Feed aggregator

I spent yesterday in the company of around 100 Greenpeace supporters discussing plans and ideas for the next 12 months or so. It was the annual get-together of the key volunteers who keep our nationwide network of supporters motivated and informed about our campaign work. These are the people who donate their time and skills, and as always I came away amazed (not to say reinvigorated) by their commitment and enthusiasm for what Greenpeace does.

We're always looking for new recruits to join the active supporter network and help fight the forces of darkness because the list of tasks is long and varied - everything from writing letters to local MPs to talking about our campaigns with people on the high street. Would you be interested?

To get a flavour of an active supporter's life, watch the short video above in which some old hands explain what drives them to be involved with Greenpeace. Then find the group closest to you and see what they're up to. The good news is that most groups tend to hold their meetings in the pub.

A new report from Friends of the Earth and oil finance experts Platform places a clear financial analysis of the Canadian tar sands alongside testimonies of those affected by the race to extract oil from the Albertan wilderness.

I was struck by the argument it makes that the Canadian tar sands are the 'test case' for an oil industry that wants to move into extracting dirtier unconventional oil in other parts of the world. The report points out other areas of tar sands around the world which are being eyed up by the big oil companies. As the authors point out:

Canada is the international oil industry’s test site – if it becomes acceptable to finance the tar sands of Alberta, then the global finance sector will have ‘normalised’ a disastrously high-carbon development path.

... As investment in technology in Alberta brings down the price of producing synthetic crude and as oil prices fluctuate in higher ranges, companies are re-assessing the potential of operations in other countries. If extraction can be undertaken on the scale envisaged in Alberta then it opens the floodgates for unconventional oil extraction around the world.

In other words, if we allow ourselves to be persuaded that the environmental destruction and soaring carbon emissions that come with the tar sands in Canada is acceptable, we're basically saying that trashing the planet is just business as usual.

Get the report, 'Cashing in on tar sands' (pdf).

Friday, 26 February, 2010

A new law restricting the distribution of public information relating to the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people enters into force next week.

Amnesty International has called on the authorities of Lithuania to remove all restrictions on the distribution of public information relating to the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people decreed in a new law.  

The controversial "Law on the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effect of Public Information” enters into force next Monday, 1 March.

"This law will violate the freedom of expression and will directly discriminate against people on account of their sexual orientation or gender identity," said John Dalhuisen, expert on discrimination at Amnesty International.

"It will stigmatize gay and lesbian people and exposes advocates for their rights to the risk of censorship and financial penalties."

"This law is an anachronism in the European Union."

The law, as originally adopted on 14 July 2009, was criticized by Amnesty International and other international organizations, including the European Parliament, for containing homophobic and discriminatory provisions.

In its original version the law prohibited the publication of "information which agitates for homosexual, bisexual and polygamous relations" in places, including schools, public spaces and media which are accessible to persons under 18 years of age.  

In the light of international criticism and the misgivings of the Lithuanian President, the law was amended on 28 December 2010. All direct references to the promotion of homosexuality have been removed.

However, the amended law now classifies any information which "denigrates family values" or which "encourages a concept of marriage and family other than stipulated in the Constitution … and the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania" as detrimental to children and consequently bans it from places accessible to them.

As marriage is defined in Lithuanian law as the union of a man and a woman, any public promotion of same-sex partnerships, or advocacy for equality in marriage, would be prohibited under the new law.

"The Lithuanian authorities must not implement the law which discriminates against gay and lesbian people and restricts their freedom of expression," John Dalhuisen said.

Friday, 26 February, 2010

Amnesty International has adopted its 55th prisoner of conscience in Cuba and urged President Raúl Castro to release him immediately and unconditionally.

Amnesty International today adopted its 55th prisoner of conscience in Cuba and urged President Raúl Castro for his immediate and unconditional release.

Darsi Ferrer, Director of the ‘Juan Bruno Zayas’ Health and Human Rights Centre in Havana, has been detained for over six months since July 2009 on spurious charges of receiving illegally obtained goods, an offence normally bailed immediately.

He has not been brought to trial and is being held in a maximum security prison in Havana intended for inmates who have been convicted of violent crimes.

Although the offence with which Darsi is charged would normally be reviewed by a local magistrate, Darsi's case is being handled by the General Prosecutor's Office, fuelling the argument that his case is politically motivated.

“The accusation against Darsi Ferrer is clearly a pretext. We believe he was detained as a punishment for his work to promote freedom of expression in Cuba,” said Gerardo Ducos, Cuba researcher at Amnesty International.

"Darsi has been detained many times before in connection with his protest activities. Anyone charged with this crime would normally be awaiting trial on bail, not held in a maximum security prison. This is yet another attempt by the Cuban authorities to hinder the work of human rights activists in Cuba,” said Gerardo Ducos.

Amnesty International adopted Darsi Ferrer days after the death of prisoner of conscience Orlando Zapata Tamayo on Monday. Orlando Zapata Tamayo was arrested in March 2003 and was serving a total sentence of 36 years. He was reported to have been on hunger strike for several weeks in protest at prison conditions.

“It is really important that Amnesty International has declared Darsi a prisoner of conscience because the authorities have insisted he is a criminal prisoner - and that is not the case." Darsi's wife, Yusnaimy, told Amnesty International.

“His imprisonment has been very difficult for me. It is really hard to see our son suffer, he was really close to his dad and he relies on him."

Darsi Ferrer and Yusnaimy were arrested without a valid warrant in Havana on 9 July 2009, hours before they were due to participate in a demonstration to promote freedom of expression.

They were interrogated for several hours and Darsi Ferrer was handcuffed and beaten by eight police officers. They were released without charge several hours later.  

On 21 July 2009, Darsi Ferrer was arrested again and told he was being taken to a police station to answer questions about building materials the police had confiscated during their previous detention. However, he was falsely detained and driven to a maximum security prison on the outskirts of Havana and was charged with receiving illegally obtained goods.

Darsi Ferrer claims the building materials, two sacks of cement and some iron girders, were given to him by a colleague who had left the country and had not finished refurbishing his own house. The materials had been on the porch of the house in full view from the street months before the authorities came to confiscate them.

"My husband is in prison because he is a person who fights for his ideals and convictions, not because of two bags of cement," said Yusnaimy.

“We are living in the dark, we don't know how long he will stay in prison and this uncertainty is torturing us. As he has not been tried, we cannot be sure if he will stay in prison one more day or 20 more years."

Death of Cuban prisoner of conscience on hunger strike must herald change (News, 24 February 2010)
Cuba: Release Darsi Ferrer: Take action now!

Darsi Ferrer is detained on spurious charges of receiving illegally obtained goods

An emissions performance standard would mean no more unabated power stations.

We almost did it. Thousands of you emailed your MP via our website, WWF's, and with online campaigners 38 degrees. And they listened, and turned out to vote, and we almost secured an emissions performance standard - a legal limit to pollution which would have stopped dead any future plans to build dirty, unabated coal power stations.

The problem was this: Despite Ed Miliband's clear concerns about coal emissions, the government have been firmly resisting setting a legal limit on power sector pollution.

Even though it's been a step forward, government coal policy still risks handing piles of cash to power companies to research carbon capture and storage with no regulatory guarantee that power plants will actually be cleaned up. It's a high stakes gamble - because if CCS doesn't work, then we're back to square one.

An emissions performance standard would provide a legally binding insurance policy to help ensure future emissions are curbed, no matter what.

Ed Miliband really should have just adopted the standard - but since he refused, it came to a vote in Parliament on Wednesday night. And the result was massively, massively close. 27 Labour MPs rebelled against the government, and in the end, the amendment to the energy bill that would have delivered an emissions standard was only defeated by 8 votes.

So, who were the heroes of the night?

Alan Simpson, for tabling the amendment calling for an emissions performance standard in the first place. His suggestion would have effectively ruled out any future plans for unabated coal plants. It was a good idea, and it would have provided some strong signals to the energy industry about the future of energy provision in Britain. It's a shame that Mr Simpson is standing down at the next election - he's been a great advocate for the climate - but at least he'll get to spend more time in his eco-house.

It was great that 27 Labour MPs rebelled against the government and supported the amendment. That's a big rebellion, especially close to the election, and shows how important the issue is to progressives.

The Tories deserve some praise as well. David Cameron and lots of his MPs came out to bat for the amendment, even including the self-declared climate skeptic John Redwood. (You see, a low-carbon economy is a good idea whatever your other beliefs.) Great stuff from the Conservatives, and it provides some reassurance that even with the grumbling about green issues from some parts of his party, David Cameron was able to get most of his team to vote the right way. Most but not quite all - the positive effort was tempered by the 39 Tory MPs who didn't turn up.

And the villains?

Well, villains might be a bit strong. But weirdly, it looks like the Liberal Democrats have really dropped the ball on this one. They've had a very progressive policy on coal, including supporting an emissions standard. But the hard truth is that when it came to a vote 13 liberal democrats, including 9 of their front bench, didn't bother to turn up. That's about a quarter of their MP's. So what happened? Our campaigners spoke with their advisers, and we know they feel they made a mess of this one. We're sure that with the benefit of hindsight they'd have done thing differently, but lest we forget, the amendment was only defeated by 8 votes.

Although the proportion of Lib Dem MPs not voting was the same as the Tories, we usually expect more of them. If I was a Liberal Democrat MP with a passion for environmental issues - and they do exist, in significant numbers - I'd be feeling pretty embarrassed today. As a response to getting it wrong this time, it'd be good to see the Lib Dems giving some serious profile to their environmental commitments - pushing the other parties on issues like tar sands, and having senior people like Vince Cable making the economic and competitiveness case for clean energy investment in the UK.

In conclusion...

THANKS! Thousands of you emailed your MP telling them to support the amendment - and at very short notice. I also get that ‘emissions performance standard' is a bit of a dry issue, so that so many of you put pressure on policymakers is really immense. We were up against powerful special interests - the CBI and E.ON for example, who were lobbying hard - but we gave them a good run for their money.

The close result and Tory support for the amendment means there's now more space to pursue emissions standards post-election. And the breadth of support for the issue is a strong signal that whichever party forms the next government the future for highly polluting power stations in this country is very, very uncertain.

We're definitely coming back to this one.

Thursday, 25 February, 2010

Unrest across the country is linked to calls from supporters of President Gbagbo, for tens of thousands of "foreigners" to be excluded from the electoral roll.

Amnesty International said it is concerned at the resurgence of electoral violence and xenophobia in Côte d'Ivoire, as supporters of the country's president call for tens of thousands of "foreigners" to be excluded from the electoral roll.

Opposition parties have denounced calls by supporters of President Laurent Gbagbo to exclude people suspected of being foreign nationals because they bear Muslim family names.

President Gbagbo's supporters meanwhile have condemned what they say are fraudulent attempts to add to the electoral roll over 400,000 people whose nationality has not been verified.

"It is essential to put an end to this xenophobic discourse," said Véronique Aubert, deputy director of Amnesty International's Africa programme. "It is incumbent on the Head of State to clearly indicate that this incitement to hatred, denounced time and time again by the United Nations, will not be tolerated."

The presidential election is to take place this year after being postponed five times since 2005. It is hoped this will put an end to the crisis that began with the September 2002 armed uprising which split the country in two.

The current wave of violence across the country is linked to the disputes over the electoral roll, with thousands of demonstrators taking to the streets.

The security forces have repressed several demonstrations, particularly in the town of Gagnoa (in the centre-west of the country), where at least five demonstrators were shot dead on 19 February.

On 3 February, several thousand protesters took part in marches in the town of Divo, 200km from the economic capital city Abidjan, in an attempt to prevent judges removing them from the electoral roll.

The security forces opened fire on the demonstrators to disperse them, leaving eight wounded, including several with bullet wounds.

Suspicions of fraudulent attempts to add names to the electoral roll, led President Gbagbo to dissolve the Independent Electoral Commission and the government on 12 February.

Some opposition parties then called on their supporters to "oppose the Laurent Gbagbo dictatorship by every means possible". This led to violence and vandalism against premises and goods belonging to the Front Populaire Ivoirien (FPI), Ivorian Popular Front, the Head of State's political party.

"All the ingredients that led to serious human rights violations in the past are present once again," said Véronique Aubert.

"With none of the main Ivorian political actors showing any sign of wanting to avoid a deterioration in the situation, it is incumbent on the international community, especially the United Nations and the mediator in the Ivorian crisis, Blaise Compaoré, president of Burkina Faso, to put pressure on all Ivorian politicians to prioritize respect for human rights."

The crisis that began with the September 2002 armed uprising, resulted in the de facto partition of the country between the south, controlled by supporters of President Gbagbo and the north, in the hands of the Forces Nouvelles (New Forces) the movement that came out of the armed uprising.

Under pressure from the international community, especially the United Nations and its mediator in the Ivorian crisis, Blaise Compaoré, president of Burkina Faso, an Independent Electoral Commission was created and began to prepare the electoral roll.

After he dissolved the Independent Electoral Commission and the government on 12 February, President Gbagbo reappointed his prime minister, Guillaume Soro, general secretary of the Forces Nouvelles, and asked him to form a government.

Prime Minister Soro announced a new government on Tuesday including main opposition parties and said that a new electoral commission would be installed but so far no consensus has been reached on these two issues.

Supporters of President Gbagbo want to exclude people suspected of being foreign nationals

Thursday, 25 February, 2010

In a five to four ruling, the Court stated that capital punishment did not violate "human dignity and worth" protected in the Constitution.

Amnesty International said it was deeply disappointed by the South Korean Constitutional Court's decision to uphold the death penalty on Thursday.

In a five to four ruling, the Constitutional Court stated that capital punishment did not violate "human dignity and worth" protected in the Constitution.

"This is a major setback for South Korea and runs counter to the current abolitionist trend in the country, which has not executed in over a decade," said Roseann Rife, Asia-Pacific Deputy Programme Director at Amnesty International.

Amnesty International considers South Korea to be abolitionist in practice, as it has not carried out any executions since President Kim Dae-jung took office in February 1998. President Kim himself had previously been sentenced to death in 1980. However, death sentences are still handed down with currently 57 people remaining on death row.

Increasingly countries are moving away from using the death penalty as the ultimate punishment. More than 70 per cent of countries have a moratorium on executions or have abolished capital punishment.

"Despite this ruling, we call on the South Korean government to retain the country's abolitionist position and urge them to fully abolish this practice in the law. Any move backwards on this issue is extremely damaging to South Korea's international reputation. An economic leader, the country also should lead by example by fully respecting every individual's right to life," said Roseann Rife.

Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases, as a violation of the right to life and the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. The death penalty is irrevocable, and there is always the risk that an innocent person will be executed.

Furthermore, the death penalty is inherently arbitrary and discriminates against those who are poor, marginalized or belong to minority communities.

The Constitutional Court of Korea was established in September 1988 and its functions include deciding on the constitutionality of laws, ruling on competence disputes between governmental entities, adjudicating constitutional complaints filed by individuals, giving final decisions on impeachments, and making judgments on dissolution of political parties.

World is 'winning' battle against death penalty despite setbacks (News, 25 February 2010)

President Kim Dae-jung and other former inmates talk about life on death row in South Korea South Korea has decided to uphold the death penalty

Greenpeace Submission to the Proposed Regulatory Justification decisions on new nuclear power stations: Consultation Document.

Greenpeace Submission to the Proposed Regulatory Justification decisions on new nuclear power
stations: Consultation Document.

Thursday, 25 February, 2010

Speaking at an anti-death penalty summit in Geneva, Amnesty International's interim Secretary General Claudio Cordone hailed global efforts but said more needs to be done.

Amnesty International's interim Secretary General has hailed recent global efforts to end the death penalty but warned that more needs to be done to achieve the goal of full abolition.

Claudio Cordone told delegates at an anti-death penalty summit in Geneva that campaigners were "winning" the fight against capital punishment.

"The day is coming when we can see an end to the death penalty worldwide. We must push on to consign the death penalty to join apartheid, slavery and torture as embarrassments to human history," Cordone told members of the 4th World Coalition Against the Death Penalty on Wednesday.

In 2009, for the first time in modern history, the whole of Europe was execution-free. Burundi and Togo became the 94th and 95th countries worldwide to entirely remove state killings from their law, while several other nations reduced - or stopped - executions.

Among them was Pakistan, which carried out no executions in 2009 compared to at least 36 killings the year before.

Other countries who did not execute in 2009 include Indonesia, India, Mongolia, Algeria, Bahrain, Morocco, Tunisia, Lebanon and Jordan.

However, the progress was tempered by the use of executions for political purposes in Iran. China and Saudi Arabia also continued to carry out frequent executions, while Saudi Arabia and Iran continued to execute child offenders.

"We don't know exactly how many thousands of people are being executed in China, it's still a shameful state secret," said Cordone. "while in the USA we still see grotesque incidents such as the botched execution of a man who after two hours of failed attempts to kill him obtained a reprieve, now awaits a new date for his death.

"Those countries which persist in pursuing such an obscene punishment are steadily isolating themselves from the international community, becoming a hard core that we need to challenge with increased assertiveness," said Cordone, welcoming the cooperation between civil society, governments and intern-governmental organizations in the fight to rid the world of the death penalty.

More than 1900 activists from over 100 countries were expected to gather at the World Congress Against the Death Penalty in Geneva on 24, 25, 26 February.

South Korea death penalty abolition set back by Constitutional Court ruling (News, 25 February 2010)
World Congress Against the Death Penalty website

Claudio Cordone said the death penalty was one of the 'embarrassments of human history'

Greenpeace's submission to the Consultation on the draft National Policy Statements for energy infrastructure.

Wednesday, 24 February, 2010

Gertrude Hambira fled after five men and one women who identified themselves as officers from the Criminal Investigation Department raided her office.

Amnesty International has called on the government of Zimbabwe to end harassment and intimidation of a union activist who is in hiding after police raided a union office in Harare on Wednesday.

Gertrude Hambira, Secretary General of the General Agricultural and Plantation Workers Union of Zimbabwe (GAPWUZ), fled after five men and one women who identified themselves as officers from the CID (Criminal Investigation Department) raided the union's head office at about 12:30pm, looking for her.

At the time of the raid Ms Hambira was out of the office. She is now in hiding and in fear for her safety.

Staff at the GAPWUZ head office have since received several phone calls asking for details of Ms Hambira's whereabouts.

"The Zimbabwean police must immediately stop the harassment of human rights defenders including Gertrude Hambira," said Veronique Aubert deputy director of Amnesty International's Africa programme.

"There actions are the latest in a series of persistent human rights violations that have continued despite formation of the Government of National Unity (GNU) in February 2009."

On Friday 19 February, Gertrude Hambira was called to a meeting at Police Headquarters in Harare with a panel of seventeen high ranking security officials from the Zimbabwe Republic Police, Army, Air force and the Central Intelligence Organisation.

Ms Hambira attended with two colleagues and a lawyer. She was subject to an interrogation about a recent documentary and report published by GAPWUZ which highlight the plight of farm workers in Zimbabwe.

During the interrogation the panel stated that the report and documentary contained very serious allegations for which Ms Hambira should be “behind bars”. Ms Hambira and her colleagues were eventually dismissed but the panel warned that they would call on her again.

Gertrude Hambira has previously been the victim of harassment and intimidation as a result of her work to defend human rights, most recently in November 2009 when armed men forced their way into her home. At the time of the attack Ms Hambira was not at home but members of her immediate family were left terrified.

Amnesty International on Wednesday again called on the GNU to halt on-going harassment of human rights defenders. Persecution of human rights defenders for their legitimate activities is a contravention of Article nine of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

Amnesty International has documented consistent politicised and partisan policing by members of the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP), in particular the Law and Order section, aimed at silencing the voices of human rights defenders.

GAPWUZ support the rights of farm workers in Zimbabwe, raising their plight at national and international levels. Since 2000 tens of thousands of farm workers have suffered violent attacks and have been displaced from commercial farms.

Gertrude Hambira is now in hiding and in fear for her safety

Wednesday, 24 February, 2010

Amnesty International has urged President Raúl Castro to release all prisoners of conscience after Orlando Zapata Tamayo died in Havana on Monday.

Amnesty International has urged Cuban President Raúl Castro to immediately and unconditionally release all prisoners of conscience after a political activist died following a hunger strike.

Orlando Zapata Tamayo was reported to have been on hunger strike in protest at prison conditions for several weeks before his death in Havana on Monday.

"The tragic death of Orlando Zapata Tamayo is a terrible illustration of the despair facing prisoners of conscience who see no hope of being freed from their unfair and prolonged incarceration," said Gerardo Ducos, Amnesty International's Caribbean researcher. "A full investigation must be carried out to establish whether ill-treatment may have played a part in his death."

Orlando Zapata Tamayo was arrested in March 2003 and in May 2004 he was sentenced to three years in prison for "disrespect", "public disorder" and "resistance".

He was subsequently tried several times on further charges of "disobedience" and "disorder in a penal establishment", the last time in May 2009, and was serving a total sentence of 36 years at the time of his death.

"Faced with a prolonged prison sentence, the fact that Orlando Zapata Tamayo felt he had no other avenue available to him but to starve himself in protest is a terrible indictment of the continuing repression of political dissidents in Cuba," said Gerardo Ducos

"The death of Orlando Zapata also underlines the urgent need for Cuba to invite international human rights experts to visit the country to verify respect for human rights, in particular obligations in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights."

Orlando Zapata Tamayo was one of 55 prisoners of conscience who have been adopted by Amnesty International in Cuba.

The majority were among the 75 people arrested as part of the massive March 2003 crackdown by authorities against political activists. With no independent judiciary in Cuba, trials are often summary and fall grossly short of international fair trial standards. Once sentenced the chances of appeal are virtually nil.

Cuban President Raúl Castro has been urged to release all prisoners of conscience

We always thought that the government's economic case for the third runway at Heathrow was flawed. Particularly so given their plan to only allow use of half of the runway's capacity if environmental targets weren't met.

And it turns out we're not alone in our belief. Yesterday this line of argument received some unlikely support from Lord Clive Soley, the campaign director of aviation lobbyists Future Heathrow.

He said on the Today programme:

"... if the airport doesn't meet the pollution restrictions including noise, then they have to reduce the use of the runway until they come within that level... my conviction is that they will actually reach it anyway because of all the technical and other developments that are taking place but really even if they didn't, think the worst possible case, then in that case the runway cannot be used to it's full extent - in those circumstances you might say that it wouldn't make economic sense, but I'm convinced that they will meet it..."

So... He's agreeing that the economic case for the third runway doesn't stack up if the runway doesn't run at full capacity. This is significant. (Even though we reckon the economic case barely stacks up even with full-capacity operation.)

Lord Soley has faith in what he calls, intriguingly, ‘technological developments and indeed, other developments', which will cut emissions from planes, squaring the circle of how to have more flights at Heathrow with reduced overall emissions.

The government predict that these hypothetical emissions reductions will emerge over the next ten years, and allow an expanded Heathrow to pass their emissions tests.

'Technological and other developments'.We can only speculate what Lord Soley means when he talks about ‘other developments' - what development would mean more flights but less emissions? Possibly Future Heathrow have a plan to breed some sort of Avatar-style flying bird lizard as an alternative to short-haul flights, we'll let you know if we see any.

Anyway, at least the technological developments argument is well-trodden. The idea is that having more flights doesn't increase emissions because the planes are more efficient - so each flight produces less carbon.

The aviation industry, who generously pay for Lord Soley's interventions on the Today programme, reckon they can reduce emissions from planes by 2% a year. The government reckon that 1.5% per year is more reasonable.

The Committee on Climate Change, the independent experts who were specifically tasked to look into this issue by the government, reported back after about a year of work saying they thought that 0.8% per year was a likely bet.

And herein lies the problem. The government say that planes are going to get more efficient about twice as fast as the CCC's assessment. And the industry (quelle surprise) is predicting even faster than that. (Although the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution said they were being ‘clearly aspirational', which is kind of a polite way of saying it's never going to happen.)

The issue for Lord Soley is that the experts don't seem to agree with him that an era of massively increased capacity at Heathrow with lower emissions is just around the corner. It's unlikely a third runway at Heathrow would pass the environmental tests the government claims it's going to enforce.

That means that a third runway at Heathrow would, if you believe the government would enforce these tests, never be run at full capacity.

And according to Lord Soley, (and us) that means that the economics of Heathrow will never make sense.

Update: Tim at FullFact points out that Lord Soley's claims about the majority of people in west London supporting a third runway are a bit suspect.

Wednesday, 24 February, 2010

At a Council of Europe meeting last week, member states voiced support for proposals that individuals should pay to file an application with the Court.

Amnesty International has expressed concern at the recent support given by European ministers to proposals that individuals should pay to file an application with the European Court of Human Rights.

While Amnesty International welcomed the commitment of Ministers to enhance protection of human rights in their countries, the organization said it is concerned at support expressed for measures that would impede people's access to the Court.

"A proposal to charge fees for filing an application, which received some support, could curtail access to the Court for people in Europe who are unable to pay the Court fees. Equality before the law and access to an effective remedy are rights that states simply cannot sell out." said Jill Heine Amnesty International's Legal Advisor for Europe.

"Some ministers recommended that states provide more resources for the Court's operation and we are hopeful that member states will support this call," said Jill Heine.

Ministers of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe met on 18-19 February in Interlaken Switzerland  and adopted an Action Plan aimed at addressing the Court's massive backlog and caseload.

The European Court of Human Rights is the ultimate court of redress for individuals claiming violations of their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Since being set up in 1959, the Court has delivered some 10,000 judgments ruling that governments have failed to honour their obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Its current resources are stretched by an increasing backlog of cases (more than 110,000 are now pending) and the large number of applications it receives (more than 50,000 last year).

The Action Plan adopted at Interlaken includes recommendations to states to take measures to ensure enhanced respect for human rights and effective remedies for human rights violations at home.  If states fully respected human rights the court would not be facing such a overwhelming backlog of cases.

It also recommends measures that states, the Committee of Ministers (the main decision making body of the Council of Europe) as well as the Court itself should take to reduce inadmissible applications and repeat violations of the Convention, and ensure that the Court can render judgments on human rights more quickly where possible.

"We're hopeful that the Interlaken Conference and the Action Plan adopted will serve as a catalyst for better human rights protection throughout Europe and that the Court will be enabled to continue its essential function as a guarantor of human rights of the 800 million people in Europe. Whether this comes to pass will depend on action taken and decisions made by states in the next two years," said Jill Heine, Legal Advisor at Amnesty International.

What the European Court of Human Rights means to me (Testimonies, 18 February 2010)
Europe urged to strengthen rights as ministers meet (News, 17 February 2010)
What is the European Court of Human Rights? (Document, 17 February 2010)

The European Court of Human Rights has over 110,000 cases pending

UPDATE: Thursday - Day 3

The third and final day in the high court turned out to be the best one so far.

The government's barristers continued to try to defend the statistics that the Department for Transport had used to support the case for a third runway, and it turned out to be a bit of a minefield for them. (Perhaps because the statistics were basically pretty shoddy.)

At one point a somewhat annoyed judge asked whether the government accepted that their figures of how many passengers they could fit on the tube were wrong. (He was referring to the creative accounting that had suggested you could fit 4 people plus luggage into every tube carriage square-metre.)

The government's lawyer, squirming slightly, replied that he couldn't say either way, which didn't go down too well.

On the climate part of the argument, the judge noted that the climate bill changed the policy context in which government decisions, like the one to build a runway, were made. This is great - a key part of the argument we've been making is that the decision to build a third runway just can't be squared with a commitment to cut carbon emissions and deliver a low-carbon economy, and the judge said that the Climate Change Act 'seemed... to be a very significant part of the context of the Heathrow decision'. A good sign.

We're hoping to get the ruling by mid-March, but it could be before then, so we'll keep you posted...

UPDATE: Wednesday - Day 2

This morning, our lawyers wrapped up presenting our side of the case.

Most of the climate change arguments were covered yesterday, and today we moved onto the ‘surface access' part of the case.

This part of the case follows a theme you'll all be familiar with - how the government conjured up some slightly suspect figures in an attempt to prove that you could cram the millions of extra passengers generated by a third runway onto the tube, roads and trains. Well, that's my understanding of it anyway - the lawyers said it a lot more eloquently.

Highlights included our barristers unraveling the Department of Transport's assumptions about how many people you can (in theory) fit in a tube carriage. According to the government you can fit four people per square meter, including their luggage.

The judge didn't look convinced.

This afternoon, it was the turn of the government's lawyers to try and convince the judge. According to a text I've just received from Anna they're having a hard time.  

DAY 1:

Today we (along with local councils, other NGOs and residents threatened by Heathrow expansion) took the government to court for a Judicial Review of the planned third runway at Heathrow.

In a judicial review, two teams of lawyers argue the toss over a complicated issue of importance - in this case, whether the government had conducted the consultation over Heathrow expansion properly, and whether their plans to balance environmental impact with aviation expansion stacked up. 

First up, there was a good piece on the Today programme this morning about the Judicial review.

Then, when I got to the court, the front of the building was thronged with local Heathrow residents, environmental campaigners, local councillors and Alistair McGowan holding a 'No third runway sign'. Pretty impressive, considering the driving cold which drove me inside pretty quickly. The sole campaigner who had turned up early to cheer for Simon Singh looked a bit mystified.

Unfortunately, given that I was looking for some warmth and comfort the court had been designed a) to accommodate significantly less people than turned up and b) in 1875 - the cramped public gallery was massively uncomfortable.

During the course of the day our lawyers outlined the issues in meticulous detail. We heard our lawyers running through how the understanding of climate change as an issue of importance had improved massively since the publication of the 2003 aviation white paper, how the Committee on Climate Change's advice to the government in December 2009 had undermined the government's own case for the runway, rather than strengthening it, how the public consultation process had precluded a proper appraisal of the final plans for controlling environmental damage from a third runway, and a run-through of the flawed economic case for the runway.

The Times has probably the best summary:

Nigel Pleming, QC, told the High Court in London: "There was a consultation process here, but the decision that was made was fundamentally different from the subject matter of the consultation.

"That decision was such that it was conspicuously unfair to make the decision without giving the claimants the opportunity to make further representations."

He said that if congestion and the environmental impact of expansion had been properly accounted for, the economic benefit of expansion would fall from £5.5 billion, as set out by Government, to just £0.9 billion.

There's more reporting of the day's events here -  the wire service, and here with commentary from Susan Kramer, the Lib Dem MP, who remarks that you've got to take the government to court to even find out what their environmental policy is.

The trial continues tomorrow.

Tuesday, 23 February, 2010

Amnesty International urges the Nicaraguan authorities to provide a pregnant woman with cancer treatment that is currently being withheld because of a law that bans abortion.

Amnesty International has called on the Nicaraguan authorities to provide cancer treatment to a pregnant woman that is currently being withheld because of a law that bans abortion in all circumstances.

Amalia (not her real name), 27, is 10 weeks pregnant and was diagnosed, on 2 February, with cancer which may have already spread to her brain, lungs and breasts.

The Nicaraguan authorities are impeding doctors from providing cancer treatment to her while she is pregnant because medical staff could face prosecution if they cause harm to the foetus during her treatment, even if the harm is caused unintentionally.

“It is shocking that Nicaragua would deny a cancer patient potentially life saving treatment because she is pregnant,” said Esther Major, Central America Researcher at Amnesty International.

“Amalia’s situation reveals the impact of this law and demonstrates the urgent need to repeal this draconian ban which prevents the delivery of timely care and impedes sound medical judgment.

“Each day is critical for Amalia’s chances of survival and the Nicaraguan authorities must take immediate steps to provide her the full range of health care appropriate to treat her cancer.”

Doctors treating Amalia have refused to use radiotherapy and chemotherapy because they fear prosecution.

Amalia is also the sole carer of her 10-year-old daughter. In December 2009 Amalia sought treatment in a local clinic for breathing problems, fever, nausea and fainting. She was referred to a hospital for tests, where she has been hospitalised since 2 February. Her doctors said she required urgent chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatment but have not initiated any of these treatments because of fear of unintentional harm to the feotus.  

“Nicaragua’s ban of therapeutic abortions is a human rights scandal that ridicules medical science and turns the law into a weapon against the provision of essential medical care to pregnant women and girls,” said Esther Major.

In 2006, prior to the ban on abortion introduced,  21 Nicaraguan medical associations from across the spectrum of medical disciplines issued a joint public statement against the proposed total ban on abortion, with an explicit warning that health professionals’ ability to provide health care and practice their profession would be limited if the prohibition was passed.

On 18 February Nicaraguan NGOs and the largest professional gynaecological association in Nicaragua asked the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to request "special measures," which would require the government to fulfil its legal obligations to protect Amalia’s right to life and health and ensure she is immediately provided with treatment which could save, or at least prolong, her life.

 “Nicaragua's total ban on abortion is unlawful and the Nicaraguan government has also ignored the calls for the law criminalising abortion to be repealed by four United Nations expert treaty bodies, including the Committee Against Torture," said Esther Major

Two weeks ago 11 member states of the United Nations called on Nicaragua to amend its laws on abortion, due to the rise in maternal deaths and rape victims who are being compelled to carry pregnancies to term since the laws’ introduction.

"A legal challenge to the constitutional basis for the law has also been before the constitutional section of the Supreme Court for over year,” said Esther Major.

“Amnesty International is appalled at the Nicaraguan government's refusal to respond to the pleas to change this cruel law.”

The total abortion ban in Nicaragua: Women’s lives and health endangered, medical professionals criminalized (Report, 27 July 2009)

A health worker advises a woman patient at a public hospital in Ocotal, Nicaragua

Tuesday, 23 February, 2010

Radio correspondent Ali Yusuf Adan was taken after the broadcast of a report alleging that the armed group had killed a man in the Wanleweyn district.

Amnesty International has called for the immediate release of a Somali radio journalist held by the armed group al-Shabab, apparently after a report was broadcast alleging the group had killed a man in the Wanleweyn district.

Ali Yusuf Adan, a 47 year old correspondent for Radio Somaliweyn, is being held by the armed group in the port city of Merka, in southern Somalia.

"Amnesty International fears for the safety of Ali Yusuf Adan, given the numerous human rights abuses committed by al-Shabab against civilians, including journalists", said Erwin van der Borght, director of Amnesty International's Africa programme.

"Al-Shabab must immediately release him without harm, stop threatening journalists and respect the right of all Somalis to freedom of expression."

Ali Yusuf Adan was captured on 21 February in Wanleweyn, a town north-west of the capital Mogadishu controlled by the armed group,

Al-Shabab has said that the journalist was held because he made a "mistake".

In the past few months the group has imposed drastic restrictions on journalists in an attempt to stifle information in areas they control.

They have closed down radio stations, banned the airing of reports mentioning Somalia’s government and made intimidating statements against journalists.

Many journalists who fled Somalia reported to Amnesty International that they did so after receiving death threats from individuals claiming to be members of al-Shabab.

Nine journalists were killed in 2009 in Somalia; at least three of them were deliberately murdered.

Two radio directors, Said Tahlil Ahmed and Mukhtar Hirabe, were killed in Bakara market last year, an area of Mogadishu controlled by al-Shabab militia.

Although al-Shabab spokespeople have denied involvement in these killings, the group’s leaders have failed to publicly condemn attacks against the media and order their forces not to target journalists. .

Al-Shabab currently controls vast areas of south and central Somalia, including major cities such as Merka, Kismayo and Baidoa, as well as districts of the capital Mogadishu.

The internationally-backed Transitional Federal Government (TFG) of Somalia exercises authority only in part of the capital is repeatedly attacked by al Shabab and other armed groups and has not been able to establish a national justice system.

Al- Shabab armed groups have grown out of the Islamic Courts Union, a movement that temporarily established control over Mogadishu and other areas in 2006.

The Islamic Courts Union were militarily defeated by Ethiopian troops who intervened in Somalia in late 2006 to assist the Transitional Federal Government.

After Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, a former Islamic Courts Union leader, was appointed President of the TFG in January 2009, and Ethiopian troops left Somalia, al-Shabab and other armed groups have continued fighting against the TFG, claiming that it is allied to Western nations.

Al-Shabab has said that Ali Yusuf Adan was held because he made a 'mistake'

Tuesday, 23 February, 2010

Amnesty International has voiced its concern to Ban Ki-moon that reparations were accepted for UN buildings damaged in the conflict, while victims of the attacks have not been paid.

Amnesty International has said it is concerned that the United Nations (UN) accepted US$10.5 million compensation from Israel for UN buildings damaged during last year's Gaza conflict without securing compensation for any of the actual victims of the attacks.

The UN announced on 22 January that it had received the compensation from the government of Israel after an investigation into Israeli attacks on UN personnel and buildings, set up by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon last February.

The UN said that, with this payment, the financial issues relating to the attacks examined by the investigation were "concluded".

However, the investigation's report had specifically recommended that the UN seek compensation not only for UN personnel and civilians killed or injured in attacks on UN premises, but also for civilian victims of other attacks during the fighting.

"Surely, the acceptance of this sum for damage to UN buildings can only be the first step in repairing the damage caused by the conflict," said Amnesty International in a letter to Ban Ki-moon on Monday, sent by the organization's interim Secretary General, Claudio Cordone.

"The UN cannot ignore the lack of reparations to the hundreds of women, men and children who were killed, injured or the thousands who lost property during the Gaza conflict in attacks that violated international humanitarian law."

During Operation "Cast Lead", the 22-day Israeli offensive in Gaza (27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009), some 1,400 Palestinians, including more than 300 children, were killed as a result of the Israeli offensive, hundreds of others were injured and thousands of homes were destroyed.

Thirteen Israelis were killed, including three civilians killed by indiscriminate rockets fired into southern Israel by Palestinian armed groups.

During the conflict, a number of UN premises and operations were hit in military strikes and damaged, including schools, a health centre, a field office and a UN convoy. In several of these attacks, UN staff and Palestinian civilians who were inside or near buildings at the time were killed or injured.

On 12 February 2009, Ban Ki-moon set up a Board of Inquiry with limited terms of reference to investigate attacks on UN personnel and buildings in Gaza.

The Board’s full report, which has not been made public, was submitted to Ban Ki-moon on 21 April, who subsequently released a summary of the findings.

In all, nine incidents were examined by the Board, including the case of UNRWA Jabalia Preparatory Boys School, which was repeatedly hit by Israeli mortar strikes on 6 January 2009, killing more than 30 civilians, and the shelling of UNRWA Beit Lahia Elementary School on 17 January 2009 when two children sheltering in the school were killed.

The Board found that the Israeli military had repeatedly breached the inviolability of the UN, did not make sufficient efforts to protect UN staff or civilians and, in a number of the cases examined, was responsible for damage done to UN buildings and injuries and fatalities caused by Israeli attacks.

In one incident examined by the Board, it was found that Hamas or another Palestinian actor was responsible for damage to a World Food Programme warehouse near the Karni crossing point between Israel and the Gaza Strip.

Amnesty International emphasized in the letter that the rights of victims of violations of international human rights and humanitarian law to a remedy, including full and effective reparations "cannot be waived by the UN".

Amnesty International urged Ban Ki-moon to make clear to the government of Israel that it has an obligation to ensure that victims of violations by Israeli forces that occurred during the conflict have immediate access to an effective remedy, including full and effective reparations.

The organization said that Ban Ki-moon should call on Hamas to "provide reparations to the victims of violations by the armed wing of Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups" during the conflict.

Ban Ki-moon must show Israel it has an obligation to compensate victims of violations by Israeli forces Israeli shelling of Beit Lahia Elementary School in January 2009 killed two children The UNRWA field office in Gaza City came under Israeli fire on 15 January 2009