AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL REPORT 2006

A YEAR IN PERSPECTIVE

A YEAR IN

PERSPECTIVE: A

GLASS HALF FULL

BY IRENE KHAN, SECRETARY GENERAL, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

Krishna Pahadi, a human rights activist in Nepal, hasbeen detained 28 times by the government. When I methim in a police detention centre in Kathmandu inFebruary 2005, shortly after he had been arrested forthe 27th time, his message was surprisingly upbeat. Themore the regime locks up peaceful protesters like him,he told me, the more it strengthens the cause of humanrights. Widespread political unrest and internationalcondemnation of the Nepalese government’s actionssupport Krishna’s views. Deprived of any readingmaterial in prison except religious books, he hadfinished reading the Bhagavad Gita and was about tobegin the Bible, to be followed by the Qur’an. He has nodoubt that his struggle and that of others like him willprevail. It is only a matter of time, he said.

Krishna is not daunted. Nor am I, despite the abuseand injustice, violence and violations across the globedocumented in the Amnesty International Report 2006.

The human rights landscape is littered with brokenpromises and failures of leadership. Governmentsprofess to champion the cause of human rights butshow repressive reflexes when it comes to their ownpolicies and performance. Grave abuses in Afghanistanand Iraq cast a shadow over much of the human rightsdebate, as torture and terror feed off each other in avicious cycle. The brutality and intensity of attacks byarmed groups in these and other countries grow, takinga heavy toll on human lives.

Nevertheless, a closer look at the events of 2005gives me reason for hope. There were some clear signsthat a turning point may be in sight after five years ofbacklash against human rights in the name of counter-

terrorism. Over the past year, some of the world’s mostpowerful governments have received anuncomfortable wake-up call about the dangers ofundervaluing the human rights dimension of theiractions at home and abroad. Their doublespeak anddeception have been exposed by the media, challengedby activists and rejected by the courts.

I also see other signs for optimism. The overallnumber of conflicts worldwide continues to fall, thanksto international conflict management, conflictprevention and peace-building initiatives, giving hopeto millions of people in countries like Angola, Liberiaand Sierra Leone.

Institutional reform was initiated at the UnitedNations (UN) to strengthen the international humanrights machinery, despite the attempt by a number ofcynical and “spoiler” governments to block progress.

The call for justice for some of the worst crimes underinternational law gained greater force across the world,from Latin America to the Balkans. Although corrupt,inefficient and politically biased national judicialsystems remain a major barrier to justice, the tide isbeginning to turn against impunity in some parts of theworld. In 2005 several countries opened investigationsor conducted trials of people suspected of war crimesand crimes against humanity. Despite the opposition ofthe USA, support for the International Criminal Court(ICC) has grown, with Mexico becoming the 100th stateparty to ratify the Rome Statute of the ICC. The UNSecurity Council’s decision to refer the situation inDarfur to the ICC set an important precedent,demonstrating the link between security and justice.

Ordinary people took to the streets to demand theirrights and to seek political change. In Bolivia, thepoorest country in South America, massive protestsby indigenous communities, peasants and miners ledto the resignation of the President and election topower of the country’s first ever indigenous Head ofState. Even repressive governments found themselvescaught out by mass protest, and were forced to makesome concessions.

There will be those who will challenge my sense ofoptimism. But I take strength from these developmentsand, most importantly, from the extraordinary displayof global activism and human solidarity across borders;

1Amnesty International Report 2006

Krishna Pahadi (right), afounding member of the HumanRights and Peace Society andformer Chair of AI Nepal, withIrene Khan in London shortlyafter his release, 2005.

©© AAII


from the energy and commitment of AmnestyInternational (AI) members worldwide; from the hugecrowds that turned out to “make poverty history” in thelead-up to the G8 Summit; and from the outpouring ofsupport from ordinary people for the victims of thetsunami in Asia, Hurricane Katrina in the USA and theearthquake in Kashmir.

From peasant farmers protesting against landgrabbing in China to women asserting their rights onthe 10th anniversary of the UN World Conference onWomen, the events of 2005 showed that the humanrights idea – together with the worldwide movement ofpeople that drives it forward – is more powerful andstronger than ever.

Torture and counter-terrorismWhen suicide bombers struck at the heart of Londonin July 2005, the UK Prime Minister Tony Blair reactedby announcing plans that would drastically restricthuman rights and show the world that “the rules of thegame are changing”. Lord Steyn, a retired Law Lord ofthe UK judiciary, responded aptly: “The maintenanceof the rule of law is not a game. It is about access tojustice, fundamental human rights and democraticvalues”.

Fortunately, some of the most outrageousprovisions of the legislation proposed by the UKgovernment were thrown out by Parliament. Thegovernment was defeated twice on its counter-terrorism legislation in 2005 – the first everparliamentary defeats for Prime Minister Blair in hisnine years of office.

The judiciary also took the UK government to task.The highest court in the land, the House of Lords,rejected the government’s contention that it coulduse information obtained by torture by foreigngovernments as evidence in UK courts. In anothercase, the Court of Appeal rejected the government’sclaim that UK forces in Iraq were not bound byinternational and domestic human rights law. It also

ruled that the system for investigating deaths of Iraqiprisoners at the hands of UK armed forces personnelwas seriously deficient.

In the USA there was similar questioning of the BushAdministration’s claim that in its fight against terrorismit could exempt itself from the prohibition againsttorture and ill-treatment. A legislative amendmentsought to affirm the ban on torture and cruel, inhumanand degrading treatment of all prisoners by US officialsand agents, wherever they might be. Not only did thePresident threaten to veto the bill, the Vice Presidentsought to exempt the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)from the law. The CIA itself admitted to using “water-boarding” (simulated drowning) as an interrogationtechnique, and the Attorney-General claimed that theUSA has the power to mistreat detainees abroad, solong as they are not US citizens.

In the end, it was President Bush who blinked firstand was forced to withdraw his opposition to the bill.However, the bill had a serious sting in its tail, with anamendment which stripped Guantánamo detainees ofthe right to file habeas corpus appeals in a federal courtand barred them from seeking court review of theirtreatment or conditions of detention. Nevertheless, thePresident’s public climb-down was indicative of thepressure being put on the Administration by powerfuldivisions within the USA and increasing concern amongits allies abroad.

European governments squirmed as one story afteranother revealed their role as junior partners of theUSA in its “war on terror”. There was public outcryfollowing media reports of possible collusion betweenthe US Administration and some Europeangovernments on “CIA black sites” – alleged secretdetention centres on European territory. Increasingevidence that prisoners were being illegally transferredthrough European airports to countries where therewas a risk they would be tortured (“extraordinaryrenditions”) also provoked widespread publiccondemnation.

2 Amnesty International Report 2006

Roma in Bulgaria at ananti-discrimination rally incentral Sofia, February2005. The rally coincidedwith the start of theinternational initiative“2005-2015 Decade ofRoma Inclusion” which waslaunched in eight south-eastern European states.©© EEMMPPIICCSS//AAPP


The demand for the closure of the detention centre inGuantánamo Bay gained greater momentum with the UN,various European institutions, and political and opinionleaders, including prominent US figures, adding theirvoices to the growing pressure. What was once AI’s lonevoice in the wilderness has now become a crescendo ofcondemnation against the most blatant symbol of USabuse of power. That strengthens our own resolve tocontinue to campaign until the US Administration closesthe Guantánamo camp, discloses the truth about secretdetention centres under its control, and acknowledgesthe right of detainees to be tried in accordance withinternational law standards or be released.

The shifts I have identified do not mean that supportfor restrictive measures has disappeared or that attackson human rights in the name of counter-terrorism have

diminished. The USA has not categorically rejected theuse of certain forms of torture or ill-treatment. It hasfailed to institute an independent investigation into therole of senior US officials in the abuses committed inIraq’s Abu Ghraib prison and elsewhere, despitegrowing evidence of high-level involvement.

When the British courts declared the detention offoreigners without charge or trial to be unlawful, the UKgovernment immediately introduced new legislation tohold people under virtual house arrest. It continues toseek “diplomatic assurances” to enable it to returnpeople to countries where they could face torture.

The “export value” of the “war on terror” has notdecreased either. With the tacit or explicit approval ofthe USA, countries like Egypt, Jordan and Yemencontinue to detain, without charge or fair trial, peoplesuspected of involvement in terrorism.

What is different about 2005 compared to past yearsis that the public mood is changing, thanks to the workof human rights advocates and others, which is puttingthe US and European governments on the defensive.People are no longer willing to buy the fallaciousargument that reducing our liberty will increase oursecurity. More and more governments are being calledto account – before legislatures, in courts and otherpublic forums. More and more there is a realization thatflouting human rights and the rule of law, far fromwinning the “war on terror”, only creates resentmentand isolates those communities targeted by thesemeasures, plays into the hands of extremists, andundermines our collective security.

Lines, however fragile, are being drawn. Voices arebeing raised. This offers hope for a turning point in thedebate and a more principled approach to human rightsand security in the future.

Contrary to the statement of the UK Prime Minister,the rules of the game have not changed. Neither securitynor human rights are well served by governments whoplay games with these fundamental rules.


Women protestagainst genderdiscriminationin the Iraniancapital, Tehran,June 2005.

International Women’sDay, Beni, North KivuProvince, DemocraticRepublic of the Congo,March 2005. Thewomen are marchingbarefoot with theirshoes on their heads inprotest at widespreadrape in the region. ©© AAII

©© RR

eeuuttee

rrss//

RRaahhee

bb HH

oommaavv

aannddii


We must continue to condemn in the strongestpossible terms the cowardly and heinous attacks oncivilians by armed groups. Equally strongly, we mustalso resist the foolish and dangerous strategies ofgovernments who seek to fight terror with torture.

Reform initiativesGrowing disillusionment and damning criticism of theUN human rights machinery finally led governments toinitiate some important reforms as part of a rethink ofthe UN’s role in international governance.

UN member states agreed to double the budget of theOffice of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights,and to focus its work to a much greater extent onprotecting human rights through presence in the field.

The member states decided to jettison thediscredited UN Commission on Human Rights, andproposed to replace it with a Human Rights Council,elected by and accountable to the UN GeneralAssembly, and able to scrutinize all states, including,first and foremost, its own members. Although aproduct of compromise, the proposal represents asignificant opportunity to improve the UN human rightsmachinery. Regrettably, the future of the Council hangsin the balance as we go to press because of the refusalof the USA to support it, ostensibly on the basis that ithas too many “deficiencies”. One state, no matter howpowerful, should not be allowed to undermine a broad,international consensus. I hope that othergovernments will resist US pressure, rally behind theresolution and get the Council up and running.

I am encouraged by the support that governmentshave shown for changes to the UN human rightsmachinery. This is all the more remarkable, given theway in which much of the UN Secretary-General’sambitious and forward-looking package on UN reform – including proposals to expand SecurityCouncil membership, strengthen weapons non-proliferation and better equip the UN to act effectivelyto halt genocide – was rejected or wrecked.

I am also heartened by some less publicized gains inthe past year. The UN completed drafting anInternational Convention for the Protection of All

Persons from Enforced Disappearance, to address theunacknowledged arrest, detention, torture and oftendeath of prisoners at the hands of agents of the state.AI, which first began campaigning on behalf of the“disappeared” some 35 years ago, welcomes thisimportant contribution to human rights protection.

The UN appointed a Special Representative on theissue of human rights and transnational corporationsand other business enterprises. Although companiescan be a force for positive social and economicdevelopment, the impact of some business operationson human rights are deeply damaging, as shown by theviolence generated by oil and mineral interests inplaces like the Niger delta in Nigeria, the DemocraticRepublic of the Congo and Sudan, or the readiness ofthe information and technology industry to fall in linewith China’s restrictive policies on freedom ofexpression. Yet a powerful combination of political andbusiness interests has managed to resist internationalefforts to advance the legal accountability of business


Human rights defenders outsidethe building where formerPeruvian President AlbertoFujimori was detained inSantiago, Chile, December 2005.Alberto Fujimori has beencharged in Peru with humanrights violations includingordering killings and torture.

Members of theTorture Abolitionand SurvivorsSupport CoalitionInternationaldemonstrateoutside the WhiteHouse, WashingtonD.C., USA, June2005.

©© CCNNDDDDHHHH

©© RReeuutteerrss//CChhrriiss KKlleeppoonniiss


for human rights. Despite considerable controversysurrounding the UN Norms on business and humanrights, the issue of corporate accountability remainedfirmly on the international agenda. Building on theexperience of the Norms, the task now will be todevelop a clear set of international human rightsstandards and principles for corporate actors.

Rhetoric and realityInstitutions are only as strong as the political will ofthose who govern them. Far too often, powerfulgovernments manipulate the UN and regionalinstitutions to further their narrow national interests.The USA is a prime example, but unfortunately it is notalone, as is evidenced by Russia’s record in theCaucasus and Central Asia, and China’s expandingeconomic co-operation with some of the mostrepressive governments in Africa.

Those who bear the greatest responsibility forsafeguarding global security in the UN SecurityCouncil proved in 2005 to be among the most willingto paralyze the Council and prevent it from takingeffective action on human rights. This was clearly

demonstrated by the USA and the UK in relation toIraq, and by Russia and China in the case of Sudan.They appear oblivious to the lessons of history thatthe road to strengthening global security lies throughrespect for human rights.

The hypocrisy of the G8 was particularly marked in2005. The G8 governments claimed to put eradication ofpoverty in Africa high on their agenda, while continuingto be major suppliers of arms to African governments.Six of the eight G8 countries are among the top 10 largestglobal arms exporters, and all eight export largeamounts of conventional weapons or small arms todeveloping countries. This should place a particularresponsibility on the G8 to help create an effectivesystem of global control on arms transfers. But, despitepressure from the UK government, the leaders of the G8failed to agree on the need for an Arms Trade Treaty atthe Gleneagles Summit in July 2005.

However, the call for a global treaty to controlsmall arms gained support from at least 50 countriesaround the world. The message of the campaign,jointly led by AI, Oxfam and the International ActionNetwork for Small Arms (IANSA), is clear: the armstrade is out of control, and must be restrainedurgently.

Turning to regional institutions, I am disappointedthat the European Union (EU) remains a largely mutedvoice on human rights. It cannot expect to maintainits credibility on human rights and occupy the moralhigh ground if it buries its collective head in the sandwhen confronted with abuses committed by its majorpolitical and trading partners, or closes its eyes to thepolicies and practices of its own member statestowards refugees and asylum-seekers and on counter-terrorism. It must be more willing to confront Russia’sappalling human rights failures in Chechnya. It mustalso resist pressures from business to lift its armsembargo against China. This embargo was originally


Former IraqiPresidentSaddamHusseinstands trial,Baghdad,October2005.

AI members fromaround the worldtake part in themarch whichlaunched theWorld SocialForum, PortoAlegre, Brazil,January 2005. ©© AAII

©© EEMMPPIICCSS//AAPP


imposed after the brutal 1989 crackdown inTiananmen Square in order to show the commitmentof the EU to promoting human rights in China. Itshould not be removed until the Chinese governmenthas made significant human rights concessions.

The African Union (AU) has developed a progressiveframework on human rights, and played an importantrole in resolving the crisis in Togo, but it is sadlylacking the capacity and political will to deliver on itspromises consistently. Hampered by logisticalconstraints and the refusal of the Sudanesegovernment and armed militias to abide byinternational law, AU human rights monitors couldnot make a real difference on the ground in Darfur. Itshowed no stomach to tackle the appalling humanrights situation in Zimbabwe. It failed to convinceNigeria or Senegal to co-operate with the efforts tobring to justice the former Liberian and Chadianpresidents Charles Taylor and Hissène Habré. Africanleaders do a disservice to themselves and the Africanpeople when they use African solidarity to shield eachother from justice and accountability.

In the face of institutional lethargy and governments’failures, public opinion, whether in Africa, Europe orelsewhere, is demanding a stronger commitment bygovernments to human rights at home and abroad.Thanks to human rights advocates and others, and thegrowing pressure of public opinion, the internationalcommunity is being forced to acknowledge humanrights as the framework within which security anddevelopment should be imagined and implemented.Without respect for human rights, neither security nordevelopment can be sustained.

In both international and regional contexts, humanrights are increasingly being acknowledged as abenchmark for the credibility and authority of

institutions and individual states. That is one of thereasons why governments contested Myanmarbecoming the chair of the Association of SoutheastAsian Nations (ASEAN). That is why the EU decided inthe end not to reverse the ban on arms sales to China.That is why India has put human rights considerationsas a key element in its approach to Nepal.

Both on principled as well as pragmatic grounds,human rights should be seen as a critical element ofsustainable global and regional security strategies,not as an optional extra for good times. There is nodoubt in my mind that the events of 2005 show thatthe political and moral authority of governments willbe judged more and more by their stand on humanrights at home and abroad. Therein lies one of themost important achievements of the human rightsmovement in recent times.

There are clear challenges ahead. Vicious attacks byarmed groups, the increased instability in the MiddleEast, the mounting anger and isolation of Muslimcommunities around the world, the forgottenconflicts in Africa and elsewhere, growing inequalitiesand glaring poverty – all are evidence of a dangerousand divided world in which human rights are beingdaily threatened. But far from being discouraged, Ibelieve these challenges make the impetus for actioneven greater.

As we set our agenda for 2006, AI and its millions ofmembers and supporters take encouragement fromthe remarkable achievements of the human rightsmovement and the faith of ordinary people in thepower of human rights. We in AI do not underestimatethat power. We will use it to fight those who peddlefear and hate, to challenge the myopic vision of theworld’s most powerful leaders, and to holdgovernments to account.


AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL’S COMMITMENTS

In 2006, Amnesty International is committed to:

■ Resist attacks on human rights standards, in

particular the absolute prohibition on torture

and ill-treatment.

■ Demand the closure of the Guantánamo Bay detention

camp and secret detention centres, and the disclosure

of “extraordinary renditions” and “ghost detainees”.

■ Condemn strongly deliberate attacks on civilians by

armed groups.

■ Fight to end impunity and to strengthen national

and international justice systems.

■ Expose human rights abuses committed during

armed conflicts, and campaign for an international

arms trade treaty to control the sale of small arms.

■ Seek a universal moratorium on the death penalty as

a step towards its abolition.

■ Champion the right of women and girls to be free

from violence and discrimination.

■ Promote the protection of refugees, displaced people

and migrants.

■ Expose the link between poverty and human

rights abuses and hold governments accountable

for poverty eradication through respect for all

human rights.

■ Campaign to hold corporate and economic actors

accountable for human rights abuses.

■ Strive for universal ratification of the seven core

human rights treaties fundamental for human

security and dignity.

■ Support human rights defenders and activists in their

fight for equality and justice.

THE SEARCH FOR

HUMAN SECURITY

The year 2005 posed some major challenges forgovernments: intractable conflicts, terrorist attacks,the relentless spread of the HIV/AIDS pandemic, thepersistence of widespread extreme poverty andnatural disasters.

These challenges should have been met withresponses based on human rights principles. All toooften they were not. Individually and collectively,governments continued to pursue policies that oftensacrificed human rights for political or economicexpediency.

At the same time, around the world, millions ofpeople lent their weight to calls for greateraccountability, more transparency and greaterrecognition of our shared responsibility to tackle theseglobal threats collectively. From the mass mobilizationaround the slogan “make poverty history” to thelawyers and activists who took on powerful states ingroundbreaking court cases, civil society pressedgovernments to deliver on their responsibilities.

The year saw a growing understanding that respectfor the rule of law is essential for human security, andthat undermining human rights principles in the “waron terror” is not a route to security. Similarly, the

failure to respect, protect and fulfil economic, socialand cultural rights was more and more widely seen as agrave injustice and a denial of human development.Whether in response to the urgent needs of peoplecaught up in natural disasters or the plight of individualvictims of government repression, the activities ofordinary people often shamed governments into action.

Human security requires that individuals andcommunities are safe not only from war, genocide andterrorist attack, but also from hunger, disease andnatural disaster. Throughout 2005 activists campaignedfor notorious human rights violators and powerfulmultinationals to be held more accountable, and for anend to racism, discrimination and social exclusion.

Many of the human rights abuses seen in 2005crossed national boundaries – from torture and“renditions” to the negative impact of trade and aidpolicies. While borders were being dismantled in someaspects of international relations – particularly in thesphere of economic transactions – they continued tobe erected in others, notably migration.

Recognition of the need for global solutions toaddress global threats, from terrorism to bird flu,undoubtedly grew. There were also many reminders ofthe necessity for UN reform. These included thecontinued failure of the UN Security Council to holdrogue states accountable, the exposure of high levelcorruption at the UN in the Oil for Food scandal, thesilence which greeted the failure to meet the first of theUN Millennium Development Goals and the failure ofinternational financial institutions to grapple with the

GLOBAL OVERVIEW

Amnesty International Report 2006 7

Kashmiri girls ina tent camp in

Muzaffarabad,Pakistan. Aid

was slow inreaching millions

of peoplerendered

homeless by anearthquake inOctober 2005. ©© RREEUUTTEERRSS//KKiimmiimmaassaa MMaayyaammaa

inequities of trade, aid and debt. The UN’s ownleadership proposed a number of far-reachinginitiatives, but the limited outcomes of the UN WorldSummit in September revealed how the politics ofnarrow national self-interest continued to trumpmultilateralist aspirations.

Yet there was progress, notably in the area ofconsolidating an emerging international justice systemin the form of the International Criminal Court, the adhoc international tribunals and increased use ofextraterritorial jurisdiction. After years of calls foradditional resources for the Office of the UN HighCommissioner for Human Rights, its budget wassignificantly increased. Proposals to replace the muchdiscredited UN Commission on Human Rights with a UNHuman Rights Council were under discussion.Encouraged by these moves, and above all by thegrowing strength and diversity of the world’s humanrights community, AI renewed its commitment toglobalizing justice as a means of realizing rights for allin the search for human security.

TORTURE AND TERRORThe challenges that the human rights movement facedin the wake of the attacks in the USA on 11 September2001 continued. Governments continued to promotethe rhetoric that human rights are an obstacle to,rather than an essential precondition for, humansecurity. However, thanks to the efforts of humanrights activists and others, there was growing criticismof and resistance to government efforts to subordinatehuman rights to security concerns.

Despite the governmental resources and effortscommitted to combating terrorism, the year saw a risingnumber of attacks by individuals and armed groupsespousing a wide range of causes in many countries.

Deliberate attacks on civilians, breaching the mostbasic human rights principles, were seen around the

world. For example, in India in October, during the run-up to the annual festival season, a series of bomb blastsin Delhi left 66 people dead and more than 220 injured.In Iraq, hundreds of civilians were killed or injured inattacks by armed groups throughout the year. InJordan, three bombs in hotels in Amman killed 60people in November. In the UK, bomb attacks on thepublic transport system in London in July killed 52people and injured hundreds.

Some of the counter-terrorism tactics adopted bygovernments flouted human rights. Some governmentseven tried to legalize or justify abusive methods thathave long been deemed illegal by the internationalcommunity and can never be justified.

Thousands of men suspected of terrorism remained inUS-run detention centres around the world without anyprospect of being charged or facing a fair trial. At the endof 2005, some 14,000 people detained by the USA and itsallies during military and security operations in Iraq andAfghanistan were still held in US military detentioncentres in Afghanistan, Guantánamo Bay in Cuba andIraq. In Guantánamo, dozens of detainees staged hungerstrikes to protest against the conditions of theirdetention and were force fed.

Terrorism suspects were held by other countries too,some of them detained for long periods without chargeor trial, including in Egypt, Jordan, the UK and Yemen.Others languished in prison facing the threat ofdeportation to countries where torture was routine.Many detainees were subjected to torture and other ill-treatment.

During 2005, it became increasingly clear how farmany countries had colluded or participated insupporting abusive US policies and practices in the“war on terror”, including torture, ill-treatment, secretand unlimited detentions and unlawful cross-bordertransfers. Many governments faced demands forgreater accountability and there were key judicial

GLOBAL OVERVIEW

Amnesty International Report 20068

Afghans in the Panjshirvalley, north of Kabul,January 2005, move tanksas part of a disarmamentprogramme. This flawedprogramme was followed byanother to remove armsfrom illegal armed groups.Much of Afghanistanremained under the controlof factional commanders,many accused of grosshuman rights abuses.Lawlessness and insecuritywere widespread.

©© RREEUUTTEERRSS//AAhhmmaadd MMaassoooodd

decisions in defence of basic human rights principles.Even within the US government itself, tensionsemerged over the curtailment of fundamental liberties.

Information continued to emerge in 2005 that helpedto expose some of the secret and abusive practicesdeveloped by states in the name of fighting terrorism.For example, further information came to light aboutthe illegal transfer of terrorism suspects from onecountry to another without any judicial process – apractice known in the USA as “extraordinaryrenditions”. It was revealed that the USA had, throughthis practice, transferred many detainees to countriesknown to use torture and other ill-treatment ininterrogations, including Egypt, Jordan, Morocco,Saudi Arabia and Syria. Such transfers effectivelyoutsourced torture.

What renditions mean in reality was highlighted in2005 by the case of Muhammad al-Assad, a Yemeniliving in Tanzania, who was arrested at his home in Dar-es-Salaam on 26 December 2003. He was hooded,handcuffed and flown to an unknown destination. Itwas the beginning of a 16-month ordeal ofunacknowledged detention and interrogation, in whichhe had no contact with the outside world and no ideawhere he was.

He was held for a year in a secret facility where hewas subjected to extreme sensory deprivation. Hismasked guards never spoke a word to him, butcommunicated their instructions in sign language.There was a constant low-level hum of white noise.Artificial light was kept on 24 hours a day. Muhammadal-Assad’s father was told by Tanzanian officials thathis son had been turned over to US custody, and that noone knew where he was. His family heard nothing ofhim until he was flown to Yemen in May 2005, where hewas imprisoned, apparently at the request of the USauthorities. Muhammad al-Assad was still in custody inYemen without charge or trial at the end of 2005.

Other testimonies from former detainees collectedduring 2005 by AI were shockingly similar to theexperience described by Muhammad al-Assad. Twoother Yemeni men were transferred to Yemen by theUSA in May 2005, where they remained in custodywithout charge or trial at the end of the year. Inseparate interviews with AI in June, September andOctober 2005, all three described being held inisolation for 16 to 18 months in secret detention centresrun by US officials. The interviews conducted by AIprovided strong new evidence of the US network ofsecret detention centres around the world.

In December 2005, after the UK Foreign Secretarysaid that he was not aware of any renditions flightsrefuelling or using other facilities in the UK sinceearly 2001, AI published details of three flights thatrefuelled in the UK, hours after transferring detaineesto countries where they risked “disappearance”,torture or other ill-treatment. Informationincreasingly came to light in 2005, partly becauseevidence was uncovered by victims themselves andpartly due to governmental inquiries, that otherEuropean countries may have been similarly involvedin secret transfers. Inquiries were conducted in

Germany, Italy and Sweden into the role ofgovernment officials in specific rendition cases; inSpain, an investigation was opened by the Spanishauthorities into the use of Spanish airports andairspace by aircraft operated by the US CentralIntelligence Agency (CIA). In Iceland, Ireland and theNetherlands, government officials or activists calledfor official inquiries.

Investigations by journalists, AI and others in 2005left little doubt that the US government was running asystem of covert prisons, known as “black sites”. Therewere persistent reports that the CIA had operated suchsecret detention centres in Afghanistan, Iraq, Jordan,Pakistan, Thailand, Uzbekistan and other unknownlocations in Europe and elsewhere, including on theBritish Indian Ocean territory of Diego Garcia. Aboutthree dozen detainees deemed to have highintelligence value had “disappeared” in US custody, andwere allegedly being held in black sites, completelyoutside the protection of the law.

In November the Council of Europe launched aninvestigation into reports that the network of US secretprisons and involvement in renditions included sites inEurope. AI strongly endorsed calls to Europeangovernments to investigate such allegations by officialsof the Council of Europe, one of whom declared: “notknowing is not good enough regardless of whetherignorance is intentional or accidental”.

At a conference jointly organized by AI and the UK-based NGO Reprieve in London in November, formerdetainees and families of detainees held inGuantánamo or in UK facilities testified to the humancost of indefinite detention without charge or trial.Speaking of the trauma of the families of thosedetained, Nadja Dizdarevic, the wife of Boudelaa Hadzof Bosnia and Herzegovina who has been held atGuantánamo for four years, said:

“It is difficult to be a mother to my childrenbecause I have not enough time for them and I ameverything that they have… At night after I put mychildren to sleep I start my work and while thewhole world sleeps in peace I tirelessly writecomplaints, requests, letters, learn the laws andhuman rights conventions so that I could continuemy struggle for the life and release of my husbandand the others.” Governments have over the years requested

“diplomatic assurances” from countries known to usetorture in order to allow them to deport people there.In 2005 the UK government sought to rely ondiplomatic assurances and concluded Memorandumsof Understanding with Jordan, Lebanon and Libya, andwas seeking similar agreements with Algeria, Egypt andother states in the region. AI opposed the use of such“diplomatic assurances” as they erode the absoluteprohibition of torture, and are inherently unreliableand unenforceable.

Evidence that many governments had been engagingin, conniving in or acquiescing to the outsourcing oftorture underlined the need for greater transnationalaccountability in a world where human rightsresponsibilities do not stop at the borders of a state.

GLOBAL OVERVIEW


The outsourcing of torture meant that the USA andsome of its European allies, which had for decadesunreservedly condemned torture at all times and in allcircumstances, openly defied the absolute ban againsttorture. The implication was that they believed thatsome torture and ill-treatment was justifiable in the“war on terror”.

The US administration continued its attempts toredefine and justify certain forms of torture or otherill-treatment in the name of “national security” andpublic order. When questioned about the US positionon the treatment of prisoners, the US AttorneyGeneral, Alberto Gonzales, made it clear that hisgovernment would define torture in its own way.Although the US leadership denied that thegovernment condoned torture, evidence emerged thatthe CIA used “water boarding” (simulated drowning),prolonged shackling or induced hypothermia onprisoners held in secret prisons. Some people withinthe US administration apparently continued to believethat certain forms of torture and ill-treatmentpractices were acceptable if used to gather intelligenceto counter terrorism. However, growing challenges tothese policies both within the USA – where at the end ofthe year the US Senate passed legislation affirming theban on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degradingtreatment – and among the USA’s allies in the “war onterror” offered hope of a more principled approach tohuman rights and security in the future.

Human rights abuses in the context of counter-terrorism policies were not confined to the USA and itsEuropean allies. In Uzbekistan, the authorities claimedthat people taking part in a demonstration in Andizhanat which peaceful demonstrators were killed had beencoerced to do so by "terrorists". Subsequently, morethan 70 people were convicted of "terrorist" offences

after unfair trials and sentenced to long prison termsfor allegedly participating in the protest.

In China, the authorities continued to use the global“war on terror” to justify harsh repression in theXinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region (XUAR), resultingin serious human rights violations against the ethnicUighur community. While China’s latest “strike-hard”campaign against crime had subsided in most parts ofthe country, it was officially renewed in the XUAR inMay 2005 to eradicate “terrorism, separatism andreligious extremism”. It resulted in the closure ofunofficial mosques and arrests of imams. Uighurnationalists, including peaceful activists, continued tobe detained or imprisoned. Those charged with serious“separatist” or “terrorist” offences were at risk oflengthy imprisonment or execution. Those attemptingto pass information abroad about the extent of thecrackdown faced arbitrary detention andimprisonment. The authorities continued to accuseUighur activists of terrorism without providing credibleevidence for such charges.

In both Malaysia and Singapore, where nationalsecurity legislation allows prolonged detentionwithout charge of terrorism suspects, dozens ofindividuals remained in detention under InternalSecurity Acts without charge or trial.

In Kenya and certain other African countries, therhetoric of counter-terrorism was employed to justifyrepressive legislation which was used to silence humanrights defenders and obstruct their work.

The exposure during 2005 of the unlawful practicesof governments in the name of countering terrorismmobilized and affirmed the growing demands foraccountability. The determined work of human rightsactivists, lawyers, journalists and many others helpedto lift the blanket of secrecy to expose states that

GLOBAL OVERVIEW


AI INTERVENES IN COURT CASESAI continued to seek the legal implementation of

international human rights standards by intervening in

cases before national and international courts.

Preventing the erosion of the absolute prohibition

against torture in the context of the “war on terror” was

the objective of two interventions in 2005.

In a case before the UK’s highest court, the Appellate

Committee of the House of Lords, AI coordinated a

coalition of 14 organizations in a joint intervention to

challenge the admissibility as evidence in judicial

proceedings of information extracted as a result of torture.

The government had contended that it should be allowed

to introduce into judicial proceedings information

obtained from abroad allegedly as a result of torture, on

the ground that no torture had been committed or

supported by UK agents. The Law Lords ruled that such

information was inadmissible in UK courts.

In a case before the European Court of Human

Rights, AI intervened with six other NGOs to argue that

the prohibition on the transfer (refoulement) of a person

from a state party to the European Convention on

Human Rights to another state where he or she would

be at risk of torture or ill-treatment is and should remain

absolute. Four states intervened to argue that this

prohibition is not absolute, but may be subject to a

“balancing” test against such interests as countering

terrorism. At the end of 2005, the decision of the Court

was still pending.

As part of its work against the death penalty, AI

intervened in a case concerning Guatemala before the

Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

Guatemala, which ratified the American Convention

on Human Rights in 1978, sought to extend the use of

the death penalty in 1996 to make it mandatory for

kidnapping. AI argued that the death penalty could

not be extended beyond the legislation applicable

when Guatemala ratified the Convention and that as a

result of a law passed in 2000, Guatemala had failed

to guarantee the right of a convicted person to seek

pardon, amnesty or commutation of sentence. In

September the Inter-American Court of Human Rights

ordered Guatemala to suspend the death sentence in

this case, and not to execute anyone condemned to

death for the crime of kidnapping under the current

legislation.

transferred, detained and tortured those theysuspected of terrorism.

The year 2005 also witnessed some successes in thestruggle by civil society to stop the trend towardsstates justifying, on security grounds, the use ofinformation extracted through torture. The year endedwith a major judicial victory when the UK governmentlost its legal battle in the domestic courts to reverse thecenturies-old ban against the admissibility ofinformation obtained as a result of torture in judicialproceedings. AI had intervened in the case, arguingthat the absolute prohibition of torture and ill-treatment under international law prevented such use.

The attempts by governments to weaken the ban ontorture and other ill-treatment compromised both themoral integrity and practical effectiveness of efforts tocombat terrorism. 2005 showed the absolute necessityof holding governments accountable to the rule of law,and reconfirmed that an independent and impartialjudiciary plays a vital role in preventing the erosion offundamental safeguards and securing respect forhuman rights.

CONFLICT AND ITS AFTERMATHThe number of armed conflicts around the worldcontinued to fall, but the toll of human suffering didnot. Continuing violence fed on a steady diet ofunresolved grievances arising from years ofdestructive conflict and the failure to hold perpetratorsof abuse to account. It was sustained by the easyavailability of weaponry; the marginalization andimpoverishment of entire populations; systemic andwidespread corruption; and the failure to addressimpunity for gross violations of human rights andhumanitarian law.

Millions of people faced violence and hardship inconflicts caused or prolonged by the collective failuresof political leaders, armed groups and to some extent theinternational community. Millions more enduredinsecurity, hunger and homelessness in the aftermath ofconflicts, without the necessary levels of support fromthe international community to rebuild their lives.

The failure of governments and armed groups aliketo seek the political solutions needed to end conflictand to abide by negotiated settlements took a heavytoll on the human rights of ordinary people. Somegovernments sought advantage from conflicts in othercountries, often arming one side or the other, whiledisclaiming responsibility. When the internationalcommunity mustered enough support to put pressureon warring factions through the UN Security Council orregional bodies, the parties often failed to deliver ontheir commitments, as seen in Sudan and Côte d’Ivoire.

In their quest for political or economic gain,government forces and armed groups often showedtotal disregard for the civilian population caught intheir path and even specifically targeted civilians aspart of their military strategy. The large majority ofcasualties in armed conflicts in 2005 were civilians.Women and girls were exposed to the violence thataccompanies any war and were also subject toparticular, often sexual, abuse. In Papua New Guineagirls were reportedly exchanged for guns by their malerelatives. In the Democratic Republic of the Congolarge numbers of women and girls were abducted andraped by armed combatants. In nearly three quartersof the conflicts around the world, children wererecruited as soldiers.

The world’s attention focused largely on Iraq, Sudan,and Israel/Occupied Territories while prolongedconflicts in Afghanistan, Chechnya/RussianFederation, Nepal, northern Uganda and other cornersof the world were largely ignored or forgotten.

In Iraq, US-led multinational forces, armed groupsand the transitional government all failed to respectthe rights of civilians. Armed groups deliberatelyattacked civilians causing great loss of life. Theytargeted humanitarian organizations and tortured andkilled hostages. The killing of two defence lawyersinvolved in Saddam Hussain’s trial highlighted thechronic insecurity in the country. This insecuritydrastically curtailed the ability of many Iraqi womenand girls to go about their daily lives in safety, and anumber of Iraqi and non-Iraqi women politicians,

GLOBAL OVERVIEW


Ninety people werekilled and at least 100were injured when car

bombs exploded in thetourist resort of Sharm

el-Sheikh, Egypt, on 23 July 2005.

© R

EU

TER

S

GLOBAL OVERVIEW


ARMS CONTROLTackling the proliferation and misuse of weapons

remained a key element of AI’s efforts to combat

human rights violations, whether committed in the

course of conflict, crime or security operations.

The Control Arms Campaign – launched in October

2003 by AI, Oxfam International and the International

Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) – achieved

some notable successes in 2005.

By the end of the year, about 50 governments had

declared their support for an enforceable international

Arms Trade Treaty – a key demand of the Control Arms

Campaign. An arms control treaty based on

international human rights and humanitarian law

would save lives, prevent suffering and protect

livelihoods. Costa Rica, Finland, Kenya, Norway and

the UK, among others, promised to back the treaty. In

October, the European Union (EU) Council of Foreign

Ministers called for global support for such a treaty.

There was considerable backing from governments for

the UK position that separate UN negotiations on a

treaty that would cover all conventional arms should

begin in late 2006.

At the UN, governments agreed on a global

standard for marking and tracing small arms in

October 2005. This went some way towards fulfilling

the proposal put forward by the Control Arms

Campaign for a global system to track small arms and

to hold arms traders accountable. However, not only

did the agreement exclude ammunition, but it was not

legally binding.

The global arms trade remained largely

unaccountable and most transfers were shrouded in

secrecy. Accurate and up-to-date statistics were

therefore difficult to obtain. However, the information

available suggested some striking trends. Most of the

world’s military equipment and services were traded

by a relatively small number of countries. According to

an authoritative report by the US Congress, 35

countries exported some 90 per cent of the world’s

arms in terms of value. By 2005, more than 68 per

cent of arms exports were going to countries in the

global South.

Six of the eight G8 countries are among the top 10

largest global arms exporters, and all eight export

large amounts of major conventional weapons or small

arms to developing countries. A series of loopholes

and weaknesses in arms export controls, common

across most G8 countries, meant that the G8’s

commitments to poverty reduction, stability and

human rights were undermined. Arms exports from G8

countries reached some of the world’s poorest and

most conflict-ridden countries. Such countries

included Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the

Congo (DRC), the Philippines and Sudan.

In 2005 large quantities of weapons and ammunition

from the Balkans and Eastern Europe continued to flow

into Africa’s conflict-ridden Great Lakes region.

Shipments to the DRC continued, despite a peace

process initiated in 2002 and a UN arms embargo.

Weapons and ammunition supplied to the

governments of the DRC, Rwanda and Uganda were

subsequently distributed to armed groups and militia

in the eastern DRC involved in war crimes and crimes

against humanity. In addition to committing other

crimes, these armed groups systematically and brutally

raped and sexually abused tens of thousands of

women. Arms dealers, brokers and transporters from

many countries including Albania, Bosnia and

Herzegovina, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Israel,

Russia, Serbia, South Africa, the UK and the USA were

involved in these arms transfers, highlighting once

again the key importance of regulating the operations

of arms brokers and dealers. By the end of 2005 only

about 30 states had laws regulating such brokers.

Hundreds of thousands of people were killed using

small arms in 2005. In Haiti, for example, small arms

were used by armed groups and former soldiers to

kidnap, sexually abuse and kill Haitians with impunity.

Without disarmament and effective justice for the

victims, Haiti risked sinking further into crisis.

Women paid a high price for the unregulated trade

in small arms, both in their homes and in their

communities. The presence of a gun in the household

has been shown to vastly increase the risk that

violence in the home will have fatal consequences. In

2005, the Control Arms Campaign called on

governments to address inadequate firearms

regulations, poor law enforcement and widespread

discrimination which put women at heightened risk

of violence.

A young man displays his weapons outside a favela(shanty town) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The level ofarmed violence at the hands of drug gangs, police orvigilante “death squads” was extremely high,especially in the favelas. Although the governmenttook steps to curb the proliferation of small arms, areferendum in October 2005 over a ban on gun saleswas defeated. The result was widely attributed topopular anxiety about insecurity and lack of faith inthe police’s ability to provide protection.

©© JJoo WWrriigghhtt

activists and journalists were abducted or murdered.During 2005 evidence mounted that the US-ledmultinational forces and foreign private securityguards committed grave human rights violations,including killing unarmed civilians and torturingprisoners. The failure to mount effective investigationsinto these abuses and to hold those responsible toaccount undermined claims by the occupying forcesand the transitional authorities that they wererestoring the rule of law in the country.

The removal of some 8,000 Israeli settlers from theGaza Strip under the so-called disengagement plandiverted attention from Israel’s continuing expansionof Israeli settlements and its construction of a 600kmfence/wall in the occupied West Bank, where some450,000 Israeli settlers lived in violation ofinternational law. The presence of Israeli settlementsthroughout the West Bank was the main reason for thestringent restrictions (military checkpoints andblockades) imposed by the Israeli army on themovement of some 2 million Palestinians betweentowns and villages within the occupied West Bank.These restrictions on freedom of movement paralysedthe Palestinian economy and curtailed Palestinians’access to their land, their places of work, and toeducation and health facilities. The resulting increasedpoverty, unemployment, frustration and lack ofprospects for a predominantly young populationcontributed to the spiral of violence, both againstIsraelis and within Palestinian society, including growinglawlessness in the street and violence in the home.However, the year saw a significant reduction in thenumber of killings by both sides: some 190 Palestinians,including around 50 children, were killed by Israeliforces, and 50 Israelis, including six children, were killed

by Palestinian armed groups, as compared to more than700 Palestinians and 109 Israelis killed in 2004.

Atrocities continued in Darfur, Sudan, despiteconsiderable efforts throughout 2005 by theinternational community to reach a political solutionto end the violence. The Sudanese government and itsallied militias (Janjawid) killed and injured civilians inbombing raids and attacks on villages, raped womenand girls, and forced villagers from their lands. Abusesby the opposition armed groups escalated as theircommand structures broke down under increasedfactionalism and in-fighting between rival leaders. Theviolations in Darfur were described by the UNSecretary-General and UN agencies as staggering inscale and harrowing in nature with widespread andsystematic human rights abuses, violations ofhumanitarian law, forced displacement of millions ofpeople and looming hunger. In early 2005 the UNnegotiated a peace agreement, raising hopes of a “peacedividend”. The African Union deployed forces, but theirmandate to protect civilians was limited and they werefurther hampered by the relatively small number oftroops deployed and the lack of logistical support. Thepeace did not hold. A UN Commission of Inquiry foundthat the government and the Janjawid militia wereresponsible for crimes under international law and thecase of Darfur was referred by the Security Council tothe International Criminal Court. Although theInternational Criminal Court began investigations, bythe end of 2005, it had not been granted access to Sudan.

Similar patterns were seen in many other conflictsthat received less international attention during 2005:targeting of civilians, sexual abuse particularly ofwomen and girls, the use of child soldiers, and apattern of impunity. These conflicts were fought in

GLOBAL OVERVIEW


Internally displacedSudanese childrenfrom Mahli villagein southern Darfur

region collectrainwater to be

used for drinkingand cooking. InApril 2005 theywere living in an

improvised campwithout the most

basic facilities.

©© RREEUUTTEERRSS//MMoosseess MMuuiirruurrii

GLOBAL OVERVIEW


INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE2005 saw some significant developments towards

bringing to justice those responsible for crimes under

international law, including genocide, crimes against

humanity, war crimes, torture, extrajudicial executions

and enforced disappearances. However, there was also

continuing widespread impunity in national courts in

the states where crimes were committed, as well as

only limited use of universal jurisdiction by courts in

other states.

In October, the International Criminal Court (ICC)

announced its first ever arrest warrants for five leaders

of the Lord’s Resistance Army for crimes against

humanity and war crimes committed in northern

Uganda. AI called on the ICC and the Ugandan

government to ensure that tens of thousands of other

crimes committed during the conflict were

investigated and prosecuted, including crimes by

government forces. AI urged the Ugandan government

to repeal an amnesty law which prevents Ugandan

courts from addressing these crimes.

The ICC continued to investigate crimes committed

in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, but did not

issue any arrest warrants during 2005. It also

undertook preliminary analyses of eight other

situations. However, the President and Prosecutor of

the ICC suggested that resource constraints would

limit its ability to undertake any new investigations

until the current ones were completed.

While the UN Security Council’s referral to the ICC

of crimes committed in Darfur, Sudan, was a positive

step in addressing impunity, it was disappointing that

the Security Council, as part of a compromise to ensure

US support, included in its resolution a provision to

exempt nationals of states not party to the Rome

Statute of the ICC (other than Sudan) from the

jurisdiction of the Court. In AI’s view, this provision

creates double standards of justice and violates the

UN Charter and other international law.

The struggle against impunity was reinforced by the

work of other international and internationalized

courts, notwithstanding some constraints and

setbacks. The Special Court for Sierra Leone advanced

in three trials involving nine suspects charged with war

crimes and crimes against humanity. However, the

Sierra Leone government took no steps to end an

amnesty, part of the 1999 Lomé peace accord, which

prevents prosecution of all others in Sierra Leone

responsible for crimes under international law.

Ignoring calls from the international community,

Nigeria continued, with the apparent support of the

African Union, to refuse to surrender former Liberian

president Charles Taylor to the Special Court for Sierra

Leone, where he has been charged with crimes against

humanity and war crimes against the population of

Sierra Leone.

Some progress was made in establishing special

courts – Extraordinary Chambers – for Cambodia.

These were expected to try no more than half a dozen

people for crimes committed while the Khmer Rouge

were in power, while tens of thousands of others

continued to benefit from a national amnesty. AI was

concerned about the composition of the courts and

whether the Cambodian judges would have the

necessary training and experience, given the serious

weaknesses in the Cambodian judicial system.

National courts in a number of countries also

contributed to the effort to end impunity by

investigating and prosecuting crimes committed in

other countries using universal jurisdiction legislation.

People were convicted of crimes under international

law in Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Spain and the

UK. Canada opened its first case under its universal

jurisdiction legislation of 2000, charging Désiré

Munyaneza with genocide, crimes against humanity

and war crimes committed in 1994 in Rwanda.

In September, Belgium issued a request for Senegal

to extradite the former president of Chad, Hissène

Habré, to face prosecution for the murder of at least

40,000 people, systematic torture, arbitrary arrests

and other crimes, but Senegal referred the matter to

the African Union. In November, former Peruvian

president Alberto Fujimori was arrested in Chile. He

had been shielded from prosecution for extrajudicial

executions and “disappearances” by Japan, which

refused to extradite him to Peru.

The long-awaited trial of Saddam Hussain started in

Iraq in October. Although the opportunity to obtain

justice for some of the crimes committed under his

regime was welcome, AI had serious concerns about

the lack of fair trial guarantees in the statute of the

tribunal, denial of proper access to counsel and the

provision of the death penalty.

Despite progress on international justice, much more

remained to be done to address impunity. 2005 was the

10th anniversary of the massacre of around 8,000

Bosnian Muslims after the UN “safe area” of Srebrenica

fell to the Bosnian Serb Army in 1995. While crimes

committed in Srebrenica have been recognized as

amounting to genocide by the International Criminal

Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the women of

Srebrenica whose husbands and sons were killed are still

waiting for most of the perpetrators to be brought to

justice. In June, AI voiced concerns to the UN Security

Council about its efforts to close the International

Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia without

establishing effective national courts to deal with the

tens of thousands of crimes that the Tribunal was not

able to investigate and prosecute. (There were similar

concerns over the future of the International Criminal

Tribunal for Rwanda.)

At the international level, the courts and tribunals

require the full support of states, in terms both of

providing resources and of exercising the political will

to hand over suspects. At the national level, obstacles

to prosecutions, such as amnesties, have to be

removed, and where national justice systems have

been destroyed by conflict long-term rebuilding plans

are urgently needed. While the increase in universal

jurisdiction cases in 2005 was welcome, states still

have to ensure that they do not provide a safe haven

for people accused of crimes under international law.

both urban and rural settings, generally using smallarms and light weaponry. Often diverse pockets ofviolence erupted, with little chain of command oraccountability. In some cases, governments armedcivilians in an effort to distance themselves fromaccountability or culpability for abuses.

In Colombia, after 40 years of internal armedconflict, serious human rights abuses by all partiesremained at critical levels. A law was passedproviding a framework for disarmament anddemobilization of paramilitaries and armed groups.However, there were fears that the legislation wouldallow the most serious human rights abusers to enjoyimpunity, while human rights violations continued tobe committed in areas where paramilitaries hadsupposedly demobilized. In addition, governmentpolicies designed to reintegrate members of illegalarmed groups into civilian life risked recycling theminto the conflict.

Despite claims that the situation was normalizing,Russian and Chechen security forces conductedtargeted raids in Chechnya during which theycommitted serious human rights violations. Womenwere reportedly subjected to gender-based violence,including rape and threats of rape, by Russian andChechen soldiers. Chechen armed opposition groupscommitted abuses including targeted attacks oncivilians and indiscriminate attacks. There was alsoviolence and unrest in other North Caucasusrepublics, increasingly accompanied by reports ofhuman rights violations.

In Nepal, the human rights situation deterioratedsharply under a state of emergency imposed inFebruary 2005, with thousands of politically motivatedarrests, strict media censorship and atrocities

committed by the security forces and Maoist groups.Following a mission to Nepal in the immediateaftermath of the emergency, AI called on thegovernments of India, the UK and the USA, Nepal’smain arms suppliers, to suspend all military supplies toNepal until the government took clear steps to halthuman rights violations. It made a similar call to othergovernments, including Belgium, Germany, SouthAfrica and France (which supplied crucial componentsfor helicopters assembled and delivered by India).However, although some governments respondedpositively to the appeal for a suspension of militarysupplies, China continued to supply arms andammunition to Nepal.

The failure to resolve manifest injustices, to addressimpunity and to control the spread of arms led tocontinuing insecurity and violence in many countriestrying to emerge from conflict. Even in countries wheresteps towards peace had been agreed, there was oftenlittle political will or rigour to ensure that agreementswere respected and faithfully implemented.

In Afghanistan, lawlessness, insecurity andpersecution continued to blight the lives of millions ofAfghans. Factional commanders – many suspected ofhaving committed gross human rights crimes inprevious years – wielded public authorityindependently of central government control. Absenceof the rule of law left many victims of human rightsviolations without redress, and the criminal justicesystem barely functioned. Thousands of civilians werekilled in attacks by US and Coalition Forces and byarmed groups.

In Côte d’Ivoire, where a disastrous decline in theeconomy precipitated a conflict in a country untilrecently regarded as one of the most stable in West

GLOBAL OVERVIEW


A Bosnian woman cries overthe coffin of her son, who was a

victim of the 1995 Srebrenicamassacre by Bosnian Serb

forces. On 11 July 2005, 610identified victims were buriedat a memorial ceremony. Their

bodies were among thosefound in more than 60 mass

graves around the town. ©© RREEUUTTEERRSS//DDaammiirr SSaaggoolljj

GLOBAL OVERVIEW


REFUGEES, ASYLUM-SEEKERS AND

INTERNALLY DISPLACED PEOPLE

In recent years, the number of refugees worldwide has

fallen significantly, but the reality in 2005 was more

complex and far bleaker than the numbers suggested.

In 2004, the last year for which figures were

available, the number of refugees recorded was the

lowest in almost 25 years. The decline in refugee

numbers was largely because of the numbers of

refugees who returned to their countries of origin, but

not all were able to return to their homes and villages

of origin, and many returned in conditions that were

not voluntary, safe or dignified.

In all, more than 5 million refugees were returned –

not all voluntarily – to their countries of origin

between 2001 and 2004. Many of the returns took

place to countries such as Afghanistan, Angola,

Burundi, Iraq and Liberia where their safety and

dignity could not necessarily be guaranteed. Some

returns breached the fundamental principle of non-

refoulement – the cornerstone of international

refugee protection – that no one should be returned

against their will to a situation where they would be at

risk of serious human rights abuse.

The focus on numbers by both the international

community and individual governments often led to

the rights of refugees being disregarded. In many

countries, asylum-seekers were excluded from seeking

protection, either physically or by procedures that

failed to provide a fair hearing. In Greece, for example,

in 2004 just 11 asylum-seekers were recognized as

refugees and 3,731 were rejected. The refusal rate in

fast-track asylum procedures in the UK was 99 per

cent. In South Africa some asylum-seekers were

arbitrarily deported because of corrupt practices at

refugee reception centres and borders. In China

hundreds, possibly thousands, of North Korean

asylum-seekers were arrested and expelled with no

opportunity to claim asylum.

While the number of people crossing international

borders in search of protection fell, the number of

internally displaced persons remained unchanged at

25 million in 2004, many of whom had been displaced

for years. States continued to be reluctant to allow

international observers to monitor the conditions and

human rights situation of internally displaced people

in their countries. The UN Secretary-General’s March

2005 report on the implementation of the Millennium

Development Goals, In Larger Freedom, recommended

strengthening the inter-agency response to the

protection and assistance needs of internally

displaced people. The resulting new inter-agency

“cluster approach” promised to deliver greater

accountability, but it remained to be seen whether it

would deliver more predictable, robust and coherent

protection to the millions of internally displaced

people around the world.

For refugees living in camps, conditions worsened

in 2005, particularly as many faced reductions in

food rations – a sign of the failure of the world’s

governments to fulfil their international obligations

to share the responsibility of protecting and assisting

refugees. This often resulted in an increase in violence

against women, including domestic violence, and

sexual exploitation of women who were forced to

exchange sex for food rations as their only means of

survival. Refugees continued to be denied freedom of

movement outside camps and so were unable to earn

a living, raising serious questions about the impact of

long-term encampment policies on the rights and

lives of refugees. In urban settings, many refugees

were denied legal status and the right to work, forcing

them into destitution or into a dangerous search for

survival elsewhere, sometimes by travelling to other

countries.

For governments keen to minimize their obligations

to protect refugees, the rhetoric of the “war on terror”

provided yet another excuse to increase border

controls. In many countries, politicians and the media

fuelled xenophobia and racism, falsely linking

refugees with terrorism and criminality and whipping

up hostility towards asylum-seekers.

A container used by the Greek authorities to detain irregular migrants, Chios island, April 2005.

©© RReeffuuggeeee SSoolliiddaarriittyy CCoommmmiitttteeee

Africa, easy access to small arms contributed toviolations of the agreed ceasefire, inter-ethnicconflict in the west of the country, xenophobia andthe ongoing use of child soldiers. Despite efforts bythe African Union to restore peace and security in thecountry, the disarmament, demobilization andreintegration process remained deadlocked. InOctober, AI publicized reports of small armsproliferation, re-circulation and possible new armstransfers to both sides of the conflict despite a UN-imposed arms embargo.

In several post-conflict countries the dominantculture of impunity – the failure to bring to justicethose responsible for human rights abuses – fosteredcontinued cycles of violence. In Sri Lanka, for example,the security situation deteriorated in 2005 as both thegovernment and the armed opposition failed to makethe human rights guarantees in the ceasefireagreement work. Tensions over scarce resources wereexacerbated by internal displacement resulting fromthe conflict and the tsunami.

The struggle to overcome impunity can last fordecades, or even generations. The survivors of Japan’ssystem of military sexual slavery during World War II –the so-called “comfort women” – have persistentlycalled for recognition and justice for more than half acentury, their numbers dwindling with time. Onceagain in 2005 the Japanese government refused toaccept responsibility, formally apologize, or provideofficial compensation for the suffering endured bythousands of women.

There were some exceptions to this generally grimlandscape, including elections in a number of statesemerging from conflict. Greater stability in SierraLeone allowed the UN forces to leave the country. The

Polisario Front, which demands independence forWestern Sahara, released 404 Moroccan prisoners ofwar who had been held for well over two decadesdespite the formal cessation of hostilities 14 years ago.Efforts to overcome impunity moved forward with theprospect of Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) leaders beingbrought before the International Criminal Courtcharged with war crimes in northern Uganda.

FUELLED BY FEAR: SUFFERING DUE TO IDENTITYThe blurring of cultural boundaries often associatedwith globalization, far from overcoming deep divisionsbased on identity, was accompanied by continued, andsome believe increasing, racism, discrimination andxenophobia. Across the world, people were attackedand deprived of basic human rights because of theirgender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation andother similar aspects of their identity, or combinationsof these identities.

In the context of the “war on terror”, 2005 sawcontinued polarization along identity lines in anincreasingly intolerant and fearful world. Manypeople were targeted for discrimination and violencebecause of their identity – Muslims, those identified asMuslims, other minorities, migrants and refugees allfell victim. Some Muslim communities in Europe andelsewhere said they felt under siege: they feared andabhorred the bombings, but also experienced growingracism, fostered in part by some governments andmedia broadly linking the “terrorist threat” with“foreigners” and “Muslims”. On top of this, manysuffered the consequences of counter-terrorismmeasures that were discriminatory in law and practiceas young Muslim males continued to be portrayed as“typical terrorists”.

GLOBAL OVERVIEW


The Israeli wall in al-Ram,near Jerusalem, October2005. Palestinians wereincreasingly confined to

restricted areas anddenied freedom of

movement betweentowns and villages

within the OccupiedTerritories. Many were

cut off from theirfarmlands and their

workplaces, and deniedaccess to education and

health care facilities.

©© RREEUUTTEERRSS//MMaahhffoouuzz AAbbuu TTuurrkk

In their efforts to assert their power or resistchallenges to their authority, repressive regimestargeted ethnic or religious minorities. One of the mostblatant examples was the treatment of Kurdish groupsin Syria and Iran. Up to 21 people were reportedly killed,scores injured and at least 190 more arrested in a brutalclampdown on civil unrest in the Kurdish areas ofwestern Iran from July onwards. The mass arrests andexcessive use of force against protesters in the Kurdishareas were part of a pattern of abuse of ethnicminorities in Iran, where up to half the population isPersian and the rest is made up of other ethnic groupsincluding Kurds, Arabs and Azeri Turks.

In Syria too, Kurds continued to suffer from identity-based discrimination, including restrictions on the useof the Kurdish language and culture. Tens of thousandsof Syrian Kurds remained effectively stateless, andwere consequently denied full access to education,health services and employment, as well as the right toa nationality. However, in June, at its first meeting for10 years, the ruling Ba’th Party Congress ordered areview of a 1962 census which could result in statelessKurds obtaining Syrian citizenship.

Challenges to mainstream religious views wereseverely punished in some countries. In Egypt, despitethe (Emergency) Supreme State Security Court ruling atleast seven times in his favour, Mitwalli IbrahimMitwalli Saleh remained in administrative detentionfor his scholarly views on apostasy and marriagebetween Muslim women and non-Muslim men. InPakistan, where blasphemy laws make it a criminaloffence for members of the Ahmadiyya community topractise their faith, police investigations into killings ofAhmadis were slow or did not take place at all. In justone incident in October, eight Ahmadis were shot deadand 22 injured in their mosque by men shooting from apassing motorbike. Eighteen men arrested shortlyafterwards were released without charge. In China,religious observance outside official channelsremained tightly circumscribed. In March, theauthorities issued a new regulation aimed atstrengthening official controls on religious activities,and in April a crackdown on the Falun Gong spiritualmovement was renewed. A Beijing official stated thatsince the group had been banned as a “hereticalorganization”, any activities linked to Falun Gong wereillegal. Many Falun Gong practitioners reportedlyremained in detention where they were at high risk oftorture or ill-treatment.

In Eritrea, where the government cracked down onevangelical Christian churches during 2005, more than1,750 church members and dozens of Muslims were indetention at the end of 2005 because of their religiousbeliefs. They were held in indefinite andincommunicado detention without charge or trial,some in secret locations. Many were tortured or ill-treated, and large numbers were held in metal shippingcontainers or underground cells.

A perceived lack of ethnic “purity” was used as abasis to exclude people from employment andeducation in Turkmenistan. Many members of ethnic

minorities such as Uzbeks, Russians and Kazakhs weredismissed from their workplaces and denied access tohigher education. Members of religious minoritygroups risked harassment, arbitrary detention,imprisonment after unfair trials and ill-treatment.Latvia ratified the Council of Europe’s FrameworkConvention for the Protection of National Minoritiesduring 2005, but the government’s definition of aminority effectively excluded most members of theRussian-speaking community from qualifying forrecognition as a minority.

In many countries, indigenous people remained anunderclass and were victims of widespread humanrights violations. Discussions on an internationalDeclaration on the Rights of Indigenous People,deadlocked for almost a decade, made halting progressin 2005. This dilatory response by the internationalcommunity to the urgent need to recognize and respectthe rights of indigenous people was reflected at thenational level. In Brazil, for example, the government’sdemarcation and ratification of indigenous territoriesfell far short of its promised goals. This contributed toinsecurity and violent attacks on indigenouscommunities and forced evictions, aggravating alreadysevere economic and social deprivation.

The UN Special Rapporteur on the situation ofhuman rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenouspeople, who visited New Zealand in 2005, said thatthere were significant, and in some cases widening,disparities between Maori and the rest of thepopulation. He said Maori considered this the result ofa trans-generational backlog of broken promises,economic marginalization, social exclusion andcultural discrimination.

GLOBAL OVERVIEW


Around 300people hold acandlelit vigil inSanta Fe, NewMexico, USA, forJames Maestas,a young gayman who wasbeaten andbadly injured inMarch 2005 ashe left arestaurantwhere he hadbeen eatingwith friends.

©© EEMMPPIICCSS//AAPP//JJeeffff GGeeiisssslleerr

GLOBAL OVERVIEW


WOMEN’S RIGHT TO FREEDOMFROM VIOLENCE Some 3,000 representatives from governments and

women’s and human rights organizations came

together in New York in March 2005 to mark the 10th

anniversary of the Beijing UN World Conference on

Women and to assess progress towards fulfilling the

Beijing Declaration and Program for Action. While

governments unanimously reaffirmed the

commitments they had made a decade ago, they failed

to make further pledges to promote and protect

women’s human rights. This failure was in part the

result of a retrogressive attack on women’s human

rights that has become evident over the past few years.

This attack, especially regarding women’s sexual rights

and reproductive rights, was led by conservative US-

backed Christian groups and supported by the Holy See

and some member states of the Organization of the

Islamic Conference.

The attacks on women’s rights, the changed global

security context and the lack of will by states to

implement international human rights standards

formed the backdrop against which AI continued

throughout 2005 to join with women’s groups around

the world to promote women’s human rights.

Areas of progress included new legislation in a

number of countries which reduced discrimination

against women. In Ethiopia, a new Penal Code removed

the marital exemption for the crimes of bride abduction

and associated rape. The Kuwaiti Parliament amended

the electoral law to grant women the right to vote and

stand for election. AI welcomed the entry into force of

the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and

Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa.

Women’s organizations in the Solomon Islands

celebrated the creation of the country’s first purpose-

built shelter for victims of family violence.

Despite the gains made by the global women’s

movement over recent years, pervasive discrimination

and impunity for crimes of violence against women

continued to undermine women’s fundamental rights

to freedom, security and justice.

AI’s campaign to Stop Violence against Women

concentrated during 2005 largely on violence against

women in armed conflict, violence within the family

and the role of women human rights defenders.

As its campaign increasingly focused on the private

sphere of violence in intimate relationships, AI

emphasized the duty of governments to intervene to

adequately protect, respect, promote and fulfil

women’s human rights. AI produced reports

documenting domestic violence in a number of

countries including Afghanistan, Guatemala, Gulf

Cooperation Council countries, India, Iraq, Israel and

the Occupied Territories, Nigeria, the Russian

Federation, Spain and Sweden. Reports were also

issued on the impact of guns on women’s lives, and on

women, violence and health.

The long-term impact of violence against women

was also highlighted in a major World Health

Organization study published in 2005. As AI has

consistently argued, violence against women causes

prolonged physical and psychological suffering to

women, and has repercussions for the well-being and

security of their families and communities. The

connection between violence against women as a

human rights issue and as a public health crisis led AI

to accept an invitation to join the Leadership Council of

the Global Coalition on Women and AIDS.

At a conference of women human rights defenders

held in Sri Lanka towards the end of 2005,

organizations and individuals recognized the

significant contribution of women human rights

defenders to the advancement of the human rights of

all people, and the serious risks to which they are

exposed, including killings, abductions, rapes,

“disappearances” and assaults. Those who defend and

promote women’s human rights and gender equality

are often targeted for their activism and can face

marginalization, prejudice and danger. Defenders of

contested rights such as environmental or sexual rights

were particularly at risk in 2005 as they were seen to

threaten the status quo.

The need for integrated approaches to combating

violence against women was highlighted by two 2005

decisions by the UN Committee on the Elimination of

Discrimination against Women. In the Mexican city of

Ciudad Juárez, hundreds of poor, largely indigenous,

women have been abducted and murdered in recent

years without the authorities taking appropriate

action. The Committee called for a thorough, systemic

revision of the criminal justice apparatus, and for mass

popular education to address structural discrimination

against women. A Hungarian woman brought a case

claiming that the authorities in Hungary had failed to

protect her from a series of violent assaults by her

former common law husband, despite repeated

appeals for help. In this case, the Committee

reaffirmed that, where government authorities fail to

exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate and

punish violations of rights, states themselves bear

responsibility for actions of perpetrators.

© AI

Marisela Ortiz, co-founder of a women’s supportgroup, stands among the crosses commemoratingwomen abducted and murdered in Ciudad Juárez,Mexico, August 2005.

GLOBAL OVERVIEW


DEATH PENALTYAt least 2,148 people were executed in 2005 and at

least another 5,186 were sentenced to death. These

figures only reflect cases known to AI; the true figures

were certainly higher.

Many of those put to death had been denied a fair

trial; they had “confessed” under torture, had not had

proper legal representation or were not given an

impartial hearing. Drug smuggling, embezzlement and

fraud were some of the crimes for which capital

punishment was imposed. Some people lived under

sentence of death for more than 20 years before being

executed, while others were executed almost

immediately. Executioners used various means,

including hanging, firing squad, lethal injection and

beheading. Among those put to death were children

and people with mental disabilities.

As in previous years, the vast majority of executions

took place in only a handful of countries: 94 per cent of

executions in 2005 were in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia

and the USA.

In 2005 Mexico and Liberia abolished the death

penalty for all crimes, bringing the number of countries

that are abolitionist for all crimes to 86. In 1977, the

year when the USA resumed the use of the death

penalty and AI convened a groundbreaking

International Conference on the Death Penalty in

Stockholm, only 16 countries were abolitionist. At the

end of 2005, 122 countries were abolitionist, either in

law or practice.

The campaign against the death penalty gained

strength in the course of 2005. The third World Day

Against the Death Penalty, on 10 October, was marked

in more than 50 countries and territories, including

Benin, Congo, China (Hong Kong), the Democratic

Republic of the Congo, France, Germany, India, Japan,

Mali, Puerto Rico, Sierra Leone and Togo. Around the

world there were demonstrations, petitions, concerts

and televised debates to campaign against capital

punishment. AI members in 40 countries participated in

such events.

There was progress also at the UN level. UN

Resolution 2005/59 on the question of the death

penalty, passed in April 2005, came the closest yet to

condemning the death penalty as a violation of human

rights. The resolution affirms the right to life and

declares, significantly, that abolition is “essential for the

protection of this right”. Resolution 2005/59 was co-

sponsored by 81 UN member states, the highest

number ever. The Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial,

summary or arbitrary executions issued strong

statements in 2005 against the use of mandatory death

sentences. He said that they remove a court’s freedom

to exercise leniency or to take account of any

extenuating or mitigating circumstances and that

mandatory sentencing is entirely inappropriate in a

matter of life or death.

One of the most powerful arguments against capital

punishment is the inherent risk of executing the

innocent. In 2005 both China and the USA released

people from death row who had been wrongly

convicted: China also acknowledged that innocent

people had been executed. Unfair trials have led to

executions in many countries; in 2005 people were

executed in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan,

reportedly without being given the benefit of due

process of law, and therefore not afforded sufficient

opportunity to present evidence of their innocence.

Discrimination based on a wide range of

characteristics such as ethnicity, religion and poverty

manifested itself at every stage of the death penalty

process.

In a large number of countries, including India,

Uzbekistan and Viet Nam, information about the death

penalty remained secret. Sometimes information was

withheld not only from the public but even from the

victims. Japan remained one of the countries where

inmates are not told when they are going to be executed

until a few hours before their death. Just five hours

before they were beheaded, six Somali nationals put to

death in Saudi Arabia in April were reportedly still

unaware that they were at risk of execution.

Even members of groups protected from the death

penalty by international law and standards – such as

juvenile offenders and the mentally disabled – were

executed in 2005. In the USA, where more than 1,000

people have been executed since the resumption of

capital punishment in 1977, the person who died in the

thousandth execution was borderline mentally disabled.

In Iran, at least eight people were executed for crimes

committed when they were less than 18 years old – at

least two were children under the age of 18 when they

were hanged.

In a welcome judgment on 1 March 2005 the US

Supreme Court ruled that the use of the death penalty

against people under the age of 18 was

unconstitutional, leading to more than 70 child

offenders under sentence of death having their

sentences commuted. Concerns remained, however,

that the Supreme Court’s ruling did not apply to

Guantánamo detainees who were juveniles when they

were detained.

Nanon Williams, sentenced to death on flawedevidence for a crime committed when he was 17 yearsold. He was one of 70 child offenders on death row inthe USA whose sentences were commuted in 2005after a Supreme Court ruling.

© Private

At a time of unprecedented globalization, withbarriers to the free flow of capital and goods acrossborders being dismantled, it was ironic that themovement of people across national boundariesbecame more highly regulated than ever. Migrantworkers became the focus of particular attack and ill-treatment, notwithstanding the benefits that hostcommunities derived from their presence. Anestimated 200 million migrants lived and workedoutside their country of origin. From Burmeseagricultural workers in Thailand to Indian domesticworkers in Kuwait, many migrant workers all over theworld faced exploitation and abuse. Ill-treated byemployers and often with alarmingly little legalprotection, they had scant access to justice. Whenirregular migrants came to the attention of theauthorities, they risked being arbitrarily detained andexpelled in conditions that violated their human rights.

As in many parts of the world, in the Mediterraneanregion there continued to be a blatant disregard formigrants' and asylum-seekers’ rights. Some of thethousands of people attempting to enter the Spanishenclaves of Ceuta and Melilla, on the north Africancoast, were intercepted and forcibly taken back toMorocco. Migrants and asylum-seekers fleeingextreme poverty and repression in sub-Saharan Africawere rounded up by Moroccan forces and detained.Some were deported to Algeria or taken to remotedesert regions along the border with Algeria andMauritania and left with little or no food and no meansof transport. In Italy and Greece migrants and asylum-seekers continued to be detained, often in grosslyinadequate conditions.

Most of the world’s governments declined to committhemselves to enhancing migrants’ rights – byDecember 2005 only 34 countries had ratified the

International Convention on the Protection of theRights of All Migrant Workers and Members of TheirFamilies. Of the 20 countries committed to report to theUN Committee on Migrant Workers, just two had doneso by the end of 2005.

Bilateral agreements between migrant-sending andmigrant-receiving countries often ignored the humanrights of migrants, treating human beings ascommodities, “service providers” or “agents ofdevelopment”, regardless of the contribution ofmigrants to their host societies and countries of origin.Many states focused on border controls while turning ablind eye to the exploitation of migrants, includingmigrant workers employed in the informal economy.The important contributions made by migrants to theirhost societies were frequently obscured in publicdebates that were often overtly racist and xenophobic,encouraging a climate in which human rights abusesagainst migrants were overlooked or even condoned.

Women migrants were at particular risk of gender-specific human rights violations. A foreign domesticworker was sentenced by a Shari’a (Islamic law) courtin the United Arab Emirates to 150 lashes for becomingpregnant outside marriage. Many women migrantswere not only vulnerable to sexual exploitation bytraffickers and employers, but also faced systematicdiscrimination in the country where they worked. Awoman from India working in Kuwait who was rapedand became pregnant was held in prison after givingbirth; she was not allowed to leave the country withoutthe permission of the child’s father.

Discrimination and violence on grounds of genderpersisted in every country in the world, as documentedin several major reports released by AI during 2005 aspart of its global campaign to Stop Violence againstWomen. In Nigeria, girls and women were left blind

GLOBAL OVERVIEW


©© RREEUUTTEERRSS//FFiinnbbaarrrr OO’’RReeiillllyy

A labourer unloads emergencysupplies in north-western

Niger, July 2005. Althoughseveral non-governmental

organizations had beenwarning of the risk of famine

in Niger since late 2004,international donors,

including the UN and theEuropean Union, did not reactquickly to calls for urgent foodaid. The UN estimated that thefamine put in danger the lives

of 3.5 million of Niger’s 12million inhabitants.

from beatings, doused with kerosene and set on fire,jailed for reporting that they had been raped ormurdered for daring to report that their husbands werethreatening to kill them. AI’s report on family violencein Spain analyzed the obstacles women face whentrying to escape abusive relationships. In particular,migrant women, Roma women and women withphysical or mental disabilities were rarely able to gainaccess to shelters and financial aid for survivors ofgender-based violence.

During 2005 AI campaigned for the rights of womendisregarded by the criminal justice system. Hundredsof cases of women abducted and murdered inGuatemala were not adequately addressed by theauthorities and the government itself reported that 40per cent of cases were archived and never investigated.Such official inaction sent the strongest signal possibleto those who perpetrated these crimes that they did sowith impunity.

Despite moves towards greater legal recognition oftheir rights in certain countries, lesbian, gay, bisexualand transgender (LGBT) people continued to facewidespread discrimination and violence, oftenofficially sanctioned. The authorities tried to banLatvia’s first ever Gay Pride march to mark the strugglefor the rights of LGBT people. Homophobic remarksmade by the Latvian Prime Minister and other seniorfigures – who, together with religious leaders, opposedthe march – were reported to have encouraged aclimate of intolerance and hatred. In Saudi Arabia, 35men were sentenced to flogging and imprisonment forattending what was described as a “gay wedding”. AI’sfindings in a major report on the USA showed that LGBTpeople were targeted for human rights abuses by thepolice. The discrimination against them significantlyrestricted their access to equal protection under thelaw and to redress for abuses. A 60-year-old gay manarrested in St Louis, Missouri, told AI:

“I did nothing wrong… did not hurt anyone and wastargeted simply for being a gay male in a city park… Nothing is more unfair than singling out a groupand making them criminal when they are not.”Depriving a person of their rights because of a

characteristic they cannot change or that is so centralto their being that they should not be forced to changeit, such as their race, religion, gender or sexualorientation, attacks the central premise of humanrights – the conviction that every human being is equalin dignity and worth.

POOR, EXCLUDED AND INVISIBLE During 2005 the international community’scommitment to “make poverty history” became moreprominent on the international agenda. However,while government leaders pronounced their intentionto reduce poverty, particularly in Africa, most of thetargets set under the UN’s 15-year MillenniumDevelopment Goals showed little, if any, prospect ofbeing met. The first time-bound target to achievegender parity in primary education passed unmet withlittle or no protest from the international community.There was more rhetoric than real commitment to

action, and not nearly enough attention to basingstrategies on human rights principles.

Action by states to relieve poverty and deprivationglobally is not an optional extra – it is aninternational obligation. It was a measure of states’failure to fulfil this obligation that in 2005, when theworld’s economic output was at its highest level ever,more than 800 million people around the world werechronically malnourished. At least 10 million childrendied before the age of five. Over 100 million children(the majority girls) did not have access even toprimary education.

The disappointing outcome of the UN WorldSummit, which took place in September, illustratedclearly the gap between political rhetoric and genuinecommitment. A small number of countries blockedefforts to make significant progress on human rights,security, genocide and poverty reduction. Delegateshad to work so hard to maintain commitments madein the past that they had little time to discussimplementation of the Outcome Document, a politicaldeclaration where governments made pledges in thefour areas of development, peace and security,human rights, and UN reform.

The lack of progress on the MillenniumDevelopment Goals was particularly shocking in lightof the fact that some of the Goals set levels ofexpected achievement lower than those that statesare required to meet under international humanrights law. The Goal of halving hunger, if met, wouldhugely increase life expectancy, health and humandignity. Yet the 152 states that have ratified theInternational Covenant on Economic, Social andCultural Rights have, at the very minimum, anobligation to take the necessary action to mitigateand alleviate hunger for the whole population, evenin times of natural or other disasters.

While global poverty climbed up the internationalagenda during 2005, it was also a year that exposedthe gross economic and social inequalities withineven the wealthiest of countries. The aftermath ofHurricane Katrina shocked many around the world asit revealed the underbelly of deprivation, racialinequalities and poverty within the USA, the mostpowerful economy in the world.

The riots in France drew attention to decades ofsocial inequality and discrimination against migrantsand French nationals of African descent. The Frenchgovernment responded by declaring a state ofemergency, imposing curfews and allowing lawenforcement officials to carry out searches withoutwarrants, close public meeting places of any kind andplace people under “house arrest”. The governmentalso announced plans to expel migrants convictedduring the riots, regardless of whether they had alegal right to reside in France.

In countries of all political colours, and all levels ofdevelopment, many were still unable to access evenminimum levels of food, water, education, health careand housing. Deprivation in the midst of plenty couldnot be blamed solely on a lack of resources – it resultedfrom unwillingness, systemic corruption, negligence

GLOBAL OVERVIEW


and discrimination by governments and others, andfrom their failure to respect, protect and fulfileconomic, social and cultural rights.

For example, millions of people living with HIV/AIDSwere unable to realize their right to health not justbecause of poverty, but because of discrimination andstigma, violence against women, and trade and patentagreements that obstructed access to life-saving drugs.During 2005, fewer than 15 per cent of those needinganti-retroviral treatment in the developing worldreceived it, demonstrating the failure not only ofgovernments, but also of intergovernmental bodiesand companies, to fulfil their shared responsibilitiesfor human rights.

In a globalized economy, the failure to uphold humanrights also brought to the fore the debate about theresponsibilities of companies and financial institutionsfor human rights. The process of establishing humanrights principles applicable to companies movedforward in 2005 with the appointment in July by the UNSecretary-General of a Special Representative onhuman rights and transnational corporations and otherbusiness enterprises. There was debate over the UNHuman Rights Norms for Business and some furtherprogress was made towards the acceptance bycompanies of voluntary codes of conduct. However, theneed remained for common universal standards forcorporate commitment on human rights and legalaccountability.

Countless situations across the globe highlightedhow poverty can be an aggregate violation of humanrights – civil, cultural, economic, political and socialrights – and how poverty, marginalization andvulnerability to violence are often inescapably linked.

In Brazil, where millions lived in poverty in favelas(shanty towns), the government’s continued failure toaddress systemic levels of criminal violence andhuman rights violations at the hands of the policereinforced patterns of social exclusion. The state’spersistent negligence over public security in favelasnot only resulted in some of the highest homicidefigures in the world, but effectively criminalized wholecommunities, further prejudicing access to alreadymeagre public services such as education and healthcare as well as employment. For example, many favelaresidents would not be able to get a job if they gavetheir true address, as they were so widely seen ascriminals. Armed violence was an inescapable part ofdaily life, either at the hands of drug gangs, police orvigilante “death squads”. A police policy of military-style incursions into the favelas not only failed to curbviolence, it endangered the lives of some of the mostvulnerable people in society. In October, a referendumon a total ban on the sale of guns in Brazil wasdefeated. Many analysts attributed the result topeople’s sense of despair about the security situationand lack of faith in the police’s ability to protect them.

In Haiti, high levels of violence, particularly sexualviolence, were perpetrated by armed groups andvigilante groups against women in poor communities.Many women were under constant threat of attack.Given the extremely low rate of conviction in relationto crimes of sexual violence, and the lack of official,community or family support to identify andinvestigate perpetrators, it was not surprising thatthese victims did not seek justice. Law enforcementofficials have consistently failed to provide adequateprotection or access to justice for these women.

GLOBAL OVERVIEW


Firefighters extinguish acar fire in Cenon, near

Bordeaux, south-westernFrance, 9 November 2005.

After France’s mostwidespread civil unrest in

more than 30 years, thegovernment ordered a

state of emergency.

©© EEmmppiiccss//AAPP//BBoobb EEddmmee

Roma communities across Europe were often deniedbasic economic, social and cultural rights such as accessto education and health services, and were frequentlythe targets of police abuse. In Slovenia, Roma formed asignificant proportion of the people unlawfullyremoved from the Slovenian registry of permanentresidents in 1992, known as the “erased”, and as a resultthey were not able to access basic social services.

Whether in response to natural disasters orhumanitarian crises, the international communityoften faces criticism for failing to provide timely andadequate assistance to people in urgent need of aid.However, in some countries humanitarian effortswere hampered by governments unable or unwillingto address the needs of the poor and marginalized intheir own countries. In Zimbabwe, despiteoverwhelming evidence of humanitarian need, thegovernment repeatedly obstructed the humanitarianefforts of the UN and civil society groups for politicalreasons. One of the major factors behind the need forexternal support was the impact of governmentpolicies; hundreds of thousands of people wereforcibly evicted from their homes and tens ofthousands of people lost their livelihoods and theability to support their families.

In 2005 there were some positive steps towardsgreater recognition of economic, social and culturalrights at national and international levels. Theseincluded an important Inter-American Court of HumanRights decision in the case of two Haitian girls, DilciaYean and Violeta Bosico, against the DominicanRepublic, which had denied them access to educationon the basis of their nationality. Also, steps were takentowards creating a UN mechanism for lodging

complaints of violations of economic, social andcultural rights. Such a mechanism would help puteconomic, social and cultural rights on an equal footingwith civil and political rights and end this arbitraryclassification of human rights. It would strike a blowagainst impunity for economic, social and culturalrights violations and open a much-needed avenue forvictims to claim redress.

CONCLUSIONFor AI, genuine human security means that all rights –civil, cultural, economic, political and social – arerealized. These are interrelated and indivisible – nosecurity policy can ignore any one dimension. Humanbeings can flourish and fulfil their potential only ifsecure in all aspects of their lives. Human securitytherefore depends on the full range of interdependenthuman rights being respected, protected and fulfilled.

This report shows how human security, understood inthis way, has often been a casualty of the nationalsecurity strategies of the world’s most powerfulgovernments, and those emboldened by their example.Our collective human security will not be safeguardedthrough such state-centred and narrowly definedapproaches to security. It requires a morecomprehensive vision of what security means, as well asa collective sense of shared responsibility for protectingit within and beyond the boundaries of the state.

GLOBAL OVERVIEW


The people of SriLanka worked hardto rebuild their livesduring 2005, afterthe devastationcaused by thetsunami, butescalating violencein the north-east andhuman rights abuseshamperedreconstructionefforts.

©© UU

NNHH

CCRR

//NN

.. BBeehh

rriinngg

REGIONAL OVERVIEWS – AFRICA

REGIONAL

OVERVIEWS

AFRICA

The signing of several peace agreements in 2005resulted in a decline in armed conflict across theregion. However, grave human rights violations,including killings, rape and other forms of sexualviolence, characterized continuing conflicts in Burundi,Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of theCongo (DRC) and Sudan. Many places faced politicalinstability and a serious risk of further conflict andviolence. Refugees and internally displaced persons(IDPs) in camps and urban areas had inadequate accessto basic needs assistance and were exposed to serioushuman rights abuses. Impunity for human rightsviolations remained widespread, despite someinternational and regional efforts to bring suspectedperpetrators to account. Human rights defenders,journalists and political opponents continued to faceharassment, assault and unlawful detention fordenouncing human rights violations or criticizing theirgovernments.

Millions of men, women and children remainedimpoverished and deprived of clean water, adequatehousing, food, education and primary health care. This situation was exacerbated by widespread andsystemic corruption and the apparent indifference ofgovernments to providing their citizens with the mostbasic economic and social rights. Across the region,hundreds of thousands of families were forcibly evictedfrom their homes, further violating their fundamentalhuman rights.

The Protocol to the African Charter on Human andPeoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africaentered into force during the year, but continuingviolations of women’s human rights, including femalegenital mutilation (FGM), domestic violence, rape,trafficking and sexual violence during conflicts, madethe development nominal rather than substantive.

A series of important regional initiatives, includingthe Pan-African Parliament, the African Union (AU)Peace and Security Council and the African Peer ReviewMechanism, became fully operational, although theiroverall impact on respect for human rights was difficultto measure. The AU Assembly continued to makeefforts to address human rights problems in the region,but its failure to respond firmly to the human rightscrisis in Zimbabwe illustrated the need for the AU toapply its human rights principles consistently.

Armed conflictGovernments and armed opposition groups continuedto abuse human rights and international humanitarianlaw in Sudan (particularly in Darfur), northern Uganda,Chad, Côte d’Ivoire and the DRC, resulting in unlawful

killings, rape and other torture, populationdisplacements and other grave human rights violations.In Darfur, civilians were killed and injured bygovernment troops, which sometimes bombed villagesfrom the air, and by government-allied nomadicmilitias known as the Janjawid. Women were raped andsome were abducted and held as sexual slaves. Manyhad fled conflict and extreme deprivation in the southand other parts of Darfur.

Civilians continued to be the victims of the 19-yearconflict in northern Uganda. Despite peace talks,attacks by the Lord’s Resistance Army increasedtowards the end of 2005, and some dissident militiasremained active and clashed from time to time. Morethan 3 million IDPs and half a million refugees wereexpected to return to the south.

In Burundi, armed conflict continued throughout2005 between one armed group, the PALIPEHUTU-FNL,and government forces in the provinces of Bujumburarural and Bubanza, despite the presence of UNpeacekeeping soldiers. More than 120,000 people, mostof them women and children, remained internallydisplaced and in exile at the end of 2005.

No progress was made in demobilizing an estimated50,000 combatants under the peace process in Côted’Ivoire. The main obstacle to progress appeared to bea lack of trust between the government and theleadership of the New Forces (Forces nouvelles), acoalition of former armed groups. Child soldiers wereused by all parties to the conflicts in Côte d’Ivoire andthe DRC.

In October, Eritrea banned UN helicopter flights andother travel to UN monitors, further restricting themultinational UN Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea,whose 2,800 personnel administered a buffer zonealong the border. Both sides had rearmed since 2000and deployed troops near the border in late 2005. TheUN Security Council called on Ethiopia to implementthe International Boundary Commission’s judgmentregarding the border areas, particularly its allocation toEritrea of Badme town, the flash point of war in 1998,but no progress was made on this during 2005.

Illegal exploitation of natural resources continued inthe DRC, Liberia and Sudan. In Liberia, formercombatants occupied rubber plantations and tappedrubber, claiming it was their only means of survival.They were reportedly responsible for killings andtorture, including rape, of civilians.

There was encouraging progress in peacemaking insome conflicts. In Senegal, for example, the 2004 peaceagreement that ended two decades of conflict in thesouthern Casamance region of the country heldthroughout 2005.

Impunity and justiceDespite widespread and systematic violations ofhuman rights, including war crimes and crimes againsthumanity, most perpetrators were not held to account.Although investigations were opened in a few cases,the justice systems in many countries continued tosuffer from systemic corruption, lack of resources andinadequate training for personnel. Despite encouraging



discussed reform of abortion legislation and theabsence of laws prohibiting marital rape, and somemembers of parliament advocated tougher sentencesfor rape and sexual assaults against women. In Liberia, alaw on rape was passed that had a broader definition ofrape. However, it initially included the death penaltyamong the punishments for perpetrators, despiteLiberia's commitment to abolish the death penalty. TheKenyan parliament agreed to discuss a proposed SexualOffences Bill and discussed a draft law on rape,sponsored by women’s groups. The draft law proposedbroadening the definition of rape and denying bail toanyone charged with raping a minor.

In Nigeria, some states introduced legislation onviolence against women in the home, but the federalgovernment did not review discriminatory laws oramend national law to comply with the Protocol to theAfrican Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on theRights of Women in Africa, which Nigeria had ratified.

Despite the lack of official statistics, it was estimated thatnearly two thirds of women in certain groups in LagosState, for example, were victims of violence in the home.Discriminatory laws and practices, dismissive attitudeswithin the police, and an inaccessible justice systemcontributed to violence against women being widelytolerated and underreported.

Economic, social and cultural rightsMany governments engaged in practices thatsystematically denied people their rights to shelter,food, health and education. In Zimbabwe, hundreds ofthousands of people were forcibly evicted and theirhomes demolished as part of Operation Murambatsvina(Restore Order). The operation was carried out againsta backdrop of severe food shortages. The governmentrepeatedly obstructed the humanitarian work of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and UN agencies,including attempts to provide shelter for the homeless.


An AIDS activist(right) counsels ayoung HIV positivewoman and hergrandmother attheir home nearLusikisiki, SouthAfrica, November2005.

©©RREEUUTTEERRSS//MMiikkee HHuuttcchhiinnggss


In Nigeria, thousands of people were made homelesswithout due process, compensation or the provision ofalternative housing.

In Niger, serious food shortages were compoundedby years of drought and an invasion of desert locusts in2004, the worst in more than a decade, which wiped outmuch of the country’s cereal production. The UNestimated that famine put in danger the lives of over aquarter of Niger’s population. The famine had a knock-on effect in neighbouring Benin, Burkina Faso, Mali andNigeria, all of which experienced rising prices or foodshortages. Despite warnings of the impending famine,international donors failed to respond quickly. InMozambique, over 800,000 people needed food aid asa result of prolonged drought.

High death rates from AIDS-related illnessesseriously affected economic and social development inmany countries of the region. The southern Africaregion continued to have the highest prevalence rate ofHIV in the world and severe problems in access to careand treatment. Swaziland had the highest rate globallywith 42.6 per cent, and more than three quarters ofpeople known to need antiretroviral treatment werestill not receiving it. In South Africa, new figuresrevealed that around 6 million people had beeninfected with HIV by 2004, with less than 20 per cent ofthem receiving antiretroviral drugs. In Mozambique,approximately 200,000 people were unable to accessantiretroviral drugs and other treatment for HIVinfection.

Death penaltyPrisoners remained under sentence of death inBurundi, Cameroon, DRC, Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria,Somaliland, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia.

In Uganda, the High Court in Kakamega freed fourpeople who had been on death row since 1995 after asuccessful appeal against their death sentences. In alandmark judgment, the Constitutional Court of Ugandaruled in favour of ending laws that stipulate amandatory death sentence. The Attorney Generalappealed against the ruling.

In the DRC, argument over abolition of the deathpenalty resurfaced during parliamentary debates onthe new Constitution. An early draft of the Constitutionproposed abolition, but a majority in the Senate andNational Assembly rejected the change.

Human rights defendersAcross the region, governments remained hostile tohuman rights defenders, and many faced harassment,arbitrary arrest and detention, and assault.

In the DRC, Pascal Kabungulu, Executive Secretary ofthe human rights organization Heirs of Justice, was shotdead by three armed men in July at his home in Bukavu,South-Kivu. An official commission of inquiry failed toreport its findings, and no perpetrators had beenbrought to justice by the end of 2005. In Zimbabwe,numerous NGOs and individual human rights defenderswere harassed and intimidated by the state. In Rwanda,several members of civil society, including staff ofhuman rights organizations, were forced to flee the

country for fear of being persecuted or arbitrarilyarrested. Some previously outspoken human rightsactivists were intimidated into silence.

In Sudan, the government launched legalproceedings against one of the leading human rightsgroups in the country, the Sudan Organisation AgainstTorture, in an apparent attempt to silence it. Itsmembers faced more than five years’ imprisonment.Prominent human rights activist Mudawi Ibrahim wasarbitrarily arrested and detained without charge,including when he was trying to leave Sudan to receivean award in Ireland for human rights activism. He waslater released.

In Somalia, Abdulqadir Yahya Ali, director of theCentre for Research and Dialogue, was assassinated inMogadishu in July by unidentified assailants.

In Togo, a group of young people associated with theruling party prevented the Togolese Human RightsLeague from holding a press conference. In Angola,Luís Araújo, coordinator of SOS-Habitat, a housingNGO, was briefly detained in June and Novemberbecause of his activities to prevent forced evictions.The authorities in Cameroon continued to use criminallibel laws to imprison journalists in cases that appearedto be politically motivated.

In Equatorial Guinea, lawyer and human rightsdefender Fabián Nsué Nguema, a former prisoner ofconscience, was accused of misconduct and arbitrarilysuspended from the Bar Association for a year.

Many prisoners of conscience in Eritrea remained inindefinite and incommunicado detention, withoutcharge or trial, and some were tortured or ill-treated. Anew law in May imposed severe restrictions on NGOs.Human rights defenders and prisoners of consciencewere also held in Ethiopia. In Mauritania, however,several NGOs were officially recognized for the firsttime.

AI regional reports• Africa: Entry into force of Protocol on the Rights of

Women in Africa positive step towards endingdiscrimination (AI Index: AFR 01/004/2005)

• African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights:Oral statement on Item 6 – Human rights situation inAfrica; Ending Impunity in Sudan (AI Index: IOR10/001/2005)

• African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights:Oral statement on Item 9 – Human rights situation inAfrica; Human rights in Zimbabwe (AI Index: IOR10/003/2005)

• African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights:Oral statement on Item 9 – Human rights situation inAfrica; Fight against impunity (AI Index: IOR10/004/2005)

• African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights:Oral statement on Item 11 – The Establishment of theAfrican Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (AIIndex: IOR 10/005/2005)

• Oral Statement by Amnesty International: Item 8 –The Establishment of the African Court on Humanand Peoples’ Rights (AI Index: IOR 30/011/2005)


REGIONAL OVERVIEWS – AMERICAS

AMERICAS

The denial of human rights continued to be a dailyreality for many people in the Americas, particularlythose in the most vulnerable sectors of society such asindigenous communities, women and children.However, civil society, including the human rightsmovement, continued to gain strength and influence intheir demands for better living conditions, governmenttransparency and accountability, and respect forhuman rights.

The lives of the majority of people were blighted bydiscrimination and poverty, both of which led to socialunrest and political instability in a number of countries.Indigenous movements, representing some of thepoorest and most marginalized people in the Americas,stepped up their challenge to traditional politicalstructures, particularly in the Andean region.

Police abuse, torture and ill-treatment of detaineesremained widespread. “Disappearances” continued to bereported in the context of Colombia’s internal conflict.Violence against women was endemic throughout theregion and the murders of hundreds of women in ElSalvador, Guatemala and Mexico, as well as the apparentindifference of the authorities, caused widespreadoutrage. The conflict in Colombia and high levels oforganized crime throughout the region, continued toadversely affect the rights of vast numbers of people.

US policies pursued in the name of securityundermined human rights both within the USA and inmany countries around the world.

Natural disasters, including a series of devastatinghurricanes, affected countries in the Caribbean andCentral America and the southern states of the USA,exacerbating already serious levels of poverty andmarginalization. In many cases, such as in New Orleansand other communities in Louisiana State in the USA,the authorities did not provide adequate protectionand aid provision was slow and insufficient.

National security and the ‘war on terror’Hypocrisy and a disregard for basic human rightsprinciples and international legal obligationscontinued to mark the USA’s “war on terror”.

Thousands of detainees remained held withoutcharge in US custody in Iraq, Afghanistan, GuantánamoBay in Cuba, and in secret detention centres known as“black sites” believed to exist in Europe, North Africaand elsewhere. Torture and other ill-treatmentcontinued to be reported and further evidenceemerged that the US authorities “outsourced” tortureby means including “rendition” — the transfer ofindividuals to another country without any form ofjudicial or administrative process, sometimes in secret.

Around 500 detainees remained in Guantánamo Bay,where they were held in conditions amounting to cruel,inhuman or degrading treatment and continued to bedenied their right to challenge the lawfulness of theirdetention.

Despite mounting evidence that the US governmenthad sanctioned “disappearances” as well as

interrogation techniques constituting torture or otherill-treatment, there was a failure to hold officials at thehighest levels accountable, including individuals whomay have been responsible for war crimes and crimesagainst humanity.

US “war on terror” policies that undermined humanrights standards were challenged during 2005.Legislation was passed prohibiting the torture andinhumane treatment of detainees anywhere in theworld, despite initial objections from the Bushadministration that the prohibition would hamper itsability to obtain information from detainees. However,the bill also severely limited the Guantánamodetainees’ access to federal courts and called intoquestion the future of some 200 pending cases in whichdetainees had challenged the legality of theirdetention.

The USA increased its military assistance programmein Colombia despite continued evidence of gravehuman rights violations by military personnel andparamilitary groups operating with their active or tacitsupport.

Conflict and crime The rule of law in several countries was threatened byabusive government policies, corruption,discrimination and inequality that sparked socialprotest by marginalized communities, particularly inthe Andean countries. Indigenous movements wereagain at the forefront of many of the extended protestsand were increasingly vocal in demanding their rightsand participation in political life. The governments inEcuador and Bolivia were forced to resign as a result ofmass discontent.

In Colombia, the rule of law was threatened bygovernment policies in the context of the long-runningconflict. All parties to the conflict continued to commitwidespread human rights abuses principally against thecivilian population.

Human rights and the rule of law were also underthreat through high levels of violence in severalcountries, especially in urban areas. In someBrazilian, Central American and Caribbean cities,entire neighbourhoods were trapped betweencriminal, often gang-related, violence and therepressive response of the state security forces whosemethods violated the rights of entire communities.Although most public attention was devoted to crimeagainst the wealthy, it was the lives of the urban poorwhich, deprived of state protection, were mostdominated by violence.

The trend towards militarization of law enforcementcontinued. In Central America the role of the armedforces was increasingly directed towards maintainingpublic order and combating crime.

In Haiti, illegal armed groups and police officers wereimplicated in the killing and kidnapping of civilians.

The proliferation of small arms remained a concern,despite attempts by some governments to restrictthem. In a referendum in Brazil, 64 per cent of theelectorate voted against a proposal to ban commercialsales of firearms.



Impunity and justiceMembers of the security forces continued to commitwidespread human rights violations with impunity.Across the region torture and other ill-treatment,sometimes resulting in deaths in custody, werereported but few of the perpetrators were punished.Victims, their relatives or those representing themwhen they filed complaints, as well as witnesses,members of the judiciary and investigators, werefrequently intimidated, harassed, threatened withdeath and sometimes killed.

Many prisons were severely overcrowded andlacking in basic services. Often, the conditionsamounted to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.This caused several riots across the region resulting inscores of deaths, mostly of young, poor men.Inefficient, corrupt and discriminatory judicial systemsmeant that detainees who came from poor andmarginalized communities could languish for monthsand even years in prison without being tried andsentenced, and frequently without access to defencelawyers.

Excessive use of force by the security forces to curbcrime and civil unrest were reported in Brazil,Colombia, Ecuador, Jamaica, Paraguay and elsewherein the region. In some cases, people were killed as aresult.

The lack of independence and impartiality of judicialsystems in the region – because of corruption orpolitical bias, or because of corporate interests withinpolice and military courts – remained a serious concernand fed the cycle of impunity for human rightsviolations.

There was significant progress in addressing theunresolved legacy of past human rights violations insome Latin American countries. Former Chilean leaderAugusto Pinochet was placed under house arrest oncharges related to human rights violations. Having beenstripped of his legal immunity and declared “mentallycompetent” to stand trial, victims and their relativeswere hopeful that their quest for justice for over 30years might be fulfilled.

Victims and relatives of more recent grave humanrights violations saw their right to justice move closerto realization when the former Peruvian President,Alberto Fujimori, was arrested in Chile pending anextradition request on charges of murder, forceddisappearance and torture.

The Argentine Supreme Court of Justice declared theFull Stop and Due Obedience laws null and void,opening the way towards truth and justice forthousands of victims of human rights violationscommitted in Argentina between 1976 and 1983.

Adolfo Scilingo, an Argentine former naval officerwho had admitted to being aboard planes carryingdetainees who were drugged, stripped naked andthrown into the sea during the military governments inArgentina, was tried and sentenced in Spain on chargesof crimes against humanity. In another case, a ruling bySpain’s Constitutional Court opened the way for formerGuatemalan President Rios Montt and other formermilitary officials to be tried for human rights violations.

However, there were also significant setbacks. InColombia, the Justice and Peace Law threatened toguarantee impunity for members of illegal armedgroups implicated in human rights abuses, includingwar crimes and crimes against humanity, who agreed todemobilize. In Haiti, scores of former military andparamilitary officials serving sentences for theirinvolvement in past massacres escaped prison andsome were granted unconditional release for noapparent lawful reason. Despite five years in office, theSpecial Prosecutor assigned to bring to justice thoseresponsible for widespread human rights violations inMexico in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s achieved virtuallyno progress.

Gender-based violence Violence against women continued to be one of themost pressing human rights challenges in the Americas.Countless women and girls faced violence on a dailybasis and could not count on their government toprovide them with the basic level of protection andsecurity that is their fundamental right.

Governments across the region continued to ignoreprovisions enshrined in women’s human rights treaties.Although most countries in the region had laws toprevent and protect women from violence in the homeand community, police investigations into allegationsof violence against women were rarely effective,criminal justice systems frequently failed to takeviolence against women seriously and perpetratorswere rarely punished.

The number of women and girls murdered in CiudadJuárez, Mexico, continued to rise and there wasinsufficient progress to end impunity for pastabductions and murders both in this city and in the cityof Chihuahua. The number of women killed inGuatemala rose to up to 665 compared to 527 in 2004,and the increase of sexual abuse and murders ofwomen in El Salvador that began in 2002 continued.Little progress was made in investigating these killingsand preventing future ones.

The lack of specific definitions in law to criminalizeviolence against women continued to be an obstacle toobtaining justice in a region where gender-baseddiscrimination remained endemic in state institutions.However, some progress was made. In Mexico, theSupreme Court ruled that rape within marriage is acrime, ending a 15-year legal battle during whichmembers of the judicial system argued that since thepurpose of marriage was procreation, forced sexualrelations by a spouse was not rape but “an undueexercise of a [conjugal] right”. In Guatemala, theConstitutional Court suspended a law that allowedrapists, in certain circumstances, to escape prosecutionif they married their victim.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT)people continued to suffer discrimination andviolence. In the USA a study carried out by AIindicated a heightened pattern of misconduct andabuse by police of transgender individuals and of allLGBT people of colour or who are young, immigrants,homeless or sex workers. In Nicaragua, gay and



lesbian relationships continued to be criminalizedand a number of sodomy laws were still in force inCaribbean countries.

Economic, social and cultural rightsAccording to UN studies, there were signs of a slightreduction in poverty levels in some countries in theregion. However, these figures masked pockets ofdecline in some places, including Haiti, and in somerural areas in Guatemala, Peru and elsewhere. Incomeand social inequalities remained among the highest inthe world, undermining the potential for overalldevelopment. Marginalized and dispossessedcommunities in rural and urban settings in manycountries continued to live in extreme poverty withtheir rights to health care, clean water, a livelihood,education and shelter disregarded.

Participation of indigenous peoples in politicalaffairs was not matched with improvements in theirenjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights,despite repeated calls by international banks andothers to develop help and support for indigenouspeoples and afro-descendants and to invest in ruralcommunities. A World Bank study of indigenouspeoples in Bolivia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico andPeru found that indigenous peoples were 13 to 30 percent more likely to be poor than non-indigenouspeoples.

The HIV/AIDS epidemic claimed an estimated 24,000lives in the Caribbean in 2005, making it the leadingcause of death among adults aged between 15 and 44. Atotal of 300,000 people were believed to be living withHIV in the region, including 30,000 people who becameinfected in 2005. In the other parts of the region,infection rates rose, especially among men. Women sexworkers were also badly affected.

The conflicts over resources, such as land and water,and privatization plans were reflected by the number ofhuman rights defenders attacked on account of theirefforts to raise legitimate concerns in these areas.

A summit of Americas’ governments held inArgentina in November failed to break the deadlock onlong-stalled negotiations to establish a Free Trade Areaof the Americas (FTAA). Some countries, led byArgentina, Brazil and Venezuela, vigorously opposedthe initiative.

However, liberalized trade and investmentcontinued to prevail in the region, through bilateralagreements or sub-regional arrangements. There wereprotests about the effect of such agreements onentrenching poverty in large sectors of the populationand the failure of governments to ensure that humanrights safeguards were built into the agreements.Human rights continued to take a back seat toeconomic interests, increasing the risk thatirresponsible trade practices or investment decisionswould undermine human rights. Areas of specificconcern included labour rights, access to affordablemedicines and intellectual property rights.

Death penaltyDeath sentences continued to be handed down inseveral countries, including Belize and Trinidad andTobago. However, the only executions in the regionwere in the USA. Mexico abolished the death penaltyfor all crimes.

In December the USA carried out its 1,000thexecution since 1977, when executions resumed after amoratorium. Despite this shameful landmark, the trendtowards restricting its application continued. In March,the US Supreme Court banned the execution of childoffenders (those aged under 18 at the time of the crime),


Indigenouschildren who have

fled one of manyareas of conflict in

Colombia takeshelter in a

refugee camp inSan José del

Guaviare, May 2005.

©©RREEUUTTEERRSS//EElliiaannaa AAppoonnttee

REGIONAL OVERVIEWS – ASIA-PACIFIC

bringing the USA into line with international standardsprohibiting such executions. Two people were releasedfrom death row on grounds of innocence. However,among the 60 people executed in 2005 were peoplewith mental disabilities, defendants without access toeffective legal representation and foreign nationalsdenied their consular rights.

Human rights defendersHuman rights activists across the Americas campaignedvigorously to hold governments and armed groups totheir obligations to respect international and domestichuman rights standards.

Women’s rights activists struggled to reformantiquated laws on rape and domestic violence andwere often threatened or intimidated for trying tosupport victims of violence and sexual abuse.Indigenous activists in Central America championedtheir community’s rights to defend their livelihoods andthe right to be consulted on issues that affect theirancestral lands, such as the extraction of naturalresources or the construction of dams. AI feared thatsome gay, lesbian and transgender activists wentunderground following mounting homophobia inJamaica and some other Caribbean countries.

The difficulties and dangers faced by activists in theAmericas ranged from intimidation and restrictionson travel, to arbitrary detention and unfoundedaccusations of terrorism and other violent activities.The authorities often refused to take reports ofviolations against human rights defenders seriously,suggesting that the reports were fabricated orexaggerated. Activists working locally on ruralpoverty and development, often in isolated areas, andjournalists covering issues such as corruption werekilled in Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala and Mexico. InEcuador, members of an NGO that campaigns toprotect indigenous communities and the environmentfrom the adverse effects of oil drilling and fumigationof coca plantations were threatened with death. InCuba human rights activists, political dissidents andtrade unionists continued to be harassed andintimidated and attacks on freedom of expression andassociation were frequent.

The use of the judicial system to hamper the work ofhuman rights defenders by threatening them withinvestigation or detention on unfounded criminalcharges was a serious problem in Colombia, Cuba,Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras and Mexico. Cases werealso reported in the USA.

Government efforts to protect human rightsdefenders at risk were marred by extended delays bysome authorities in implementing requests forprecautionary measures to protect namedindividuals, as recommended by the Inter-AmericanCommission of Human Rights. Some governments onlymanaged to offer protection measures such as bullet-proof vests and were unable to muster sufficientpolitical will to tackle deep hostility towards humanrights work within their governments, or to correctlegal provisions restricting the right to defend human rights.

ASIA-PACIFIC

With 56 per cent of the world’s population, twoemergent economic superpowers, a host of armedconflicts, a series of natural disasters and civil societyorganization ranging from minimal to vibrant, the Asia-Pacific region continued to provide a challenging anddynamic context for the promotion of human rights in2005. Ongoing conflicts and security concernspersisted, heightening the vulnerability of populationsand providing the context for many grave abuses.

Welcome moves in 2005 towards a greateracceptance of international human rights standardsincluded the ratification by Afghanistan of the UNRefugee Convention, the ratification by India of theOptional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights ofthe Child on the involvement of children in armedconflict, and the ratification by the Indonesianparliament of the International Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights and the International Covenant onEconomic, Social and Cultural Rights.

National human rights institutions continued tooperate in several countries, including Afghanistan,India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nepal, Sri Lankaand Thailand, although not in Bangladesh, China andViet Nam. In Pakistan, a draft bill to establish a nationalhuman rights commission was presented to parliament.There were also positive moves towards cooperationbetween national human rights bodies, including thosein Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand.

2005 saw moves towards a thawing of relationsbetween states historically hostile to each other. Therewere talks and cross-border transport between Indiaand Pakistan, and six-party discussions on North Koreaprogressed with an accord in which North Koreapledged to abandon its nuclear programme in returnfor assurances on aid and security.

Politicized religious movements impacted on theeveryday reality of human rights, especially in southAsia. There were constraints on women’s movement anddress as well as impediments to the ability of minoritygroups to practise their beliefs and live peacefully.

Asia moved centre stage in international trade andbusiness affairs with the Global Compact and the WorldTrade Organization’s meetings held in China and HongKong. India and China continued to show fast rates ofeconomic growth. However, national indicatorssuggested that millions of people were living in poverty— from more than a quarter of the population inCambodia, India, Indonesia, Laos, Mongolia, Nepal,Pakistan, Papua New Guinea and the Philippines, toaround half the population in Bangladesh and Viet Nam.

Although the Internet was widely taken up, in partsof Asia it was not the tool of freedom of expression ithad promised to be. In China, access continued to beheavily monitored by the state, with many websitesblocked and users prosecuted for posting politicalopinions or information embarrassing to thegovernment. In Viet Nam, the sharing of opinions andinformation on the web resulted in prosecutions for“espionage”.



Security concernsAttacks against civilians by armed groups affectedmany parts of the region, including Afghanistan,Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Nepal and Sri Lanka.Bombings caused carnage and robbed hundreds ofpeople of their lives.

Some state responses to such attacks weredisproportionate and at times discriminated againstmarginal or minority groups, reinforcing pre-existinggrievances or persecution. Arbitrary arrests in thename of combating terrorism were reportedly made inAfghanistan, including by US and Coalition forces, andin Pakistan by the security forces. In China, peoplecharged with terrorism and “state secrets” offenceswere tried in secret. In India, the Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act continued to provide the state withmany of the powers that had been heavily criticized inannulled counter-terrorism legislation. In Australia,detention without trial and renewable control orderswere introduced through counter-terrorism legislation.New national security legislation in South Koreacontinued to be used against those engaged in peacefulpolitical activities. In Malaysia, alleged Islamists hadtwo-year detention orders renewed despite theNational Human Rights Commission urging the trial orrelease of all Internal Security Act detainees.

The role of the USA in its “war on terror” continued inthe region during 2005. Air attacks by US forces killed atleast 15 civilians in Pakistan and dozens in Afghanistan.Abuses reportedly continued in US bases in Afghanistanand prompted popular unrest, during which peoplewere killed. Men returning to Afghanistan from UScustody in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, brought homegruelling accounts of torture and ill-treatment whichfurther fuelled local anger, anxiety and unrest.

Troubled statesIn a number of states in the region, the nationalframework through which protection against andredress for human rights abuses could be sought wasweak and ineffective.

The Afghan state continued to fail to deliver safety,security and the rule of law to its people. Warlordsbelieved to have been responsible for human rightsabuses wielded power and instilled a climate of fear inparts of the country. Fundamental flaws in the criminaljustice system, the legacy of decades of conflict, anddeeply embedded discrimination against womenprofoundly militated against the promotion of humanrights and justice for past and continuing violations,particularly for women and girls.

In Nepal, the King cited the need to counter violenceby Maoist groups to declare a state of emergency inFebruary, dismiss the government and suspend civilliberties. Mass detentions followed and there was afurther breakdown in security for much of thepopulation.

In Timor-Leste, the very newness of the institutionalstructures meant there was a shortage of judges,prosecutors and defence lawyers. This seriouslyimpacted on the right to a fair trial and other aspects ofthe criminal justice system.

Elsewhere in the region, governments in countriesincluding Myanmar, North Korea and Viet Namappeared to be largely impervious to pressure touphold human rights. The authorities in Myanmar, forexample, continued to violate human rights throughwidespread and long-term political imprisonments,forced labour, land confiscations and displacement ofminorities, thereby showing utter disregard for thepopulation and the international community.


People inHong Kongprotestingagainst thedeathpenalty inChina, July 2005.

©©RREEUUTTEERRSS//BBoobbbbyy YYiipp


Armed conflictsArmed conflicts persisted in several places, includingAfghanistan, parts of India, Nepal, the Philippines, SriLanka and southern Thailand.

Two areas of armed conflict that were affected by theDecember 2004 tsunami saw very different developmentsin the following 12 months. Indonesia underwent aprocess of negotiation leading to a peace agreement inNanggroe Aceh Darussalam in August. By contrast, SriLanka witnessed increased violence, including theassassination of the Foreign Minister in August, growinginsecurity in the east, and a marked deterioration of thesituation in the north in December, shortly after theelection of a new President. At the end of 2005 there wasdeep concern about the escalation of violence in SriLanka and the viability of the ceasefire agreement.

The conflict in southern Thailand continued todeteriorate in 2005 with a considerable heightening ofthe climate of fear and constraint. Both sides to theconflict were implicated in human rights abuses andviolence. In the Philippines a ceasefire between thegovernment and secessionist forces in Mindanao,although fragile, largely held throughout 2005.

DiscriminationStates continued to fail in their duty to protect thehuman rights of all, both by maintaining discriminatorylaws and by failing to ensure that those who sufferdiscrimination have adequate redress.

Ethnicity, gender, socio-economic factors and sexualidentities continued to provide the backdrop fordiscrimination across the region. Among those targetedwere dalits (“low caste” people) and adivasis(indigenous people) in India; Ahmadis in Bangladesh,Pakistan and Indonesia; Montagnards and Buddhists inViet Nam; indigenous peoples in Australia; Karen, Mon,Rohingyas and Shan in Myanmar; Uighurs in China; andlesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people acrossthe region. Among the abuses such targeted groupssuffered were forced labour, displacement,persecution, and restrictions on freedom of expressionand the right to practise their religion.

On a positive note, a landmark ruling by a Fiji courtrecognized that provisions in the Penal Code usedagainst consensual homosexual activity violatedconstitutional guarantees on privacy and equality.

Violence against womenWomen and girls continued to suffer a vast array offorms of violence, including domestic violence, forcedabortions and sterilizations, forced marriages, killingsand crimes of “honour”. Such abuses were systematicand carried out on a massive scale.

Violence against women continued to be closelyinterrelated with cultural attitudes and practices ofgender discrimination, such as wanting babies to beboys, the belief that women should not leave the homeand the view that women should not take decisionsrelating to marriage.

Gender discrimination constrained life andemployment choices, thus making women and girlsparticularly vulnerable to trafficking – a third of all

global human trafficking was estimated to originatefrom or be located in Asia. Many countries in the regioncontinued to view trafficked women as illegalimmigrants and failed to prosecute the traffickers.

Justice and safety often escaped women facingviolence because of inadequate or non-existent statemechanisms, or because penalties for perpetratorswere inconsistent or did not reflect the seriousness ofthe violence. As a result, many of those whoperpetrated violence against women enjoyed impunity.

The need for changes in attitudes as well as legalreform meant that progress in challenging the violencewas patchy and slow. Some notable efforts included theestablishment of an inter-ministerial council aimed atcombating violence against women in Afghanistan; theadoption or proposal of laws to protect women fromdomestic violence in Cambodia, Fiji and India; theintroduction of legislation against sexual harassment inChina; the draft before parliament of anti-traffickinglegislation in Indonesia; and the establishment of thefirst purpose-built shelter for victims of family violencein the Solomon Islands.

The plight of the so-called “comfort women”demonstrated the low priority of delivering redress towomen victims of violence. Having been victims ofmilitary systems of sexual slavery more than 50 yearsago, these women continued to campaign forreparations through the courts in Japan and elsewhere,but at the end of 2005 were still waiting for justice.

Migrants and refugeesAsia continued to see significant migration flows withinand beyond the region. Migrant workers and theirfamilies faced uncertainty, vulnerability and poortreatment in many countries, including Japan,Malaysia, South Korea and Taiwan. Few states in theregion, particularly receiving states, had ratified theInternational Convention on the Protection of theRights of All Migrant Workers and Members of TheirFamilies.

Refugees and asylum-seekers faced marginalization,harassment and arbitrary arrest. Laws and practice inseveral states allowed ill-treatment of refugees,including caning of migrants and asylum-seekers inMalaysia and arbitrary detention of asylum-seekersand refugees in detention centres in Australia.

The conflicts in Sri Lanka and Nepal generatedsignificant numbers of internally displaced people. InNepal, an estimated 200,000 displaced people suffereda severe lack of services, including housing, health andeducation. In Sri Lanka, hundreds of thousands ofpeople displaced by the conflict and the tsunami wereparticularly vulnerable to conflict-related violence.

Natural disasters The region suffered devastating natural disasters in2005, and the extent of the impact of the 2004 tsunamibecame clear during the year. In Indonesia, it emergedthat over 700,000 people had died, were still missing orhad been displaced as a result of the tsunami. InThailand, at least 100,000 people had been affected. InSri Lanka, 35,322 people died and 516,150 were



displaced. In India, an estimated 15,000 people diedand more than 112,000 were displaced.

A powerful earthquake that struck the Pakistan/Indiaborder region in October 2005 left an estimated 73,000dead in Pakistan and at least 1,200 dead in India’sJammu and Kashmir state. Between 2 and 3 millionpeople were made homeless. Further deaths andwidespread suffering were witnessed in the severeweather conditions in the following Himalayan winter.Concerns about relief efforts after the tsunami and theearthquake centred on ongoing conflict, access toremote areas and allegations of discrimination.

Economic, social and cultural rightsIndia and China enjoyed considerable internationalattention and support for their economic growth andstatus as emerging players in the global economicscene. While claims of a decrease in the number ofthose in “absolute poverty” were contested, anyparallel improvement in human rights was notmanifest. Economic development did not prioritizerealization of economic, social and cultural rights. InChina, rural migrant labour continued to suffer direconditions, and hundreds of thousands of peasantfarmers were increasingly marginalized through landexpropriation, lack of health care and the failure of thestate to provide education for millions of children inrural areas. Rural-urban disparities and the growinggap between rich and poor fuelled social unrest in thecountryside. In India, legislation was introduced in2005 to guarantee minimum annual employment for thepoor in selected areas.

Across the region, conflict and environmentaldegradation still adversely affected many communities.In Afghanistan, up to a third of the population could notrely on safe or reliable sources of food, drinkable wateror shelter. In India, thousands of people were stillawaiting remedies for the 1984 Bhopal disaster.

Death penaltyThe Asia-Pacific region continued to have a poor profilewith regard to the death penalty, although a notableminority of countries were abolitionist. The deathpenalty was retained in 26 countries, includingAfghanistan, China, India, Japan, Pakistan, Singapore,Thailand and Viet Nam. Capital offences included taxfraud, murder, drugs smuggling, robbery andkidnapping.

In South Korea an unofficial moratorium remained inplace. A death penalty abolition bill introduced in 2004by a member of parliament and former death rowinmate passed its first parliamentary hurdle, withbipartisan support, in February 2005.

China and Mongolia still refused to make deathpenalty statistics public and official statistics fromsome other countries were considered unreliable. Evenso, official statistics remained high. They included atleast 1,770 executions and 3,900 death sentences inChina, at least 31 executions and 241 death sentences inPakistan, at least 21 executions and 65 death sentencesin Viet Nam, and at least 24 death sentences inAfghanistan.

Practices that aggravated the suffering of thoseawaiting execution included the sudden announcementof executions in Japan, so that those about to be killeddid not have the chance to meet their families and otherloved ones. In Pakistan, the unreliability ofdocumentation relating to registration of births led to alack of confidence that all those facing execution wereadults and that a 2001 commutation order for juvenileson death row was applied to all child offenderssentenced to death.

Key abolitionist voices in the region included thePresident and Chief Justice to the Supreme Court inIndia, the Foreign Minister in Sri Lanka and the HomeMinister in Japan. However, no country in the Asia-Pacific region abolished the death penalty in 2005.

Human rights defendersHuman rights activists, particularly those defending therights of women, came under increasing attack byprivate individuals and groups as well as by agents ofthe state. Human rights defenders across the regionfaced threats, harassment, and arrest and assault fortheir work. China detained many human rightsdefenders, including journalists and lawyers, and somewere sentenced to prison terms. Activists were alsoarrested during political crackdowns in Cambodia andNepal, and human rights defenders suffered deaththreats in Afghanistan and Bangladesh.

Impunity for crimes against human rights defendersremained a problem, even in the most high-profilecases. In Thailand, for instance, despite pressure fromthe Prime Minister to resolve the “disappearance” ofhuman rights lawyer Somchai Neelapaijit in March2004, none of the suspects had been brought to justiceby the end of 2005.

Despite the tremendous pressures facing humanrights defenders, the scale of human rights activismacross the region was remarkable. Human rightsdefenders were at the forefront of struggles to advanceeconomic, social and cultural rights, particularly inChina, India and the Philippines. Women human rightsdefenders began forging partnerships, including at thefirst-ever global gathering of women human rightsdefenders in Sri Lanka in December 2005. At thismeeting, which brought together some 200 activistsfrom around the world, women activists developed arange of strategies to combat the violence,discrimination and other abuses they experiencespecifically because of their gender and because oftheir work in defence of human rights.

In some cases, victims of abuse became committedhuman rights defenders. In Pakistan, for example,Mukhtaran Mai, a survivor of gang-rape, became anactivist for the right of all women to live their lives insafety and dignity.


REGIONAL OVERVIEWS – EUROPE/CENTRAL ASIA

EUROPE/CENTRAL ASIA

Direct attacks on civilians, including in Russia, Spain,Turkey and the UK, led to loss of life and many injuries.Governments continued to attack human rights in thename of security, including through measures thatundermined the universal and absolute ban on tortureand other ill-treatment.

The legacy of previous conflicts, including impunityfor crimes committed during them, persisted. Cypruscontinued to be a divided island and no significantprogress was made in resolving the status of theregion’s internationally unrecognized entities, situatedwithin the borders of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Moldovabut remaining outside of those states’ de facto control.However, steps were taken to open talks on the finalstatus of Kosovo.

Many countries in the region were a magnet for thoseattempting to escape poverty, violence or persecution.The fact that asylum is principally a human rights issuecontinued to be all but lost in the face of politicalpressure to control “illegal immigration” or to prioritize“security concerns”. In breach of their internationalobligations, some states unlawfully detained asylum-seekers and conducted expulsions without dueprocess, including to countries where those seekingprotection were at further risk of violations. Asylum-seekers, migrants and minorities remained amongthose continuing to face racism and discriminationacross the region.

While the process of accession to the EuropeanUnion (EU) continued to encourage human rightsprogress in some states, institutionally the EUcontinued to have a minimalist concept of its domestic

human rights role. Adoption of the EU’s constitutionaltreaty, incorporating its Charter of Fundamental Rights,stalled after rejection by voters in two member states.The EU’s proposed new Agency for Fundamental Rights,while potentially a significant step forward inovercoming EU complacency towards observance andfulfilment of human rights within its own borders,showed a limited and ad hoc approach to human rightspolicy – with abuses by member states largely excludedfrom its remit.

Security and human rightsSecurity continued to eclipse observance offundamental human rights, to the detriment of bothissues. In the UK, new measures purportedly tocounter terrorism were enacted even though thecountry had some of the toughest anti-terrorism lawsin the region. The enactment of other measures,including provisions that would undermine the rightsto freedom of expression, association, liberty and fairtrial, was pending at the end of the year. Peoplepreviously held without charge or trial, labelled“terrorist suspects” on the basis of secret intelligencethey were not allowed to know and therefore couldnot refute, were placed under restrictive “controlorders” after their detention had, in 2004, been ruledincompatible with their human rights. Most of themwere subsequently reimprisoned under immigrationpowers pending deportation on national securitygrounds: many of the men and their families sufferedserious deterioration in their mental and physicalhealth as a result of their ordeals.

The UK government also continued to underminethe universal and absolute ban on torture by trying todeport people they deemed to be terror suspects to


Uzbekistanirefugees in Kara

Darya, Kyrgyzstan,after fleeing violence and

killings inAndizhan,

Uzbekistan,May 2005.

©EM

PICS

/A

P/M

ikha

il M

etze

l


countries with a history of torture or other ill-treatment. The authorities sought to rely oninherently unreliable and ineffective “diplomaticassurances” featured in Memorandums ofUnderstanding agreed with states with a well-documented record of torture. In December thehighest court in the UK delivered a landmarkjudgment upholding the absolute inadmissibility asevidence in legal proceedings of informationextracted under torture. However, earlier in the yeara German court ruled that evidence possibly obtainedunder torture or other ill-treatment was admissible inlegal proceedings. In France, a draft anti-terrorismlaw would allow longer periods of incommunicadodetention and so would remove safeguards againsttorture and other ill-treatment.

Disclosures at the end of the year suggested theinvolvement of a number of European states in illegaland secret transfers (“renditions”) by the USA ofindividuals to countries where torture was rife, or to UScustody in military bases and secret locations aroundthe world. Both the Council of Europe and the EuropeanParliament launched inquiries into allegations of secretUS Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) detention centresin Europe and of CIA-chartered aeroplanes makingflights in or out of European airspace said to have beenused in abductions and unlawful transfers of prisoners.

In Uzbekistan, the authorities responded brutallywhen a group of armed men seized various buildings inthe city of Andizhan in May. Witnesses reported thathundreds of people were killed when security forcesfired recklessly and without warning on a mostlyunarmed and peaceful crowd of demonstrators thatincluded children.

In a disturbing development in Turkey, against abackground of increasing violence between thesecurity services and the armed opposition KurdistanWorkers’ Party (PKK), there were reports of directofficial involvement in the November bombing of abookshop in the Ôemdinli district of Hakkâri in whichone man was killed.

Refugees, asylum-seekers and migrantsThere was a consistent pattern of human rightsviolations linked to the interception, detention andexpulsion by states of foreign nationals, includingthose seeking international protection. At least 13people were killed when trying to enter the Spanishenclaves of Ceuta and Melilla from Morocco, allegedlyas a result of Spanish and Moroccan law enforcementofficers using disproportionate and lethal force toprevent them entering the enclaves.

Men, women and children continued to faceobstacles in accessing asylum procedures. In Greece,Italy, Spain and the UK, some were unlawfully detainedand others were denied necessary guidance and legalsupport. Many were unlawfully expelled before theirclaims could be heard, including from Cyprus, Greece,Italy, Kazakstan, Malta, Russia and Spain. Some weresent to countries where they were at risk of humanrights violations. The fact that EU member states wereamong those doing this illustrated the EU’s failure to

acknowledge that it faced a crisis of protection, ratherthan of asylum. Elsewhere, intense internationalpressure was placed on Kyrgyzstan to honour itsobligation to offer protection to those fleeing theAndizhan events in Uzbekistan.

Racism and discriminationContinuing racism, discrimination and intolerancewere often identity-based. In many countries in theregion, Jews and Muslims were among those targetedby individuals and organizations for hate crimes.

In Russia, there were hundreds of racially motivatedphysical assaults; at least 28 of them resulted in deaths.In France, migrants and French nationals of NorthAfrican and sub-Saharan extraction, apparentlyenraged by discriminatory practices in employmentand other areas, and the often racist and aggressiveconduct of the police, began rioting in cities and townsacross the country in October after the deaths of twoboys in disputed circumstances. A state of emergencywas declared.

Across the region Roma remained severelydisadvantaged in key areas of public and private lifesuch as housing, employment, education and healthservices. They were also frequently the targets ofracism by law enforcement officials.

In some countries of the former Yugoslavia,discrimination on ethnic grounds in areas such asemployment and housing continued to block a durableand dignified return for many people displaced by theconflict.

Others faced discrimination around issues of theirlegal status. Meskhetians in the Krasnodar Territory inRussia continued to be refused recognition of theircitizenship on ethnic grounds, and so were unable toaccess a wide range of basic rights. In Greece, theauthorities still refused to reissue citizenshipdocuments to members of the Muslim population inwestern Thrace, with those affected thereby deniedaccess to state benefits and institutions. In Slovenia,thousands of people unlawfully “erased” in 1992 fromthe registry of permanent residents, mainly peoplefrom other Yugoslav republics (many of them Roma),were still waiting for their status to be resolved. As aresult of the “erasure” many were denied full access totheir economic and social rights.

A climate of intolerance against the lesbian, gay,bisexual and transgender (LGBT) communities inLatvia, Poland and Romania saw local authoritiesactively obstructing public events organized by LGBTgroups amid openly homophobic language used bysome highly placed politicians. However, in Spain andthe UK new laws recognized partnerships for same sexcouples.

Violence against womenDomestic violence against women and girls remainedwidespread across the region, affecting all ages andsocial groups. Positive attempts to tackle it includedprovisions in the new Turkish Penal Code offeringgreater protection for women against violence in thefamily, and special courts established for women victims



of domestic violence in Spain. However, the law in Spain– as in other places – continued to leave the onus on thevictim, not the state, to lodge a formal complaint or takethe initiative in organizing protection.

Other gaps in legal protection included no specificcriminalization of domestic violence in countries suchas Albania and Russia. Too often, initiatives such as theopening of a shelter, the establishment of a helpline orprovision of other services happened through theefforts of individuals and NGOs struggling withinadequate funding. Moscow, the capital of Russia anda city of 10 million people, remained without a singleshelter for women who were victims of violence.

Poverty, lack of education, family breakdown andcrime networks contributed to the continuing problemof trafficking of human beings, including of women andgirls for enforced prostitution. Protection for thesurvivors and prosecution of the perpetrators werehindered by issues such as a failure to providetrafficked people with an automatic right to protectionand assistance; the lack, or inadequate implementationof, witness protection law; failure to criminalizeinternal trafficking; and threats and fears of reprisals.One potentially positive step was the opening forsignature in May of the Council of Europe’s Conventionon Action against Trafficking in Human Beings.

Abuses by officials and impunityTorture and ill-treatment, often race-related, werereported across the region. Victims described acatalogue of abuses, including being beaten, strippednaked and threatened with death; deprivation of food,water and sleep; having plastic bags placed over theirheads; and threats against their family. In some cases,detainees reportedly died as a result of such abuse orexcessive use of force, including in Bulgaria, Russia andSpain.

Although there were some positive developments,including moves by new administrations in Georgia andUkraine to tackle torture and ill-treatment, there werestill obstacles in these and other countries thatprevented the eradication of such abuses. Theobstacles included police cover-ups, victims’ fear ofrepercussions, lack of prompt access to a lawyer, andthe lack of an effective, properly resourced andindependent system to investigate complaints. Failureto conduct prompt, thorough and impartialinvestigations led to an overwhelming climate ofimpunity in Turkey, Uzbekistan and elsewhere in theregion. In Russia, impunity remained the norm forserious human rights abuses in the context of theChechen conflict.

In many countries, conditions in prisons, as well as indetention centres for asylum-seekers and irregularmigrants, were inhuman and degrading.

Intense international pressure on some countries inthe western Balkans produced improved cooperationwith the International Criminal Tribunal for the formerYugoslavia early in the year, with the capture orapparently voluntary surrender of a number ofsuspects accused of crimes, including war crimes andcrimes against humanity. Among those held was former

Croatian Army General Ante Gotovina, although othersuspects continued to evade arrest. Lack of fullcooperation with the Tribunal together withinsufficient efforts by domestic courts remained anobstacle to justice.

Death penaltyThere was further progress towards total abolition ofthe death penalty in the region. Legal amendments inMoldova removed the last provisions for the deathpenalty from the Constitution. Similar draftconstitutional amendments were proposed inKyrgyzstan.

Uzbekistan announced that capital punishmentwould be abolished from 2008, but this was littlecomfort for all those affected by the death penalty.Dozens of people were believed to have beensentenced to death and executed during 2005 in acriminal justice system flawed throughout bycorruption and which consistently failed toinvestigate allegations of torture. Relatives,tormented by uncertainty, were not told in advancethe date of executions and were denied the bodies oftheir executed relatives and knowledge of where theywere buried. Uzbekistan also flouted its internationallegal obligations by executing at least one personwhose case was under consideration by the UNHuman Rights Committee, at one point even assuringthe Committee that the man remained alive when thedeath certificate indicated that he had been executedthree weeks earlier. Belarus and Uzbekistan remainedthe region’s last executioners.

Repression of dissentCivil, political and religious dissent remainedsystematically and often brutally repressed in Belarus,Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. In Uzbekistan, officialattempts to block alternative reports of the manydeaths in Andizhan involved widespread intimidation,beatings and detentions, including of witnesses,demonstrators, journalists and human rightsdefenders. In Belarus, opposition activists wereimprisoned on false criminal charges. In Turkmenistan,political dissidents and members of religious minoritygroups were among those harassed, arbitrarilydetained and tortured.

In Russia, the climate of hostility towards humanrights defenders intensified and some individuals wereprosecuted for exercising their right to freedom ofexpression. A new law affecting NGOs, requiringstricter registration rules and increased state scrutiny,threatened to further compromise the independence ofcivil society.

In Serbia, increasing attacks by non-state actors onhuman rights defenders, with the tacit support of thestate, were reminiscent of the period under formerPresident Slobodan Miloševi». In Turkey a wide rangeof critical opinions remained open to criminalization,with writers, publishers, human rights defenders andacademics among those prosecuted under a law whichpenalized “denigration” of Turkishness, the state and itsinstitutions.


REGIONAL OVERVIEWS – MIDDLE EAST/NORTH AFRICA

In spite of threats, intimidation and detention,however, human rights defenders across the regionremained resolute in continuing their work, inspiringothers to join them in aiming for lasting change andrespect for the human rights of all.

AI regional reports• Europe and Central Asia: Summary of Amnesty

International’s Concerns in the Region: January-June2005 (AI Index: EUR 01/012/2005)

• Council of Europe: Recommendations to Strengthenthe December 2004 Draft European Convention onAction against Trafficking in Human Beings (AI Index:IOR 61/001/2005)

• Human rights dissolving at the borders? Counter-terrorism and criminal law in the EU (AI Index: IOR61/013/2005)

• Amnesty International’s Statements to the 2005OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting (AI Index: IOR 30/014/2005)

• Delivering on human rights: Amnesty International’sten-point program for the UK Presidency of theEuropean Union (AI Index: IOR 61/017/2005)

• Reject rather than regulate: Call on Council of Europemember states not to establish minimum standardsfor the use of diplomatic assurances in transfers torisk of torture and other ill-treatment (AI Index: IOR61/025/2005)

MIDDLE EAST/NORTH AFRICA

At first sight, the pattern of widespread abuse that haslong characterized human rights in the Middle East andNorth Africa remained firmly entrenched in 2005.Indeed, considering the appalling toll of abusesperpetrated by all parties to the conflict in Iraq, thecontinuing struggle between Israelis and Palestinians,and some of the views expressed by Iran’s newPresident, the picture could have appeared very bleak.

Despite this and the persistence of grave violationsacross the region, there were some signs to suggest that2005 might come to be seen as a time when some of theold certainties began to look less certain and a newdynamic began to take hold. The wall of impunitybehind which so many perpetrators of torture, politicalkillings and other abuses had sheltered for so longbegan to fracture. Former Iraqi President SaddamHussain was brought to trial on charges relating toexecutions of villagers in 1982, and an unprecedentedUN Security Council-mandated inquiry implicatedsenior Syrian and Lebanese officials in the 2005assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiqal-Hariri.

In Morocco, the Arab world’s first truth commissionshed important light on grave human rights abusescommitted over a period of more than 40 years andbrought acknowledgement and reparation for at least

some of the victims, although not yet justice. In Libya,the authorities announced a belated investigation intothe killing or “disappearance” of possibly hundreds ofprisoners at Tripoli’s Abu Selim Prison in 1996.

Women, for so long subject to discrimination in bothlaw and practice, finally won the right to vote in Kuwaitand achieved greater recognition of their human rightsin countries such as Algeria and Morocco. Even in SaudiArabia, the exclusion of women from participation inthe country’s first ever municipal elections sparkeddebate and growing pressure for change.

Only time will tell whether these were the first signsof real and overdue change or merely instances thatbucked the trend. However, the emergence of anincreasingly active and outspoken community ofhuman rights activists was a further promisingdevelopment. Using the Internet and the opportunitiesprovided by the growth and popularity of satellitetelevision, human rights activists were ableincreasingly to communicate information and shareideas unimpeded by national boundaries both withinand beyond the region and to derive new strength andsolidarity from the regional and global alliances towhich they contributed.

However, 2005 also brought repression and misery tofar too many people in the region as their human rightswere abused or denied. Some were targeted because oftheir political views, others because of their religion orethnicity, yet others for their sexual orientation.Throughout the region women were subject to varyingdegrees of discrimination and violence because of theirgender. Countless others were unable to enjoy fullytheir economic, social and cultural rights.

Conflict, violence and crimes under international lawThe persistence of armed conflict and other forms ofpolitical violence was the context for war crimes andcrimes against humanity perpetrated by severalparties. Thousands of children and adult civilians werekilled or injured in the continuing conflict in Iraq, manyof them victims of suicide bomb attacks carried out bymilitant groups that frequently targeted civilians. Othercivilians, including Iraqis and foreign nationals, wereabducted and held hostage; some were released butothers were killed by their captors. Troops of the US-ledmultinational force and Iraqi government forces alsocommitted widespread abuses, including torture andunlawful killings of civilians, and detained thousands ofsuspects arbitrarily and without access to due process.In November, the Iraq conflict spilled over to Jordanwhen suicide bombers apparently linked to Iraqtargeted three hotels in the capital, Amman, killing 60people and wounding many others. In Egypt, bombsthat targeted civilians exploded in Cairo in April andSharm el-Sheik in July; 90 people were killed and atleast 100 were injured.

New evidence emerged of human rights violationsby governments and intelligence services in theMiddle East/North Africa region and those in the USAand other Western countries in their closecollaboration in the “war on terror”. AI interviewed



detainees in Yemen who said that they had beenbriefly detained and tortured in Jordan and then heldfor many months in secret detention centres under UScontrol, whose location they never learned, beforebeing flown to Yemen. Yemeni authorities told AI thatthe detainees were being held at the behest of the USgovernment.

There was increasing information to indicate thatindividuals suspected of terrorism by the US authoritieshad been secretly and forcibly transferred to countries,including Egypt, Morocco, Jordan and Syria, forinterrogation. Senior US officials continued to proclaimtheir administration’s opposition to torture despitesuch transfers (“renditions”) of suspects to countrieswhose security services had long records of torturingdetainees with impunity. Neither the USA nor any of thecountries concerned disclosed the number of thosetransferred, where they were being held or theiridentities.

As a further sign of close collaboration, threecountries – Lebanon, Libya and Jordan – signedbilateral agreements with the UK under which theyagreed to accept individuals whom the UK authoritiessaid were suspected of terrorism and wished forcibly toexpel. All three countries, under the terms of theseMemorandums of Understanding with the UK, wererequired to provide specific assurances that anyonereturned under the agreement would not be tortured ortreated inhumanely, in implicit recognition that thesecountries had failed to respect the guarantees againsttorture to which they had previously committed underinternational law.

Several countries invoked the “war on terror” as ajustification for maintaining long-standing emergencypowers, as in Egypt, or for introducing new legislationthat threatened to violate human rights ostensibly inthe interests of protecting national security, as inBahrain. Scores of prosecutions on terrorism-relatedcharges were mounted in countries that includedAlgeria, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia. In manycases, defendants appeared before special or ordinarycourts whose procedures fell far short of those requiredby international fair trial standards. Some complainedthat they had been tortured and ill-treated while heldin pre-trial detention and forced to “confess”. However,courts rarely ordered investigations or gave credenceto such claims.

Impunity, justice and accountabilityWith few exceptions, perpetrators of human rightsabuses continued to benefit from impunity asgovernments failed to hold them to account andensure justice for their victims. In many countries inthe region, security and intelligence services weregiven free rein to detain suspects for long periods,often holding them incommunicado and withoutcharge and exposing them to torture and ill-treatment, confident that they did so with officialacquiescence and without fear of intervention by thecourts. Detainees were frequently tortured in Syria inpre-trial detention. In Egypt, Iran and Tunisia,defendants frequently complained of torture when

they were eventually brought to trial only for courtsto dismiss their allegations out of hand withoutinvestigation.

The problem was exacerbated by the continuedprevalence of exceptional courts, including militarycourts empowered to try civilians. In Egypt and Syria,such courts were maintained under long-standingstates of emergency. Special courts were also used totry and sentence political suspects in Lebanon andOman. In Libya, the General People’s Congressabolished the People’s Court, a notoriously unfairspecial court that had previously sentenced manycritics and opponents of the government to long prisonterms or death. Despite this, neither in Libya nor inmost other countries in the Middle East and NorthAfrica could it be said that there was an independentjudiciary, especially in cases having a political orsecurity aspect.

Police and security forces also operated largelybehind a shield of impunity when they used excessiveforce, causing deaths and injuries, whether in Iran andYemen, where the victims were often members ofreligious or ethnic minorities; in Egypt and Morocco,where the targets included refugees and migrants; or inthe West Bank and Gaza Strip, where Palestinianchildren were among those killed with impunity byIsraeli troops. In Iraq, both US and other foreign forcesand those of the Iraqi government used excessive forcewith impunity.

Killings of civilians by Israeli forces and Palestinianarmed groups continued in Israel and the occupiedWest Bank and Gaza Strip, although on a lesser scalethan in recent years. While Israel used a wide range ofjudicial and extrajudicial means to punish Palestiniansindividually and collectively for killings of Israelis,Palestinian victims were denied justice and redress.Impunity remained the rule for Israeli forces whounlawfully killed and ill-treated Palestinians. In JulyIsrael passed a new law denying Palestinians the rightto claim compensation for death, injury or damagecaused by Israeli forces. The Palestinian Authority alsofailed to take action against Palestinian armed groupsresponsible for unlawful killings and abductions amidincreasing lawlessness.

The issue of impunity for past grave abuses came intosharp focus during the year. In Algeria, the governmentheld a national referendum to win support for its planto extend an amnesty to those responsible for thethousands of political killings, “disappearances” andwidespread torture that were so much a feature of theinternal conflict that raged from the early 1990s.

In neighbouring Morocco, however, an Equity andReconciliation Commission appointed by KingMohamed VI completed its inquiries into“disappearances” and other violations committedbetween 1956 and 1999, and at the end of the yearsubmitted its final report. Although its statutescategorically excluded the identification of individualperpetrators, the Commission represented a uniqueinitiative within the region, one that appeared likely toclarify a good number of cases of past abuse and ensureboth official acknowledgement of, and the payment of




reparation for, some of the suffering to which victimsand their relatives had been exposed. The independentMoroccan Human Rights Association, meanwhile,organized its own informal public hearings in whichsome victims named individuals they held responsiblefor past violations against them.

In Iraq, justice continued to be denied to countlessvictims of abuse. However, former President SaddamHussain was finally called to account for some of thecrimes committed when he was in power, crimes whoseenormity was reflected following the discovery of massgraves in 2003. Facing charges related to only one of themany incidents of killings for which his governmentwas believed responsible, it remained to be seenwhether he would receive a fair trial. The initialconduct of the trial did not inspire confidence. Yet, for aonce-powerful leader to have to answer to some of hisvictims was a breakthrough for a region in whichimpunity had been well-entrenched for so long.

In neighbouring Syria, senior government figurescame under pressure as a UN investigation implicatedthem and Lebanese political leaders and securityofficials in the February bomb explosion that killedformer Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri and 22others in Beirut. However, the killings and“disappearances” of thousands of Syrian and Lebanesenationals in past decades remained almost entirelyuninvestigated.

Refugees and migrantsMost countries lacked a legal regime for the protectionof refugees and asylum-seekers. Only seven – Algeria,Egypt, Iran, Israel, Morocco, Tunisia and Yemen – were

parties to the UN Refugee Convention and its 1967Protocol. Long-standing refugee communities withinthe region continued to face discrimination and denialof their human rights by governments in host countries.Palestinian refugees in Lebanon remained barred fromworking in certain professions, despite some easing ofrestrictions during the year, and faced other limitationsseverely affecting their rights to education andadequate housing. Despite the Israeli withdrawal fromthe Gaza Strip, the situation for Palestinian refugeesthere and in the occupied West Bank continued toworsen because of land acquisitions, housedemolitions, closures and other controls on movementimposed by the Israeli authorities and the increasinglawlessness arising from rivalry between Palestinianarmed groups.

In Egypt, a three-month demonstration by Sudaneserefugees and migrants seeking improvements in theirliving conditions, protection from return to Sudan andresettlement in a third country came to a head inDecember when police used force to disperse thedemonstrators. At least 27 people were killed andothers were injured.

Europe’s restrictive immigration policies contributedto the difficulties faced by several North Africancountries which refugees and migrants from furthersouth sought to traverse in order to gain entry toEurope’s southern borders. The Spanish enclaves ofCeuta and Melilla emerged as particular pressure points.Between August and October, Spanish and Moroccanpolice used excessive force against people, mostly fromWest Africa, who sought to enter Spanish territory byclimbing the border fences. At least 13 people were killed.

Iraqi and US soldiers searchingthe scene after a suicide bombattack outsideRashad policestation inBaghdad, July 2005.

©©EEMMPPIICCSS//AAPP//HHaaddii MMiizzbbaann


Many others were rounded up by Moroccan police,transported to remote desert areas along the border withAlgeria and dumped, left to fend for themselves withoutadequate water or shelter. Amid wide publicity andcondemnation, both governments said they wouldinvestigate the killings, but no government officials hadbeen prosecuted or disciplined by the end of 2005.

Women’s rightsWomen continued to suffer legal and other forms ofdiscrimination throughout the region, although 2005 sawa quickening process of change. In Kuwait, women forthe first time became eligible to vote in the country’snational elections. In Morocco, King Mohamed VIannounced that citizenship would be granted to allchildren born of women with foreign spouses and that adiscriminatory law severely limiting this right would bereformed. In Algeria too, amendments to the FamilyCode removed some aspects of discrimination, althoughnot enough to give women equal status with men.

That such changes represented something of abreakthrough said a lot about how much further changeis necessary before women truly achieve equal status inthe region. Violence against women, including withinthe family, remained widespread and insufficientlyaddressed by governments and state authorities. InIraq, where increasing religious sectarianism emergedas a feature of the political breakdown, women cameunder greater threat of violence because of how theydressed and behaved.

Economic, social and cultural rightsMany communities faced denial of or were hamperedfrom accessing basic economic, social and culturalrights. Marginalized people were particularlyvulnerable, including Bedouins in Israel, Palestinianrefugees in Lebanon, members of ethnic and religiousminorities in Iran, and migrants, especially womenmigrant workers in Gulf countries and Lebanon. ForPalestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip,Israeli policies and controls made life especially harsh.Palestinians were left without shelter by destruction oftheir homes; without livelihood by the seizure of landand closures; and without access to adequate healthcare due to road closures and checkpoints. Access toscarce water resources increasingly emerged as a likelyflashpoint for the future.

Death penalty Both Iran and Saudi Arabia continued to carry outexecutions – at least 94 and 88 respectively in 2005. Inboth countries the real totals were probably higher.Iran’s victims included child offenders, while a largeproportion of those executed in Saudi Arabia wereforeign nationals, including some who were sentencedafter trials whose proceedings they did not understand.

In September, Iraq carried out its first executionssince the death penalty was restored in August 2004,and the effective moratorium on executions that hadexisted in the Palestinian Authority since 2002 wasended by five executions. Algeria, Israel, Morocco andTunisia remained abolitionist in practice.

Human rights defendersHuman rights defenders continued to face amomentous task as they sought to promote widerunderstanding and ensure more effective protection ofthe rights due to all people in the region regardless ofage, gender, nationality, religion, sexual orientation orother defining characteristics. They faced manyobstacles and in some cases put their lives on the line todefend their own and others’ fundamental rights.

Independent human rights organizations were activein a majority of countries, despite restrictive lawsdesigned to regulate the operation of non-governmental groups. However, human rightsdefenders continued to be targeted for abuse orharassment, particularly in Iran and Syria. In Tunisia,the run-up to a UN-sponsored world summit inNovember was accompanied by an increase in staterepression directed against leading human rightsactivists. The repression persisted through the summititself which, ironically, aimed to advance internationalinformation exchange through the use of newtechnology. Sahrawi human rights defenders whodocumented abuses by Moroccan forces in confrontingprotests earlier in the year were jailed in WesternSahara.

AI regional report• Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries: Women

deserve dignity and respect (AI Index: MDE04/004/2005)


AmnestyInternationalReport 2006the state of the world's human rights in figures

hope

duplicity

failedpromises

hypocrisy

paralysis

violenceagainstwomen

smallarms

Figures as of 23 May 2006, unless otherwise indicated.


HOPERemarkable progress on the abolition of the death penalty showed the potential for public pressure to bring about change.

1country

161977

countries

then

1222005

countries

now Number of countries that had abolished the death penalty in law or in practice by 2005. In 1977, the year when the USA resumed the use of the death penalty, only 16 countries were abolitionist.

Country known to AI that still executed juvenile offenders in 2005.


HYPOCRISYIn 2005, the US Administration acknowledged the use of "rendition". Rendition is the practice of transporting persons forcibly and without due process from one country to another where they risk being interrogated under torture or ill-treatment. Renditions are illegal under international treaties to which all European governments are party.

2005 was the year in which evidence was made public of the involvement of European governments in US-led renditions.

Approximate number of secret flights directly linked to the CIA that used European airspace between 2001 and 2005, some of which may have carried prisoners.

Estimated number of persons who may have been subject to renditions around the world.

Number of European countries implicated in the rendition of 14 individuals to countries where they were tortured.

Number of European countries that has issued arrest warrants for CIA agents suspected of kidnapping prisoners for rendition.

20051000

6

1

flights

100speople


DUPLICITYGovernments championed human rights on the one hand, and undermined them on the other.

Torture

141

104

Countries party to the UN Convention against torture and other ill-treatment.

Countries out of the 150 in AI's 2006 report that have tortured or ill-treated people.


PARALYSIS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITYThe conflict in Darfur has been described as staggering in scale and harrowing in nature. Urgent action is needed by the United Nations and the African Union to protect civilians in Darfur

Armed conflict

Number of refugees and people displaced by the conflict.

Estimated number of deaths from starvation, disease and killings in Darfur since 2003.

7000

285000deaths

African Union monitors

0UN peacekeepers

13UN resolutions

2.2million

Number of African Union monitors deployed in Darfur.

Number of UN Security Council resolutions adopted on Darfur.

Number of United Nations peacekeepers deployed in Darfur.


FAILED PROMISESAt the Millennium Summit in 2000, the world's leaders set clear targets to solve some of the most vexing global social problems. But, they failed to turn their promises into performance.

Governments promised to achieve universal primary education by 2015.

Number of children who remain out of school.

Estimated number of child soldiers.

Number of girls in the world's poorest countries with no access to primary education.

100 million

children outof school

300000child soldiers

46%girls


TORTURE & TERRORThousands of people have been detained without charge or trial, tortured and ill-treated in the name of counter-terrorism.

Number of days since the USA opened the Guantánamo Bay prison camp for 'war on terror' suspects on 11 January 2002.

Total number of people who have been detained at Guantánamo Bay.

Age of Mohammed Ismail Agha when taken into US custody in Afghanistan in late 2002 before later being transferred to Guantánamo.

The number of detainees at Guantánamo Bay who have been convicted of a criminal offence.

13years old

1592days

759detainees

0convictions


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMENFrom birth to death, in times of peace as well as war, women face discrimination and violence at the hands of the state, the community and the family.

2 million girls at risk of female genital mutilation each year. Only 9 countries have specific legislation outlawing female genital mutilation.

25 % of women experience sexual abuse by an intimate partner in their lifetime. 79 countries have no legislation against domestic violence.

5.3% of rapes reported in England and Wales in 2003 resulted in a conviction.

UNKNOWN: the total number of women raped in conflict. Rape is commonly used as a weapon of war. Establishing exact figures is difficult due to insecurity, logistics, fear of stigmatisation and risk of reprisal against women who report rape.

2 milliongirls at risk of

genital mutilation

25%women

sexually abused

?women raped

in conflict

12760

rapes

5.3%

conviction

England & Wales


SMALL ARMSThe proliferation of small arms is fuelling conflict, poverty and human rights abuses worldwide.

Two bullets for every person on the planet and one gun for every ten.

An average of 1000 people are killed every day by small arms.

For every $1 spent on development assistance $10 is spent on military budgets.

88% of reported conventional arms exports are from the 5 permanent members of the Security Council - China, France, Russia, UK and USA.

1000people killed

every day23may

88%conventional arms exports

ONE DOLLAR

ONE DOLLAR ONE DOLLAR





developmentassistance

military

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL REPORT 2006

News & Politics

Transcript of AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL REPORT 2006