International Human Rights Weekly News Roundup

by Pauline Canham & Amita Dhiman

 

This week’s stories in focus:

 

BREAKING: Shamima Begum wins the right to return to Britain to fight her citizenship case

The Court of Appeal has ruled that Shamima Begum, who travelled to Syria in 2015 and married a Dutch ISIS recruit, could not make her citizenship case from a Syrian refugee camp.   Human Rights Organisation, Liberty, has welcomed the ruling saying “equal access to justice must apply to everyone”.  But the UK Government hopes to appeal the decision, saying it was “very disappointing”.

US drone strike on Iranian General was unlawful, UN report concludes

CallamardA report by Agnes Callamard, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial and summary executions, has concluded that the US drone strike that killed a senior Iranian General violated international law.  The report states that evidence does not support any justification for the strike that killed Qasem Soleimani in January this year.  In particular, the UN expert said that the US had not provided enough proof that Soleimani’s activities constituted an “imminent threat to life”, and therefore the attack amounted to “arbitrary killing.”

The UN Special Rapporteur went further, calling for greater regulation on the military use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), warning that the proliferation of UAVs (known as drones) risks destabilising global peace and security.  She also noted that the states using them to fight the ‘war on terror’ currently face no accountability for their deployment.  She proclaimed that the “targeted killing of General Soleimani….is not just a slippery slope.  It is a cliff.”; appealing for the UN Security Council to meet to debate the self-defence claim (the justification most commonly used to carry out drone strikes in counter-terrorism operations).

President Trump ordered the strike on Soleimani in early January, and shortly afterwards, the Pentagon released a statement saying “General Suleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region….. This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans.”  Professor of International Law at the University of Copenhagen, Kevin Jon Heller, cast doubts on the legality of the strike, commenting “the legality of an attack depends on the immediacy of the threat that it aims to avert”.

Defenders of the use of drones point to their apparent ‘precision’ which they claim reduces the numbers of civilian casualties.  However, the UN expert called this claim “illusory” and the idea of the ‘surgical strike’ a “myth”.  The lack of oversight and the secret nature of the drone program have given rise to a significant underreporting of the harm caused to civilian populations targeted by the ‘war on terror’.

Following the release of the report, the United States hit back, saying Ms Callamard was effectively “giving a pass to terrorists”.  Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo strenuously defended the strike adding that Ms Callamard “gives more cause to distrust UN human rights mechanisms.”

 

Coalition to defend freedom of expression in Lebanon announced

lebanese flag 2A “Coalition to Defend Freedom of Expression in Lebanon”  was announced this week by 14 Lebanese and international organizations . The initiative was prompted by an expanding campaign of repression by the Lebanese Government against the people.

Lebanese authorities launched a crackdown on activists and people who posted defamatory posts against the government during the ‘2015-2019 Anti- government protests’. As many as 60 activists and people were detained and questioned in regard to their social media posts concerning accusations of corruption towards high ranking officials such as the President and reporting on worsening economic and political situation in the country.

The documented cases are proof of mistreatment by prosecution and security agencies as a tool to intimidate and silence voices that were raised against the President. Before any case was transferred to the Court, there were a range of physical and psychological interrogation tactics used to coerce signed pledges that activists would not resort to writing any defamatory content against the government in future. The promises have no legal sanctity since they violate the fundamental right of free speech and expression.

On June 15th this year, the country’s top prosecutor ordered a security agency to investigate social media posts deemed offensive to the president labelling it a move to amend the old Media Laws and bring it in line with today.  “Parliament should urgently bring the media law in line with international law and prioritize the decriminalization of defamation and insults” said the coalition.

Lebanon’s constitution guarantees freedom of expression “within the limits established by law.”  The Lebanese penal code criminalizes defamation against public officials and authorizes imprisonment of up to one year in such cases.  The code also authorizes imprisonment up to two years for insulting the president and up to three years for insulting religious rituals.  These laws, many of them older than the country’s independence, are enforced by prosecutors today.  The country will see a dark future if the laws are not soon amended and implemented in line with international human rights obligations.

Other stories making the headlines around the world

World

 

Africa

 

Americas

 

Asia

 

Europe

 

Middle East

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Might or right: The devastating impact of US sanctions on the rights of Iranian citizens amidst the Covid-19 outbreak

by Hetal Doshi & Sankalp Udgata

Much has been said about the insensitivity of the Trump administration’s approach to tackling the outbreak of COVID-19, but little compares to Trump’s unswerving decision to continue economic sanctions against Iran amidst this global pandemic. The spread of coronavirus has been nothing less than a catastrophe for the people of Iran.  As COVID-19 rips through country after country, Iran’s experience has been particularly devastating with more than 182,525 confirmed cases and 8,659 declared deaths (as of 11 June 2020).  With no end to this pandemic in sight for the foreseeable future, the Iranian government is facing the unique challenge of providing medical equipment to doctors alongside access to food, basic medical facilities, and isolation centres to patients while, at the same time, trying to uplift the already crippled economy.

It is undisputed that a great deal of the suffering of the Iranian people lies within the responsibility of their own government. Nevertheless, the re-imposition of severe economic sanctions in 2018 by the United States after it unilaterally withdrew its participation in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (i.e. the nuclear deal), has had devastating impacts on the economy and has severely undermined humanitarian trade with Iran.

The damage done to Iran’s economy by US sanctions left it ill-prepared for the COVID-19 crisis. The gross domestic product of Iran shrank by 9.5 percent, oil exports were down by 80 percent, and inflation is now nearly 40 percent. Now, with the spread of coronavirus in Iran increasing at an unprecedented rate, sanctions are contributing to a shortage of testing kits, medical devices, and hygienic supplies required to prevent further spread.

Impact of ‘Inhuman’ Sanctions on the Right to Health  of Iranian Citizens’

While the United States government continues to insist that it has created exemptions for humanitarian imports into its sanctions regime, broad sanctions against Iranian banks, coupled with aggressive rhetoric from US officials and a lack of clarity on how secondary sanctions will be imposed, have drastically constrained Iran’s ability to finance such humanitarian imports. A Human Rights Watch report also states that, in practice, these exemptions have failed to offset the strong reluctance of US and European companies and banks to risk facing the legal and financial risks associated with exporting or financing exempted humanitarian goods, such as vital medicines and medical equipment.

DT signing EO sanctions

 

The consequence of such sanctions has resulted in impairing the ability of Iranian people to secure their right to health and access to essential medicines.  Health is a fundamental human right indispensable for the exercise of other human rights and is recognized under Article 25(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 12(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).  In July 2019, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran stated that the sanctions and banking restrictions will unduly affect food security and the availability and distribution of medicines and pharmaceutical equipment. The continuance of these sanctions has resulted in nothing less than gross violations of the human rights of Iranian citizens.

Extra Territorial Application of the Right to Health

The question of the extra-territorial application of the right to health has always been debatable. The ICESCR does not contain any provision on the jurisdictional or territorial applicability of the treaty. However, CESCR General Comment No. 14 declares that all states must take steps to prevent violations of the right to health (Article 12) in other countries. Thus, under ICESCR the USA has an obligation to ensure that its actions take due account of the right to health of citizens of other countries.

The US is in direct breach of these obligations, as the brunt of the economic sanctions on Iran is being faced directly by Iranian people.   Iranian suppliers of equipment like respiratory masks and ventilators are out of stock, and the Iranian government is struggling to import the raw materials that it needs to manufacture antiviral drugs amid the raging COVID-19 pandemic. These sanctions, as discussed above, have crippled the economy of Iran and prevented the import of health care equipment required to control this pandemic. This has direct effects on the availability and quality of health care facilities which form an essential element of the right to health, thus resulting in a clear violation of this right.

Coronavirus_patients_at_the_Imam_Khomeini_Hospital_in_Tehran,_Iran_--_بخش_ویژه_بیماران_کرونا_در_بیمارستان_امام_خمینی_تهران_--_March_1,_2020

It is important to note that in the case of Iran v. USA the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has held, in its order on provisional measures, that US Sanctions are detrimental to the humanitarian needs and rights of Iranian citizens, and its exemptions do not help with assurances to the contrary.  Instead of adhering to the order, the United States government decided to terminate the 1955 U.S.-Iran Treaty of Amity, which was the basis of the relief granted by the ICJ.  This was announced on the same day in which the ICJ passed the order.

The paradoxical stance of the US Administration

The contradictory stance of the US government is further evident as, despite sanctions being exempt on humanitarian goods, the US Treasury Department had previously prosecuted medical companies for selling small amounts of medical supplies to Iran. While Iran’s dire circumstances have prompted calls from around the world for the United States to roll back its deep economic sanctions on the country, the US has instead imposed new sanctions amid the increasing cases of COVID-19 which will further add to Iran’s economic and diplomatic isolation.

With hospitals overrun and Iranian doctors struggling to procure necessary equipment, the US must be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. A global pandemic requires a global response, not a piecemeal one based on local politics.

 

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Photo.HetalHetal Doshi is a law student at the National University of Study and Research in Law (NUSRL), Ranchi, India.  She can be reached at hetaldoshi.hvd@gmail.com.

 

Photo.SankalpSankalp Udgata is a law student at the National University of Study and Research in Law (NUSRL), Ranchi, India.  He can be reached at sankalp.udgata123@gmail.com.