JURIST - Paper Chase: Sunday, August 10, 2008

[JURIST] Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy website] on Sunday asked the Israeli government to stop official plans [letter text] to demolish or confiscate the homes of those suspected of terrorism, calling such plans a violation of international law. The request by HRW came after Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak [official website, in Hebrew] on Wednesday ordered the demolition [Jerusalem Post report] of a home owned by the family of a suspected terrorist. HRW Middle East director Sarah Leah Whitson said of the demolition plans:

Proposals to allow the Israel Defense Forces to resume the collective punishment of house demolitions would mark a substantial step backward in Israel’s respect for human rights – a return to illegality. ...Punishing people for the crimes of others is no solution to terrorism. Israel should focus on bringing to justice those who actually plan or carry out attacks.

HRW officials wrote that the demolition policy violates both Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits all property destruction in occupied territories except as "absolutely necessary" for military reasons. They also alleged violations of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention [texts] because the demolitions are collective punishments affecting people who are not suspected terrorists.

In February 2005, then-Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz [BBC profile] ordered a halt [JURIST report] to the destruction of homes of suspected terrorists after a committee report showed that the policy was inflaming tensions with Palestinians. The policy was initiated in 2000 in an attempt to deter terrorists who did not want to leave their families homeless, or to encourage families to turn in those plotting attacks. Under the plan, about 670 homes were destroyed. Israeli and international human rights groups have objected to the policy, condemning it [B'Tselem backgrounder] as a form of collective punishment affecting innocent individuals.

[JURIST] Canadian Guantanamo detainee Omar Khadr [DOD materials; JURIST news archive] has filed suit [Globe and Mail report; Federal Court of Canada docket] against Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper [official profile] in an effort to compel Harper to demand his release. Following last month's discovery of documents [text, PDF] showing that the Canadian government knew Khadr had been mistreated [JURIST report], Harper has come under heavy criticism [JURIST report] for refusing to interfere with US proceedings against Khadr. Harper has stated his belief that the Guantanamo process is necessary to discover the truth.

Khadr faces life imprisonment for April 2007 charges [charge sheet, PDF; JURIST report] of murder, attempted murder, conspiracy, providing material support for terrorism and spying. Khadr is one of four [JURIST report] Guantanamo detainees facing prosecution under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 [text, PDF]. On March 13, a US military judge also ruled [JURIST report] that some correspondence between US and Canadian government officials regarding Khadr must be turned over to Khadr's defense team. In an affidavit released in early May, Khadr accused US interrogators of mistreatment [JURIST report], including threatening him with rape, physically abusing him, and forcing him to swear to false statements.

[JURIST] Members of the Muslim group Hizbut Tahir Indonesia (HTI) [group website, in Bahasa] held a demonstration outside the US Consulate General and the US embassy in Jakarta Sunday to protest a letter [text, PDF] sent by members of US Congress asking for the release of two Papuan prisoners. In 2005, an Indonesian court sentenced Filep Karma and Yusak Pakage [Amnesty International backgrounder], both members of the opposition group Free Papua Organization (OPM) [group website], to 10 and 15 years in prison respectively after finding them guilty of treason for raising a Papuan flag. In the letter, the members of Congress wrote:

We urge you to take action to ensure the immediate and unconditional release of Mr. Karma and Mr. Pakage. Any security officials who mistreated Mr. Karma or who may have employed inappropriate force against peaceful demonstrators should be prosecuted. Such steps would be an important indicator that Indonesia, as a member of the UN Human Rights Council, takes its international obligations to fully respect universally recognized human rights.

The protesters stressed that US officials should not interfere with the affairs of other sovereign nations and called on Indonesian president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono [BBC profile] to reject the US request. Indonesian officials have said [ANTARA report] that their official response will include the protesters' request for US noninterference. ANTARA News has more. AFP has additional coverage.

In February 2007, Human Rights Watch (HRW) released a report [text; JURIST report] indicating that Indonesia had convicted and jailed at least 18 people for advocating a sovereign government for the province of Papua. Article 28 of Indonesia's 1945 Constitution [text] guarantees freedom of expression, but HRW wrote that subsequent legislation has denied Indonesians this right. In July 2007, the Indonesian Constitutional Court [official website] voided Articles 154 and 155 of the Indonesian criminal code prohibiting acts of inciting hatred against the government or the distribution of materials voicing opposition against the government, ruling [JURIST report] that Dutch colonial-era articles violated the freedom of expression guaranteed in the country's constitution.

[JURIST] Bolivia on Sunday held a national referendum [JURIST report] on whether to keep Bolivian President Evo Morales [official website; BBC profile], Vice President Alvaro Garcia Linera, and Bolivia's nine governors in office. Morales himself actually proposed the idea of a recall election [JURIST report] last December in response to accusations that his process for rewriting the Bolivian constitution has been illegitimate, but following Saturday reports of pre-election violence, some experts speculated that the referendum may lead to greater problems in the nation [AFP report]. Bolivians are required to vote [RTE News report] in the referendum, and face a large fine if they refuse. The officials must win more than 53.74 percent of the vote to keep their positions. AP has more.

In 2006, governors from six of Bolivia's nine states vowed to break off relations with Morales following a bid to give his leftist party more power [JURIST reports] to rewrite the Bolivian constitution [JURIST news archive]. A proposed national referendum on the new draft constitution, which had originally been blocked [JURIST report], was narrowly approved in February by the Bolivian Constitutional Assembly [official website, in Spanish] amid reports that Morales supporters prevented many draft opponents from entering the constitutional building to participate in the vote.