We love Torture

I got hold of a BBC survey on Torture and how people understand it around the world. Actually Time has an article on civil liberties and I read it there.

More importantly, I was shocked to see the statistics on India.

For Indians, (atleast a majority of them), torture is good. I think this very statistic justifies the reason as to why despite various court rulings and laws, torture still exists in India. Ha... the governance in this country is surely going down the drain.

Contempt of Court: The Mid-day case

The Supreme Court has stayed the Contempt of Court sentences of the four mid-day journalists. This comes as good news to those who thought the Delhi High Court acted in a hasty manner in passing sentences on those who published allegations against former Chief Justice YK Sabharwal once he had retired from office, even still when they had proof of the same.

The Delhi High Court judgment is a fascinating read. It is evident of the extent to which our Courts can go to protect themselves from any allegations. The judgment may be seen here

I wonder what is going to happen to free speech in this Country with the Courts taking such a stand.

State Sponsored Armed Conflict: The Salwa Judum and the State of Chattisgarh

STATE SPONSORED ARMED CONFLICT :

THE SALWA JUDUM AND THE STATE OF CHATTISGARH[1]

Joseph Stalin once said, “One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic”. Human emotion does not seem to ponder about the deaths occurring in numbers but seems highly passionate about the death of one being. The story of the Salwa Judum in the State of Chattisgarh is no different. Every month more than 300 people die as a result of fighting between two groups and till date more than 40,000 are displaced. The idea of violations and crimes in numbers just seems to baffle us.

The ‘Salwa Judum’ in Chattisgarh is termed by the government to be an anti- maoist force formed by the common man himself. For those sitting in the seats of government power, it is an alternative to tackling the Maoists and anti- naxalite factions in the state. But there is something more to it. In December 2005, a fourteen member team from five organizations all over the country conducted an investigation and the revelations were shocking. What the Chattisgarh government calls an anti- naxalite force seems to be more of a state sponsored private army supplied with guns, ammunition and basic supplies to deal with the Maoists.[2] On the basis of the fact-finding, three facts stood out strongly, First, that the Salwa Judum is not a spontaneous people's movement, but a state-organized anti-insurgency campaign. Second, the situation is not one where the ordinary villagers are caught between Maoist- State clashes. Rather than questioning its own nonperformance on basic development, the government has resorted to clearing villages on a large scale. Tens of thousands of people are now refugees in temporary roadside camps or living with relatives with complete disruption of their daily lives. Prospects for their return are currently dim. Third, the entire operation, instead of being a peace mission as it is claimed, has escalated violence on all sides.[3]

The Salwa Judum is a force in the State of Chattisgarh led by elitist landowners, traders and trained by State police personnel. Not only that but these personnel are paid salaries out of State funds.[4] The facts in this regard are disturbing. There are child soldiers prevalent amongst the armed people. More than 40,000 tribal people have been displaced till date and 80% of the population in DanteWara district in Chattisgarh have been victims of the clashes.

There is no doubting the fact that atrocities and human rights violations have been committed. More importantly, the problem is that it is a state sponsored armed conflict. To tackle the naxal menace, the state seems to have formed a private army and removed the burden from state forces. In most territories, civilians belonging to the Salwa Judum are seen carrying around guns and ammunition and not even a single state police group is within the area. The problem does not stop here; both the forces are known to kill civilians who should not be a part of this conflict. There is evidence of torture techniques being used, rapes and a host of other human rights violations.

Questions need to be answered. Can the state sponsor a private army to handle an internal disturbance? Can the state discharge its constitutional duty to protect, if any and hand it over to private groups? The idea of state sponsored conflicts is clearly in violation of UN principles[5] and other international obligations. Protocol II of the Fourth Geneva Convention categorically puts forward the rights of victims in non- international armed conflict. These include the provisions of basic needs, health and compensation.[6] Furthermore, without doubt, the State has a primary constitutional duty to protect its citizens from any disturbance; external or internal.[7] The maintenance of law and order in the territory of the state is a constitutional obligation that states must follow. The Supreme Court has used this explanation in the cases of terrorism as in Kartar Singh v. Union of India[8], and AN Ray C.J. in ADM Jabalpur v. Sivakant Shukla[9] used this obligation to justify the violation of rights during emergency. If such explanation has been used in these cases then certainly they are applicable in this instance too and no exceptions can be created.

The discharge of such an obligation is inherently related to the power- responsibility equation. If power is to be delegated, which in this case is to deal with naxal factions, so must responsibility and both of them can’t be separated. Not surprisingly then, no one seems to be taking responsibility for the violations and deaths of civilians in Chattisgarh while the power seems to have been conspicuously discharged and frequently used and abused.

In May, 2007, Nandini Sunder and Ramchandra Guha filed a petition before the Supreme Court challenging the Constitution of the Salwa Judum in Chattisgarh. While the case is still sub judice, I would like to put forth an observation of the Court in this regard. Initially the Bench consisting of Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan and Justice Raveendran asked counsel that when the Central Government in its assessment to control naxalites menace permitted local restraint groups to be armed, “should the court interfere in such a policy. You must understand that naxalites go on killing innocent people in villages. The police are not coming to the rescue of these people. What is wrong in arming the local people to counter the naxal menace.”[10] (Quoting the Court)

Only after the atrocities and human rights violations were bought to the notice of the Court did it issue a notice to the Government of Chattisgarh to respond it. It is interesting to note the observation of the Court in this regard. With all due respect, the Court has commented that the formation of a state sponsored army is justified to meet the end of handling the naxalites. In doing so, the Court has again given sanction to a means- end approach. That is, state action is to be held valid if it is purposeful in nature and meets a desired end. Such is the approach taken by the Court in the case of terrorism and emergency. The Naxal problem just got itself temporarily added to the list. This seems to attract Jhering’s notion of law serving as a means to an end[11]. Accordingly, in such a purposeful evaluation of law, even if it sacrifices individual liberty, it will be valid[12]. To quote from Kartar Singh’s case[13] ;

“that it has been felt that in order to combat and cope with such activities effectively, it had become necessary to take appropriate legal steps effectively and expeditiously so that the alarming increase of these activities which are a matter of serious concern, could be prevented and severely dealt with.”

With this application of this approach, the Court seems to discount the fact that rights and constitutional obligations are inalienable and cannot be discarded to meet an particular end. The point needs to be noted here that not only has the state outsourced its duty to protect its citizens but also has given them a free hand do commit human rights violations and not hold them accountable for killing people. Such state action cannot be justified at any cost. It is hoped that the Supreme Court would take note of such rights violations, disband the Salwa Judum and concentrate on the welfare of the lakhs of tribals in the State who have fallen victim to the clashes. The law has been violated and someone has to be held accountable for it and the State cannot get away with this.

---

[1] Aditya Swarup, B.A.L.L.B. (hons.), NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad.

[2] The Study was conducted by People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) Chhattisgarh, People’s Union For Civil Liberties (PUCL) Jharkhand, People’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) Delhi, Association for the Protection of Democratic Rights (APDR) West Bengal, and Indian Association of People’s Lawyers (IAPL). The details of the Study can be found at http://www.pucl.org/Topics/Human-rights/2006/salwa_judum.pdf (last visited 12th May, 2007).

[3] Ibid.

[4] “War in the Heart of India: An Enquiry into the ground situation in Dante Wara District, Chattisgarh”, Independent Citizen’s Initiative, 20^th July 2006.

[5] UN General Assembly Resolution 49/60 of 1995,Measures to eliminate terrorism : UN Security Council Resolution 1373/ 2001. Also to be noted is the Lockerbie Case (UK v. Libya), 1992 ICJ Rep. 3 where Libya’s sponsoring of activities was held in violation of International Law.

[6] Protocol II, Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 75 U.N.T.S. 287. Though India is not a party to this Convention, it still has a customary obligation to protect such people.

[7] Article 355, Constitution of India. A reading can also be inferred from the Directive Principles of State Policy.

[8] Kartar Singh v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 569.

[9] ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521.

[10] “Constitution of Salwa Judum Challenged”, THE HINDU, 20^th May 2007.

[11] R. Von Jhering, “Law as a Means to an End”, MDA Freeman, (ed.), Lloyd’s Introduction to Jurisprudence, 7^th Ed. 2001, p. 703.

[12] I. Jenkins, “Jhering”, (1960-61) 14 Vanderbilt L. Rev. 169.

[13] Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 596. The approach was further upheld by the Court in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2004) 9 SCC 580.

Salwa Judum: A State's response to Maoist Terror

A year ago, the State of Chattisgarh in Central India seemed to me to be a peaceful state. Rich in minerals and a huge tribal population. Little did I know that the political situation in this State would turn out to be one of the most dreaded this country ever witnessed.

In May 2007, I had the good fortune of hearing Nandini Sinder speak at the India International Centre. She spoke about the armed conflict in the state of Chattisgarh and the ill fated consequences of forming the Salwa Judum.

Salwa Judum (translates as "peace mission") is a civil militia formed by the people to resist the Maoist violence. It was formed in 2005, to bring the area dominated by Naxalites under control .The Salwa Judum was alleged by some communist sympathisers to be a government backed organisation that it was supported by the Chhattisgarh government. Even now, the State of Chattisgarh supplies the force with guns, ammunition and basic supplies.

While she did speak of the social consequences of the movement and its impact on political governance, briefly touching upon that, I would like to emphasize its character as non- international armed conflict. What was proposed by the State to be a Counter insurgency program has now resulted in a mass humanitarian situation. In Dec 2006, more than 80 % of the residents in Dante wada distrcit of Chattisgarh were victims of the conflict between the Salwa Judum and the Maoist forces. The atrocities committed are horrifying. Apart from the rapes and indigenous torture techniques, young children are joining the forces and creating a menace of child soldiers in the State.

In the first three months of 2007, more than 280 civilians were killed as a result of the clashes and 60-70 armed personnel killed from each side. more than 48,000 tribals have been displaced from their homes with no basic facilities, education and medical needs.

From a legal point of view, this is in clear violation of the II Protocol of the fourth Geneva Conventions. Protocol II relates to the protection of victims in Non- International Armed Conflict. India, sadly is not amongst the 167 states that have signed this protocol. However, it does have a duty under International customary law not to sponsor such activities. Salwa Judum is a classic example of a situation where the State lets go of its responsibility to protect and 'out sources' it. It then results in a situation of power without responsibility into whose hands the responsibility is devolved. Such usage of power leads to rash consequences on the Rule of Law and democracy.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh stated earlier that the Naxalite problem is one of the biggest problems the country is facing. But does the above justify the formation of a private army by the State itself? Nandini Sunder and Ramchandra Guha did file a PIL in the Supreme Court in late May and here's what happenned;

A Bench of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justice R.V. Raveendran issued the notice on the petition filed by Nandini Sundar, Ramachandra Guha and E.A.S. Sarma, after hearing senior counsel T.R. Andhyarujina, who brought to the notice of the court the killings and atrocities committed by the `Salwa Judum' in the guise of countering the naxal movement.

Initially the Bench asked counsel that when the Central Government in its assessment to control naxalites menace permitted local restraint groups to be armed, "should the court interfere in such a policy. You must understand that naxalites go on killing innocent people in villages. The police are not coming to the rescue of these people. What is wrong in arming the local people to counter the naxal menace."

It is but astonishing to notice that way the Court has reacted to this issue. It did however issue a notice to the Chattisgarh Government to give an answer for the atrocities that are committed. The 'atrocities being committed' are only a part of the problem in Chattisgarh. The Court did not seem to take note of the devolution of constitutional responsibilities and stuck to the age old line taken in Kartar Singh v. Union of India, that the situation calls for such action and is thus valid. The non- interference and concern shown by the judiciary towards such issues is disturbing to think of.

State sponsored armed conflict is one of the worst forms of humanitarian disasters. The Constitution of India puts a duty on the State to protect its people and in my opinion, the formation of the Salwa Judum is unconstitutional as it devolves this very primitive responsibility of the State. Not surprisingly the State of Chattisgarh is not showing any reactions to the situations prevailing in the State, however it is a shame that the Centre is not asking a reply for the same. The State has kept away from a situation that has gone out of its control.

Till the last few months, this conflict had'nt attracted much attention. It is only of late, that I see regular articles in News papers and Magazine related to the issue. The matter has gone out of control and all we can do now is to wait and see the course that it takes.

...................................................

Some articles on the issue are here;

1) The Backlash - PS Tripathi

2) When State makes war on its own people - A PUCL Report

3) Salwa Judum and International Humanitarian Law - S Varadarajan (The Hindu, 8th September 2007, Editorial)

Final Solution : Bestowed the Recognition

Banned by the censors, rejected by Mumbai International film festival, now being awarded by the President of India!

In the just announced 53rd National Film Awards, Rakesh Sharma's internationally-acclaimed documentary Final Solution about the Gujarat carnage has been given the Special Jury award comprising a Rajat Kamal and a cash prize of Rs Ten Thousand. The Jury awarded the film "for its powerful, hard-hitting documentation with a brutally honest approach lending incisive insights into the Godhra incident, its aftermath and the abetment of large scale violence". ( http://pib.nic.in/archieve/others/2007/aug07/53rd_nfa-2005.pdf)

Said Rakesh Sharma, "Final Solution itself is a perfect illustration of why there should be no censorship for documentaries. The President of India is now recognizing the film for its merit and excellence. Curiously, in sharp contrast to the National Film Award Jury, the CBFC (censor board), while banning the same film in 2004 had observed that the film "promotes communal disharmony among Hindu and Muslim groups and presents the picture of Gujarat riots in a way that it may arouse communal feelings and clashes among Hindu Muslim groups." According to the CBFC, the film "attacks the basic concept of our Republic i.e. National Integrity and Unity. Certain dialogues involve defamation of individuals or body of individuals. Entire picturisation is highly provocative and may trigger off unrest and communal violence. State security is jeopardized and public order is endangered if this film is shown.... " Widespread public outcry and protest campaigns led the CBFC to clear the film without a single cut in Oct 2004. Both the ban and CBFC's subsequent clearance came during the UPA's regime.

Ironically, the government-run Mumbai International film festival (MIFF) rejected the same film on the grounds that it wasn't good enough, refusing even to screen the film, let alone allow it in Competition! However, the week after MIFF, Final Solution created history at Berlin by winning two awards, including the Wolfgang Statudte award, never given before to a documentary film!

Reacting to the National award itself, Rakesh Sharma said, "I am delighted and saddened at the same time. Delighted because after 30 international awards for my last two films, this is my first National Award! Delighted also as now Doordarshan will telecast the film to a wider audience in view of its policy convention and judgements by the Supreme Court and Bombay High Court. Saddened because the ugly shadow of censorship continues to mark the National Film Awards, leading to its boycott by a section of documentary film-makers."

Stressed Rakesh Sharma, "When an arm of the Government of India honours the film while another arm harasses the film-maker and then bans the film, it makes the Indian State appear schizophrenic. I hope the Government will do away with censorship for documentaries, especially in view of its stated commitment to Right to Information as well as Freedom of Expression. Documentaries should instead be brought under the purview of the Press Council of India - after all, what is the difference between an NDTV special report on Gujarat riots and Final Solution? A ban on Final Solution seems absurd! Police action to prevent screenings of documentaries seems totally farcical. There is no space for such censorship in a mature Democracy - I urge sections of civil society to join us in our campaign against censorship of documentaries."

Final Solution is a study of the politics of hate. Set in Gujarat during the period Feb/March 2002 - July 2003, the film graphically documents the changing face of right-wing politics in India through a study of the 2002 genocide of Moslems in Gujarat. Final Solution is anti-hate/ violence as " those who forget history are condemned to relive it ".

The film has over 20 international awards and has been screened at over 80 international film festivals (details below and on www.rakeshfilm.com). These include two awards at its premiere at the Berlin International film festival and the prestigious Index on Censorship award in 2005

Final Solution (India; 2004; DVD; 149 minutes)

Awards:

Wolfgang Staudte award & Special Jury Award (Netpac), Berlin International film festival (2004)

Humanitarian Award for Outstanding Documentary, HongKong International film festival (2004)

Montgolfiere d'Or (Best Documentary) & Le Prix Fip/Pil' du Public (Audience award), Festival des 3 Continents at Nantes (France; 2004)

Best Film, Freedom of Expression awards by Index on Censorship (UK ; 2005)

Silver Dhow, Zanzibar International film festival (2004)

Best documentary, Big MiniDV (USA; 2004)

Special Jury Award, Karafest (Karachi; 2004)

Special Jury Award, Film South Asia (Kathmandu; 2005)

Human Rights Award, Docupolis (Barcelona; 2005)

Special Jury Mention, Munich Dokfest (2004)

Special Jury Mention, Bangkok International filmfest (2005)

Nominee, Best Foreign Film, Grierson Awards (UK; 2004)

Best Documentary, Apsara Awards (India;2006)

Special Award by NRIs for a Secular and Harmonious India (NRI-SAHI), NY-NJ, USA (2004)

Special Award by AFMI, USA-Canada (2004)

Special Jury Award, Worldfest 2005 (Houston)

Special Jury Award, Mar Del Plata Independent film festival (2005; Argentina)

Screened at over 80 international film festivals.

Rakesh Sharma: A brief profile : Rakesh Sharma began his film/TV career in 1986 as an assistant director on Shyam Benegal's Discovery of India. His broadcast industry experience includes the set up/ launch of 3 broadcast channels in India: Channel [V], Star Plus and Vijay TV and several production consultancy assignments. He returned to independent documentary film-making in 2001. His first independent film Aftershocks : The Rough Guide to Democracy has been screened at over 100 international film festivals.

It got the Best documentary film award at Fribourg, Big Mini-DV and at Jeevika ( India) and won 8 other awards {including the Robert Flaherty prize}at various festivals in USA and Europe during 2002-03. His latest film Final Solution deals with the politics of hate. It has been screened at over 80 filmfests and has over 20 awards ( Berlin, HonKong, Karachi, Zanzibar, Index on Censorship etc). Both films were rejected by the government-run Mumbai International film festival in 2002 and 2004 respectively.

website: www.rakeshfilm.com

blog: rakeshindia.blogspot.com

The Nanda Storm

It turns out to be pretty amusing when one notices the lackadaisical attitude that the judiciary is taking towards the Sunil Nanda case. For those who are not aware, the accused Sunil Nanda (happens to be the son of Admiral BL Nanda) is charged with rash driving leading to the death of 4 people in 1999. In a new twist in the case, one of the witnesses, Sunil Kulkarni was involved in a sting operation the tapes of which showed the lawyers for both sides bribing the witness to change his testimony. RK Anand is the counsel for the accused who’s now in the limelight with this incident.

Most of the people I know who have worked with RK Anand are convinced that he would easily get away with the act. If this were to be believed then it doesn’t come as a surprise that the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has allowed him to practice in the Supreme Court. The same however is not in the Delhi High Court. He is temporarily barred from practicing and the case is proceeding before the vacation bench by Justice Muralidhar. But then, what can the Court do? Can it withdraw his license to practice? I don’t think the Court can or will do that. So ultimately a lawyer would get away with a heinous act for the very fact that he is a big guy and has is contacts to get him off the hook.

How then can one ensure that the judicial process in this country comes clean in delivering justice? Lawyers and judges don’t need some sort of protection but must be made accountable for their actions that violate due process. In fact I read the other day that some lawyers feel this would become a very strong case for the admissibility of illegal evidence in Court. The present position on the law is that such evidence is admissible where as after the Katz case it is inadmissible in the USA. You never know, sometimes to hide an illegality people fight to amend a law to their advantage.

While the case is still in progress, I just hope the Court considers justice and due process in giving its decision. The lawyers may go free today, but the verdict sure would give a free hand for the ambitious to practice such acts tomorrow.

The Criminal Language

My criminal law professor made the following statements in class today;

1) 90% of the acquittals in the country happen because of the lack of evidence even though the people have committed the crime.

2) People in the parliament bomb blast and bombay blasts are being acquitted because of the lack of evidence.

3) Jessica lal and Priay darshini Mattoo resulted in disasters at first because of the lack of evidence.

All this happened, as can be observed in the evidence class. I am in a legal institution, one of the best I must say, and am taught to believe that the law is a failure. Such teaching comes from irrelevant facts. Its not just my teacher, but distinguished law people in the Country like Madhav Menon who make such statements and the parliamentarians sitting at the centre blindly trust them and make the law.
For example: The 142 law commission report says that Convicts are acquitted because the law is not strong. This baseless statement was then used as a justification for bringing in plea bargaining in the Country. Madhav Menon states that the conviction rate in the Country for lesser crimes is as low as 40 % where as the NCRB report states it to be 73.2% in Delhi alone. The Parliament says that Convicts are roaming about freely in the Country.

If you observe the examples above, you will see the usage of the word convict by these law makers. Well, you are a convict only is you have been held guilty by a court and not when you allegedly commit a crime. Such usage has made the common man loose faith in a system that is merely applying procedure. We jump to joy to see a man being convicted but the same is not seen if an alleged convict who is innocent is acquitted. Even though Bhagwati and Krishna Iyer made statements like "its more important not to convict an innocent man than to let a criminal go free", we don't seem to follow them anymore. I sometimes feel bad for Manu Sharma. Perhaps he was really innocent and got convicted because of the role of the media and the pressure of the public.
So then there needs to be a way in which crime is reported in the Country. Be it the newspaper or teaching the law. Information must be precise and not a bundle of ridiculous statements that most people would readily believe. As I write this, I feel bad for most of my class who would now be thinking that the criminal system is 'crap' and most Convicts roam free.

UN on Extra Judicial killings

UN independent expert on extrajudicial killings urges action on reported incidents

28 March 2007 – A United Nations independent human rights expert on extrajudicial killings today called for action in response to reported incidents in the United States, Iran, the Russian Federation, Bangladesh, Nigeria and Indonesia.

“In recent years the United States has consistently argued that the UN Human Rights Council, and all other international human rights accountability mechanisms, have no legitimate role to play when individuals are intentionally killed, so long as it is claimed that the actions were part of the ‘war on terror,’” said Philip Alston, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.

“While this argument is convenient because it enables the US to effectively exempt itself from scrutiny, if accepted it would constitute a huge step backwards in the struggle to promote human rights.”

In a separate statement, he urged Iran to stop executing juvenile offenders, calling the practice “unacceptable.”

“It is time for Iran to demonstrate that its commitment to international law involves concrete action, not just empty words,” said Mr. Alston, calling on the country’s Government to “immediately commute all death sentences imposed for crimes individuals committed before the age of 18.”

In a statement directed at the Russian Federation, he called for an end to extrajudicial killings of journalists. “Murders are always tragic, but when journalists are being murdered to cover up human rights abuses, the stakes for the society are even higher than usual,” he said.

“The Government of Russia must bring to an end what appears to be a consistent pattern of failing to prosecute those responsible for these murders and of failing to take the measures required to prevent furthers assassinations of journalists.”

Egypt must instruct its police to stop using firearms to disperse crowds, he said in another statement. “Even if a country makes some demonstrations illegal, and even if the demonstrators ignore the law, that does not mean that the police are allowed to shoot at the demonstrators.”

In a report including several allegations he has received regarding Egypt, Mr. Alston expressed his appreciation for the detailed responses that the Government had made to his requests for further information regarding these incidents, but noted that his dialogue with the Government had revealed serious legal misunderstandings that required immediate reforms.

Bangladesh must stop the Rapid Action Battalion and other elite security forces “from using murder as a policing technique,” said the expert in a separate statement.

His report covers a series of allegations he has received regarding Bangladesh, “none of which were effectively addressed by the Government.”

He also called on Nigeria to “make good on its commitment to end extrajudicial executions by the police” but added in a separate statement that “unfortunately, it seems like business as usual with the Nigerian police continuing to get away with murder.”

In a letter to Nigeria Mr. Alston called for the Government “to underscore the fact that the imposition of the death penalty for offences such as sodomy is unconstitutional.” But his report indicated that the Government ignored his letter.

Indonesia should investigate all those implicated by the report into the murder of Munir Said Thalib, a leading human rights activist, said the expert said in another statement.

In a letter earlier this year, the Government responded to Mr. Alston’s inquiries in a manner that he characterized as “cooperative but incomplete.”

Also today, the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council heard reports from the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders.

-------------------------------------

HIGH TIME THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY ADDRESSES ISSUES LIKE NANDIGRAM.

Article of Note: The Fight Against Terrorism and the Rule of International Law

An Interesting read:

The Fight against Terrorism and the Rules of International Law -
Comment on papers and speeches of John B. Bellinger, Chief Legal Advisor to the
United States State Department

Heidelberg, 15 November 2006
Dr. Silja Vöneky2

During the last months John B. Bellinger, Chief Legal Advisor to the United States State Department, is engaging in dialogue with politicians and legal scholars in European countries as there are – from his point of view – a number of misimpressions that have become prevalent over the last years, particularly in Europe, in regard to the US positions on questions of the legal basis and legal limits of the “war on terror” and the treatment of detained terrorists.

However, in my view, for enhancing the dialogue concerning these matters it is important – as a first step - to make very clear what are the differences in the interpretation of the relevant legal rules, as, for instance the limits of the law of self defence; the applicability of the laws of war; lacunae in the laws of war; the question of “unlawful combatant” versus “offensive civilian”; the question of who is a prisoners of war; the treatment of detainees which are not prisoners of war: the legal limits of the Third Geneva Convention and of common Art. 3 of the Geneva Convention; the applicability of human right treaties; the core principles of humane treatment; the range of procedural rights; the interpretation of the prohibition of torture, etc. The following statement tries to lay down a “European” approach to answer the legal questions concerning the fight against terrorism and makes a proposal how to avoid misperceptions and misunderstandings in the future.

Full paper available here