It's the job of the UN  High Commissioner for Human Rights to shine a spotlight on human rights abuses, wherever they occur around the world.  Navi Pillay, I dare say, is very good at her job.  Yesterday, in Geneva, she addressed an opening session of the Human Rights Council and delivered something of an around the world tour of human rights concerns.  Here's a sample of her remarks.

In Sri Lanka, I welcome the progress made in returning displaced persons, and hope the review and release of security detainees can similarly be expedited.  But the opportunity for peace and reconciliation continues to be marred by the treatment of journalists, human rights defenders and other critics of the Government.  I am convinced that Sri Lanka should undertake a full reckoning of the grave violations committed by all sides during the war, and that the international community can be helpful in this regard.

I remain deeply concerned by the deteriorating human rights situation in Iran where there has been a violent crackdown on dissent, including the arbitrary arrest of demonstrators, human rights activists, journalists and prominent political figures. Many have been given harsh sentences, including capital punishment, for their role in post-election protests after questionable trials.  I had the opportunity to discuss these issues with the Iranian delegation during the recent UPR, and have suggested that the authorities allow my Office to visit Iran.  [Ed note: more on Iran at the Human Rights Council here]

[snip]
 Throughout 2009, I met with representatives of Sudan and expressed deep concern over death sentences and executions imposed and carried out in that country.  I note the Presidential pardon of all alleged combatants of the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM).  However, the wave of executions, including of six men executed as recently as 14 January 2010 is deeply troubling.  A positive step in the peace process in Sudan was last month’s Framework Agreement between the Government of Sudan and JEM, which was reached with the help of Qatar and Chad.  I am concerned, however, over recent reports of fighting in the Jebel Mara. All parties should make the protection of civilians their utmost priority and I encourage all armed movements to enter into dialogue for peace and to respect the right to life. 

Let me take this opportunity to underline the excellent cooperation between the United Nations, the African Union, and the Economic Community of West-African States (ECOWAS) in relation, to the violence that erupted in Guinea last September. The international Commission of Inquiry into the events and their aftermath, as you know, was called for by the AU and ECOWAS, and established by the UN Secretary General “with a view to determining the accountability of those involved.”  One of the recommendations of the CoI is that OHCHR establish an office in Guinea.  OHCHR has received full support from the current authorities and the United Nations system in this regard.

[snip]

 Earlier this week, I called on the Egyptian Government to immediately order its security forces to stop using “lethal force” against unarmed migrants trying to enter Israel via the Sinai Desert.  There have been some 60 fatal shootings over the past two and a half years.  An urgent and independent inquiry into these killings must be conducted.
 [snip]
Over a year ago, I welcomed the decision of the United States to close the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay and to ban methods of interrogation, transfer and detention that contravene international law. Since then some progress has been made.  The United States should now conduct thorough investigations into allegations of torture at the detention centres in Guantanamo Bay and Bagram, account for practices that may have contravened international law, and hold violators to account.

Full remarks here. 

Tomorrow, the General Assembly is scheduled to vote on the Goldstone Report that criticizes both Hamas and the Israeli Defense Forces for alleged war crimes during Operation Cast Lead.   The resolution that is up for a vote is partly symbolic -- it will show that the Goldstone Report (which will not be taken up by the Security Council) is not gone and forgotten.  But it also gives both sides five months to implement some of the report's key findings and assures that there will be another vote on the matter this summer.  This helps keep the pressure on both sides to implement their own accountability mechanisms as the report reccomends. 

Still, the prospects for accountability for alleged crimes committed during Operation Cast Lead looks pretty bleak.  The Security Council route is a non-starter.   The United States has expressed its reservations with the report and it is hard to believe that the United States would let a discussion on the report take place at the Council.  Now, the report does recommend that if local authorities are unable or unwilling to pursue their own credible investigations, the International Criminal Court should get involved. The problem, though, is that the ICC has no jurisdiction over Israel, which is not a member of the court. 

Chances are the vote will pass overwhelmingly in the General Assembly, much as a similar vote did in November.   The final vote count then was 114 to 18, with 44 abstentions (mostly from Europe.)  As was the case during the debate on that resolution, the key question for many European countries is whether or not the resolution will specifically endorse a Human Rights Council resolution on the Goldstone report. That language was left in the resolution last time, leading a number of European countries (which did not vote for the original Human Rights Council resolution) to abstain from the vote.  So, stay tuned.  

Major demonstrations are underway in Tehran today, the 31st anniversary of the Islamic revolution. The Guardian is providing the full Nico Pitney treatment, and continuously collecting first hand accounts and videos from the day's events.  So far, it looks like the government is firmly in control of the situation and has been able to keep the crowds dispersed.  To that end, these tactics seem to help.

Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch released a new report on the human rights abuses that occured during the government's crackdown against its political opposition, following Iran's disputed presidential election. The report provides a number of first person accounts from witnesses and victims of the Iranian government's post-election crackdown, including this story from a former detainee.  

On June 26, prison guards one more time set up fake executions, cursing and randomly beating people who asked for water or to use the toilet. I said, "Execute me if you want and get it over with." I received a kick to my stomach and when I fell to the ground more kicks in the stomach, until I started throwing up blood. Another man said, "Take this faggot and make him pregnant, so he won't be a smartass again." That man grabbed me violently and pulled me to another location. He tied my hands and feet and pulled down my underwear and [...] while he was raping me he said, ".... You can't even defend your own ass, how do you want to start a velvet revolution?" I threw up blood and passed out.

Finally, there is some movement at the Security Council on a potential next round of Iran sanctions.  At a meeting in Brussels, Gordon Brown re-iterated the UK government's position on Iran:

“I think the choices could not be clearer. Iran can either pursue a civilian nuclear programme, respect human rights and earn the trust and respect of the international community, or it can move ahead with its nuclear weapons programme, trample on human rights and be isolated and ostracized on the wrong side of history, outside the international community.”

 So what are the next steps?  The ever valuable Security Council report summarizes the current council dynamics on Iran:

Within the P5, divisions remain on the best approach on Iran. France, the UK and the US now support prompt action on further sanctions.

China seems to maintain that further dialogue might be productive and that there is still space for further negotiations with Iran. It is therefore not the right moment for sanctions. However, China agreed to the joint statement from the January meeting which began a process to discuss additional measures.

Russia does not seem to rule out additional sanctions. It seems to have been particularly concerned at the revelation of the Qom enrichment facility, as well as Iran’s rejection of the IAEA October 2009 proposal which it saw as a fair compromise. In a statement on 22 January, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Russia wanted to see “constructive actions” from Iran.

Some elected Council members seem sceptical about the utility of further sanctions at this stage. There are also concerns about the impact of increased international pressure on the fragile internal situation in Iran.

Brazil and Turkey both abstained when the 27 November 2009 resolution on Iran was adopted in the IAEA and believe there is still room for further negotiations on the basis of the October offer. They have both engaged bilaterally with Iran. Lebanon is also concerned about premature Council action.

Many elected members also seem concerned about the failure of the P5 to consult with them collectively as Council members in the process.

Stay tuned.  

The appellate Chamber of the International Criminal Court just handed down a decision on whether or not Sudan's president Omar al Bashir can be tried for genocide.

Some background.  When the ICC prosecutor unveiled his functional equivalent of an indictment against Bashir in early 2009 he accused the Sudanese president of the crime of genocide.  However, when a panel of ICC judges known as the Pre-Trial Chamber actually issued the arrest warrant for Bashir, they did not include genocide among the charges (only war crimes and crimes against humanity).  The prosecutor appealed this decision, and moments ago an Appellate Chamber ruled that the Pre-Trial Chamber must revisit their decision to keep genocide off the arrest warrant. 

The Appeals Chamber did not decide one way or the other on the question of whether or not Bashir committed genocide. Rather, it objected based on procedural grounds to the decision to keep genocide off the arrest warrent.  From the ICC:

The Appeals Chamber explained that it was not concerned with the question of whether Mr Omar Al Bashir is, or is not, responsible for the crime of genocide. Rather, the Appeals Chamber addressed a question of procedural law, namely whether the Pre-Trial Chamber applied the correct standard of proof when disposing of the Prosecutor’s application for an arrest warrant.

In its 4 March, 2009, decision, Pre-Trial Chamber I rejected the Prosecutor’s application in respect of genocide stating that it would issue an arrest warrant for genocide only if the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the Prosecutor’s evidence, based on “proof by inference”, was that there were reasonable grounds to believe in the existence of genocidal intent. The Appeals Chamber found that demanding that the existence of genocidal intent must be the only reasonable conclusion amounts to requiring the Prosecutor to disprove any other reasonable conclusions and to eliminate any reasonable doubt. The Appeals Chamber found this standard of proof to be too demanding at the arrest warrant stage, which is governed by article 58 of the Rome Statute. This amounted to an error of law.Check

Check out Kevin Jon Heller for a discussion of the legal merits of the decision. But from a political standpoint, it seems to me that we are seeing the International Criminal Court come to its own. Remember, the court is very young.  The jurisprudence under which it operates is relatively new.  Today's ruling shows that the court is capable of policing itself and that the institution's internal checks and balances are strong.  It also shows that the prosecutor is not "unaccountable" as some of the court's detractors would have you believe. 

Today's ruling should serve as a reminder to the United States that it has nothing to fear from joining this experiment in international justice.  As it happens, ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo can tell American officials that in person. He is in  Washington, D.C. for the next couple of days.  

UPDATE: Don Kraus of Citizens for Global Solutions: “Today’s ruling by the International Criminal Court (ICC) judges demonstrates the wheels of international justice at work. We are now one step closer to holding accused war criminal Omar Al-Bashir in front of the world’s premier court for trying perpetrators of mass atrocities. Adding a charge of genocide to Al-Bashir’s arrest warrant, would be a first for the ICC and for a sitting head of state. This charge would add to the equally grave charges Al-Bashir faces of Crimes against Humanity and War Crime, including murder, extermination and rape."