Impunity workshop

Workshop 1 – National Anti-Impunity Strategies

10/9/2003 - Working Group B (Anglophone) Chair:

Noeline Blackwell Rapporteur:

Donncha O’Connell Volunteer:

Rosemary Warner

The workshop opened with an expression of scepticism by two participants from Northern Ireland about the granting of amnesties to state and non-state actors on a “self-forgiving” basis. They expressed a concern that this position would be construed as an anti-peace process stance in the context of Northern Ireland. A speaker from Zimbabwe spoke of the history of impunity in Africa and the combined opposition of NGOs to blanket amnesties.

An Irish activist working with Amazonas in Brazil spoke of the need for a concrete programme to assist those willing to bring the culprits from past or ongoing conflicts to justice. She instanced the PROVITAS programme in Brazil as an example of such a programme involving partnership between groups of NGOs and the state as well as some church involvement.

A speaker from Israel put forward the view (which he anticipated would be controversial) that sometimes a degree of impunity or amnesty had to be endured to achieve or sustain fragile democracy.

A Kenyan speaker stressed the importance of early participation by the people in any consultative process leading to the establishment of a Truth & Reconciliation Commission.

A woman speaker from Zimbabwe cautioned against the reconciliation model in certain cases such as rape or torture. She spoke of the importance of perpetrators facing justice and the need to use the justice system to break cycles of violence. A failure to deal with or otherwise address the anger of victims / survivors could well bring bigger problems for society at a later stage. This need not be an argument against reconciliation but rather an argument for not skipping justice and jumping to reconciliation.

Another Israeli speaker highlighted the fact of state control of the prosecution function and the hidden nature of decision-making in that context. She mentioned the failure to adequately investigate crimes against the Palestinian minority in Israel and the fact that a delayed investigation can impede an effective investigation. She proposed that the international community should take further steps to deal with the problems of minority groups within national or domestic situations and, in this connection, bemoaned the fact that Israel was not subject to an effective regional human rights instrument like the ECHR.

A speaker from Kazakstan emphasised the futility of legal tools in situations where the judiciary were corrupt. In such situations the maintenance of international pressure was vitally important.

A Dutch speaker (from HIVOS) questioned the “success” of Latin-American truth and reconciliation experiences.

A Nigerian speaker raised the problems experienced by activists in deficient democracies where there was an unreliable court system and undue influence by multinational oil companies. She claimed that the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights did not work but entertained the possibility of future recourse to the International Criminal Court.

The importance of discussing impunity within and between advocacy groups was stressed by a speaker from Indonesia who emphasised the need for both a national and international focus.

A representative of the Law Society for England and Wales pointed to the fact that Human Rights continued to be seen by governments as an aspect of foreign and not domestic policy. She did, however, acknowledge the sensitivity of states to criticism before UN bodies and urged that the treaty bodies and thematic mechanisms of the UN be fully utilised as a resource by activists.

A Sudanese speaker raised the application of emergency laws in Sudan and emphasised the importance of networking between national and international groups and of close contact with Amnesty International so as to maximise pressure on government. The establishment and strengthening of community-based organisations was very important as was the raising of awareness about human rights.

A speaker from the United Arab Emirates spoke about impunity in Bahrain and pointed to the need to examine both substantive criminal law and criminal procedure at national level when measuring compliance with international human rights standards. Issues such as strict limitation periods for the prosecution of certain crimes could facilitate certain forms of impunity. The speaker highlighted US influence in Latin-America and the importance of training police and military personnel in Human Rights.

The representative of HIVOS said that unless governments were co-operative there was no hope in working through national legal systems. He stressed the importance of a political strategy using techniques such as documenting abuses, publicity, demonstrations etc.

A speaker from the Carter Center, USA pointed to the need for multi-faceted strategies and the importance of timing. She said that occasionally international pressure had to yield to national or domestic activism.

A speaker from Thailand said that organisational expansion and sustainability were both important and stressed the usefulness of information-flows for the purpose of rapid mobilisation.

A participant from Amnesty International emphasised the importance of loose NGO coalitions at national level agreeing national strategy. Awareness programmes were vital basic components of any strategy.

A speaker from OMCT suggested that the UN Secretary General appoint an expert to gather national information on impunity.

An Egyptian delegate said that there was too much political expediency in relation to accountability for past wrongs. This did not address the problem of anger or ongoing violence and impeded progress generally.

A speaker from Nepal stressed the importance of documenting and monitoring human rights abuses. This was vital for the purpose of sustaining court cases or engaging with INGOs (like Amnesty or OMCT) and UN mechanisms (such as Special Rapporteurs). A degree of persistence was required in relation to filing cases at national level – this was certainly the experience in Nepal – but progress had ensued in the form of new draft laws against disappearances. It’s vital that all channels are used.

An Irish speaker proposed the establishment of ‘an international witness programme’ in which activists could be trained in the collation of evidence etc.

A speaker from a Lesbian and Bisexual Women’s Group in India spoke of the high incidence of lesbian suicides in certain Indian states. She raised questions about the problem of violations by non-state actors and how NGOs and others should deal with this phenomenon. She explained how public interest litigation had been used unsuccessfully in India to challenge anti-sodomy laws. The Supreme Court were not receptive on the basis that Indian society was not ready.