corte de Apelaciones, hizo referencia a un expediente completamente diferente. En su tercer fallo, la Corte de Apelaciones denegó la solicitud de audiencia de revisión de medidas cautelares, presentada por la representación legal de las personas defensoras el 11 de marzo de 2020, afirmando no tener competencia para celebrar tal audiencia. En el cuarto fallo, la Corte revocó el sobreseimiento definitivo por los delitos de “incendio agravado” y “privación injusta de libertad” para los Sres. Juan Antonio López, Leonel George, Reynaldo Domínguez, Marco Tulio Ramon y José Adalid Cedillo, cinco de los doce defensores a favor de los cuales se habían desestimado dichos cargos en marzo de 2019. En su decisión, la Corte de Apelaciones no individualizó los cargos ni proporcionó ningún argumento legal que justifique su decisión. En este caso, el equipo de defensa legal ha presentado reposiciones para impugnar el fallo de la Corte. Asimismo, la Corte de Apelaciones ratificó el sobreseimiento definitivo por el delito de “asociación ilícita” para todas las personas defensoras de Guapinol criminalizadas que se habían presentado voluntariamente ante los tribunales, y cambió el sobreseimiento definitivo por el delito de “robo” a un sobreseimiento provisional. Sobre los delitos de “usurpación” y “daños” que 14 del total de 20 defensores criminalizados también enfrentan, la Corte de Apelaciones no se ha pronunciado. (ver Antecedentes). El Observatorio destaca que los cuatro fallos fueron emitidos el 3 de marzo de 2020. Sin embargo, la Corte de Apelaciones no lo notificó oficialmente hasta el 13 de agosto, hecho que representa una grave denegación de justicia. Asimismo, la Corte se negó a aceptar y a considerar en su fallo un documento suplementario presentado por el equipo legal de los defensores el 6 de agosto de 2020. Éste contenía los cambios en el nuevo Código Penal de Honduras y sus impactos favorables en el caso. En las próximas semanas, el expediente del caso debe de ser trasladado al Juzgado de Letras de Jurisdicción Nacional, quien deberá convocar una audiencia para notificar a las partes y para decidir las medidas que se deben aplicar a los cinco defensores nuevamente criminalizados. Durante la audiencia, la representación legal solicitará el cambio de medidas para los ocho defensores en prisión preventiva. El Observatorio reitera su condena al uso indebido del derecho penal para controlar, neutralizar y castigar a las personas que ejercen el derecho a la resistencia en defensa de la tierra y el territorio y muestra su preocupación por el mantenimiento de la medida cautelar de prisión preventiva para los Sres. Porfirio Sorto Cedillo, José Abelino Cedillo, Kelvin Alejandro Romero, Arnold Javier Alemán, Ever Alexander Cedillo, Orbin Nahún Hernández y Daniel Márquez y Jeremías Martínez. En este sentido, el Observatorio recuerda que el 19 de marzo de 2020, sus representantes legales presentaron una acción de habeas corpus ante la Corte Suprema de Justicia con el fin de garantizar la salud y la vida de los defensores en el actual contexto de crisis sanitaria. Sin embargo, ésta fue rechazada, a pesar de los llamamientos públicos hechos por la Alta Comisionada de las Naciones Unidas para los Derechos Humanos, Michelle Bachelet, exhortando a los Estados a tomar medidas alternativas a la privación de libertad para aquellas personas detenidas sin motivos jurídicos suficientes [2]. Asimismo, el Observatorio condena enérgicamente la continuación de la criminalización contra los defensores del derecho al agua de Guapinol, así como las violaciones al debido proceso, particularmente el incumplimiento de los plazos procesales para la emisión de resoluciones judiciales. Por todo lo anterior, el Observatorio reitera su llamado a las autoridades de Honduras a tomar medidas concretas y urgentes para asegurar el respeto del derecho al debido proceso de las personas defensoras anteriormente mencionadas y a poner fin de inmediato a todo acto de hostigamiento —incluido a nivel judicial— en contra de los pobladores de Guapinol y Sector San Pedro, así como de todas las personas defensoras de derechos humanos en Honduras, particularmente en el marco de la defensa del derecho a la tierra y al territorio frente a empresas mineras. Antecedentes: El 1 de agosto de 2018, pobladores de comunidades del sector de Guapinol instalaron un campamento en protesta a las actividades de la empresa minera «Inversiones Los Pinares» que trabajaba en la apertura de una carretera dentro del Parque Nacional Montaña de Botaderos donde se ubican dos concesiones, pasando a unos 20 metros del río Guapinol. Según los pobladores, el arrastre de los sedimentos de la apertura de la carretera hizo que los sistemas de agua potable se llenaron de lodo. Además, pobladores de 13 comunidades del sector de San Pedro se sumaron a la protesta ya que la explotación minera está ubicada en la zona donde nace el río San Pedro, que les abastece de agua. Los pobladores consideran ilegal e injusta la autorización sin consulta de concesiones mineras en la zona núcleo de un área protegida donde nace el agua que usan para sobrevivir. El 7 de septiembre de 2018, un joven resultó herido luego de ser atacado por un grupo de guardias contratados por la empresa “Inversiones Los Pinares”, en el sitio en donde mantenían el campamento los pobladores de Guapinol y Sector San Pedro, hecho que no ha sido investigado ni sancionado. El 27 de octubre de 2018, aproximadamente 1500 efectivos militares y policiales llevaron a cabo un desalojo violento del campamento. El 21 de febrero de 2019, 13 de 18 personas del municipio de Toco se presentaron voluntariamente al juzgado de La Ceiba ante la orden de detención emitida en su contra por supuestos delitos de “usurpación” y “daños” contra la empresa “Inversiones Los Pinares” y el Estado de Honduras. Al presentarse al juzgado, las personas defensoras y sus abogados fueron sorprendidos con la existencia de una segunda solicitud de captura en contra de 31 personas, dentro de las cuales, 12 de las 13 personas que se habían presentado, se les acusaba de delitos adicionales, incluidos “privación injusta de la libertad”, “incendio agravado”, “robo” y “asociación ilícita”. Ante esa situación, los abogados defensores interpusieron un recurso de recusación en contra del juez de La Ceiba y el caso fue trasladado a un juez de Jurisdicción Nacional con sede en Tegucigalpa. Las 13 personas fueron trasladadas a Tegucigalpa con fuertes medidas de seguridad militar y policial. Al día siguiente, se celebró la audiencia de declaración de imputado ante el juez de Jurisdicción Nacional Víctor Méndez quien ordenó la detención judicial para 12 de las 13 personas [3], en virtud de que entre los delitos por los cuales se les acusaban, figuraba el delito de “asociación ilícita”, que conlleva automáticamente la prisión preventiva, algo que ha sido denunciado reiteradamente como un tipo penal utilizado para criminalizar la defensa de derechos humanos. Los doce defensores estuvieron en el Centro Penal de Tamara hasta el 28 de febrero cuando inició su primera audiencia inicial por el primer requerimiento de “usurpación” y “daños” ante el mismo Juez Méndez. A las 2:35 de la madrugada del 2 de marzo de 2019 el juez de Jurisdicción Nacional dictó sobreseimiento definitivo para los delitos de “usurpación” y “daños” contra la empresa "Inversiones los Pinares" de los que se acusaba a las 13 personas defensoras según el expediente inicial número 148-2018 emitido por el Juzgado de Jurisdicción Nacional en San Pedro Sula en octubre de 2018. Horas después, empezó la segunda audiencia inicial por la segunda causa en el caso de criminalización contra las doce personas defensoras del derecho al agua que permanecían privadas de libertad bajo prisión preventiva. El 4 de marzo el Juez Méndez de Jurisdicción nacional dictó sobreseimiento definitivo para los delitos de “privación injusta de la libertad”, “incendio agravado”, “robo” y “asociación ilícita” y las 12 personas defensoras fueron puestas en libertad el día 6 de marzo. El Observatorio mostró su preocupación por el lamentable papel jugado por el Ministerio Público durante las casi 50 horas de audiencias en las que quedó patente que carecía completamente de pruebas. A modo de ejemplo, como parte de las pruebas presentadas por el Ministerio Público, aparecía una matriz que señalaba a los integrantes de “La Banda de la Aldea de Guapinol” en la que aparecía como presunto integrante del supuesto grupo criminal la fotografía y nombre del Sr. Antonio Martínez Ramos, quien aparecía en el segundo requerimiento fiscal a pesar de haber fallecido en el 2015 por lo que evidentemente no podía ser culpable de los delitos que se le atribuían. La empresa apeló la decisión de sobreseimiento definitivo y la Corte de Apelación aceptó el recurso. El lunes 26 de agosto de 2019 un grupo siete defensores de derechos humanos [4] de los 31 criminalizados, se presentaron voluntariamente ante la jueza de Jurisdicción Nacional, Lisseth Vallecillo, buscando poner fin al proceso de criminalización en su contra y que se reconociera su inocencia en el marco del caso “Guapinol” en el que, en marzo de 2019, 12 personas defensoras que enfrentaban las mismas acusaciones fueron absueltas. Durante la audiencia de presentación de imputados celebrada el 26 de agosto, la Jueza Lisseth Vallecillo de Jurisdicción Nacional dictó detención judicial contra los siete defensores y contra el Sr. Jeremías Martínez Díaz [5] al existir una acusación por “asociación ilícita” en su contra. Los defensores fueron privados de libertad en la penitenciaría nacional Marco Aurelio Soto en Támara, Departamento de Francisco Morazán. El 28 de agosto de 2019, el Sr. Argueta Tejada, uno de los defensores criminalizados en el caso Guapinol que había decidido voluntariamente no presentarse ante el juez, fue asesinado a balazos por personas desconocidas. Entre el 31 de agosto y el 1 de septiembre tuvo lugar la audiencia inicial contra los ocho defensores. Se dictó sobreseimiento definitivo por los delitos de “robo” y “asociación ilícita” y auto formal de procesamiento por los delitos de “incendio agravado” y “privación injusta de libertad” y dictó prisión preventiva, aunque estos delitos no requieren de esta medida, para los ocho defensores y para el Sr. Antonio Martínez Ramos, quien había fallecido cuatro años antes. El 6 de noviembre de 2019 tuvo lugar la audiencia de revisión de medidas, en la que la jueza confirmó las medidas de prisión preventiva para los defensores. Al día siguiente, , sus representantes legales presentaron un recurso de apelación ante la Corte de Apelaciones, que no fue recibida hasta el 25 de febrero de 2020. El 11 de marzo de 2020, se presentó una nueva solicitud de audiencia para revisar la medida.]]> RDC : Intimidation et menaces de mort à l’encontre du Dr. Denis Mukwege https://observatoryfordefenders.org/fr/alert/rdc-intimidation-et-menaces-de-mort-a-lencontre-du-dr-denis-mukwege/ Thu, 13 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0000 https://pods.local/?post_type=alert&p=16317 Honduras: Preocupación por desprotección de OFRANEH y COPINH https://observatoryfordefenders.org/fr/alert/honduras-preocupacion-por-desproteccion-de-ofraneh-y-copinh/ Mon, 20 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0000 https://pods.local/?post_type=alert&p=16253 Un moment décisif pour l’avenir des défenseur.e.s des droits humains au Burundi https://observatoryfordefenders.org/fr/alert/un-moment-decisif-pour-lavenir-des-defenseur-e-s-des-droits-humains-au-burundi/ Wed, 17 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0000 https://pods.local/?post_type=alert&p=16149 Germain Rukuki, Nestor Nibitanga, Egide Harerimana, Christine Kamikazi, Terence Mpozenzi et Agnès Ndiribusa.]]> Germain Rukuki, Nestor Nibitanga, Egide Harerimana, Christine Kamikazi, Terence Mpozenzi et Agnès Ndiribusa.]]> Philippines: Arbitrarily imprisoned Senator de Lima prevented from participating in Senate sessions via teleconference https://observatoryfordefenders.org/fr/alert/philippines-arbitrarily-imprisoned-senator-de-lima-prevented-from-participating-in-senate-sessions-via-teleconference/ Wed, 06 May 2020 00:00:00 +0000 https://pods.local/?post_type=alert&p=15986 “The decision to prevent Senator de Lima from exercising her mandate reflects a clear attempt to restrict her right to freedom of expression and to silence the voice of a lawmaker involved in the defense of human rights in the Philippines,” said FIDH President Alice Mogwe. On May 4, the Senate adopted Resolution No. 373, seeking to amend the Rules of the Senate to allow participation in plenary sessions and committee hearings via teleconference. The Resolution was introduced by 16 members of the Senate on April 27, 2020, because of the ongoing lockdown of Manila, which has been extended at least until May 15, 2020. On the same day of the filing of the resolution, when asked if imprisoned Senator Leila de Lima would be allowed to participate in these sessions via teleconference, Senate President Vicente Sotto III answered that she would not be allowed to join. Mr. Sotto justified the refusal by saying that the Senate “would have no jurisdiction” over Senator de Lima, and that “only the courts and the Philippine National Police would have jurisdiction over her”. In a handwritten note to Mr. Sotto, Ms. de Lima invoked the Trillanes v. Pimentel Supreme Court ruling as the legal basis to be allowed to attend the sessions via teleconference without the need to leave the detention center. Ms. de Lima said the jurisdiction of the courts was not affected by her participation in Senate hearings “via electronic means”. “The Observatory urges the Philippine Senate to overturn its decision to disallow Senator de Lima from participating remotely in Senate proceedings – a decision that has no legal basis and represents the latest act of persecution against her,” concluded OMCT Secretary General Gerald Staberock. Senator de Lima has been a staunch critic of President Duterte’s approach to combating crimes and drug trafficking. In 2009, as Chair of the Philippine Commission on Human Rights (CHR), she initiated a probe into Duterte’s involvement in the ‘Davao Death Squad’ during his time as mayor of Davao City. In August 2016, as Chair of the Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights, de Lima convened hearings on the hundreds of killings that had been carried out as part of President Duterte’s ‘war on drugs’. Over the past years, she has also advocated for the adoption of a Human Rights Defenders Protection Bill, which is still pending at the Senate level. Prior to her imprisonment, President Duterte had pledged to “destroy her in public”. Ms. de Lima handed herself in to police on February 24, 2017, a week after the Department of Justice filed three charges against her under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, and a day after a Manila court issued a warrant for her arrest. The charges were related to Ms. de Lima’s alleged involvement in a drug trafficking ring inside the New Bilibid Prison in Metro Manila’s Muntinlupa City, while she was Department of Justice Secretary. If convicted, Ms. de Lima could face between 12 years and life in prison. Ms. de Lima has been in pre-trial detention at the Philippine National Police Custodial Center at Manila’s Camp Crame since her arrest. For further information, please contact: · FIDH: Mr. Samuel Hanryon (English, French), +33 6 72 28 42 94 (Paris) · OMCT: Ms. Iolanda Jaquemet (English, French), +41 79 539 41 06 (Geneva) The Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders (the Observatory) was created in 1997 by FIDH and the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT). The objective of this programme is to intervene to prevent or remedy situations of repression against human rights defenders. FIDH and OMCT are both members of ProtectDefenders.eu, the European Union Human Rights Defenders Mechanism implemented by international civil society.]]> “The decision to prevent Senator de Lima from exercising her mandate reflects a clear attempt to restrict her right to freedom of expression and to silence the voice of a lawmaker involved in the defense of human rights in the Philippines,” said FIDH President Alice Mogwe. On May 4, the Senate adopted Resolution No. 373, seeking to amend the Rules of the Senate to allow participation in plenary sessions and committee hearings via teleconference. The Resolution was introduced by 16 members of the Senate on April 27, 2020, because of the ongoing lockdown of Manila, which has been extended at least until May 15, 2020. On the same day of the filing of the resolution, when asked if imprisoned Senator Leila de Lima would be allowed to participate in these sessions via teleconference, Senate President Vicente Sotto III answered that she would not be allowed to join. Mr. Sotto justified the refusal by saying that the Senate “would have no jurisdiction” over Senator de Lima, and that “only the courts and the Philippine National Police would have jurisdiction over her”. In a handwritten note to Mr. Sotto, Ms. de Lima invoked the Trillanes v. Pimentel Supreme Court ruling as the legal basis to be allowed to attend the sessions via teleconference without the need to leave the detention center. Ms. de Lima said the jurisdiction of the courts was not affected by her participation in Senate hearings “via electronic means”. “The Observatory urges the Philippine Senate to overturn its decision to disallow Senator de Lima from participating remotely in Senate proceedings – a decision that has no legal basis and represents the latest act of persecution against her,” concluded OMCT Secretary General Gerald Staberock. Senator de Lima has been a staunch critic of President Duterte’s approach to combating crimes and drug trafficking. In 2009, as Chair of the Philippine Commission on Human Rights (CHR), she initiated a probe into Duterte’s involvement in the ‘Davao Death Squad’ during his time as mayor of Davao City. In August 2016, as Chair of the Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights, de Lima convened hearings on the hundreds of killings that had been carried out as part of President Duterte’s ‘war on drugs’. Over the past years, she has also advocated for the adoption of a Human Rights Defenders Protection Bill, which is still pending at the Senate level. Prior to her imprisonment, President Duterte had pledged to “destroy her in public”. Ms. de Lima handed herself in to police on February 24, 2017, a week after the Department of Justice filed three charges against her under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, and a day after a Manila court issued a warrant for her arrest. The charges were related to Ms. de Lima’s alleged involvement in a drug trafficking ring inside the New Bilibid Prison in Metro Manila’s Muntinlupa City, while she was Department of Justice Secretary. If convicted, Ms. de Lima could face between 12 years and life in prison. Ms. de Lima has been in pre-trial detention at the Philippine National Police Custodial Center at Manila’s Camp Crame since her arrest. For further information, please contact: · FIDH: Mr. Samuel Hanryon (English, French), +33 6 72 28 42 94 (Paris) · OMCT: Ms. Iolanda Jaquemet (English, French), +41 79 539 41 06 (Geneva) The Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders (the Observatory) was created in 1997 by FIDH and the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT). The objective of this programme is to intervene to prevent or remedy situations of repression against human rights defenders. FIDH and OMCT are both members of ProtectDefenders.eu, the European Union Human Rights Defenders Mechanism implemented by international civil society.]]> LO / ARE / 240220 – Ahmed Mansoor https://observatoryfordefenders.org/fr/alert/lo-are-240220-ahmed-mansoor/ Mon, 24 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0000 https://pods.local/?post_type=alert&p=15719