Group 48 Newsletter - November 2011

Amnesty International USA Group 48

Newsletter11.11

1 USA: Urgent Action - First Oregon Execution In 14 Years Looming

3 REPUBLIC OF CONGO: Urge Release of Men Held Since 2004

5 CHINA: Death Penalty, Impunity, Medical Concern, Torture

7 MYANMAR: Urgent Action - Torture, Ill-treatment, Health Concern, Prisoners Denied Drinking Water

9 Finland Must Further Investigate US Rendition Flights

AIUSA-Group 48http://aipdx.org 503-227-1878Next Meeting: Friday November 11thFirst Unitarian Church1011 SW 12th Ave7:00pm informal gathering 7:30pm meeting starts

NewsLetter Designed By Michelle Whitlock MichelleWhitlock.com

USA: Urgent Action - First Oregon Execution In 14 Years LoomingGary Haugen (m)

The first execution in Oregon since 1997, and only the third in this US state since 1962, looks set to be scheduled for 6 December. Questions remain about the mental competence of the condemned prisoner, who has chosen to give up his appeals against his death sentence.

Oregon has carried out two executions since judicial killing resumed in the USA in 1977 – one in 1996 and one in 1997. Both were of inmates who had given up appeals against their death sentences. Now Gary Haugen, a 49-year-old man, is expected to receive an execution date of 6 December after waiving his appeals. He and Jason Van Brumwell were sentenced to death in 2007 for the murder of fellow inmate David Polin in Oregon State Peniten-tiary in 2003. At the time of the murder, Gary Haugen was serving a life sen-tence after being convicted in 1981 of

the murder earlier that year of his for-mer girlfriend’s mother. On automatic appeal in 2010, the state Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and death sen-tence. Since then Gary Haugen has said he wants to drop any further appeals.

Earlier this year, a neuropsychologist retained by Gary Haugen’s then lawyers assessed the prisoner as suffering from a “delusional disorder that makes him incompetent to be executed”. Dr Muriel Lezak said that in her opinion, although Gary Haugen has “factual awareness” of his impending execution and the reason for it, he lacks a rational understanding of the crime and his punishment. She assessed Gary Haugen as displaying a significant attention-deficit disorder and impaired cognitive functioning, and noted that he has a history of head injuries and blackouts.

Jean Carneiro S

tock.Xchng

»

AIUSA group 48 Newsletter November 2011 Pg 2

However, at a hearing in trial court in May, the judge granted Gary Haugen’s request to fire his lawyers, and they were not allowed to present evidence relating to Haugen’s competence. At a subsequent hearing ordered by the state Supreme Court, the same judge granted Gary Haugen’s motion to preclude Dr Lezak’s assessment of him. Instead the only witness to testify was a doctor retained by the state, whose written opinion has not been made public. The judge found Gary Haugen com-petent to waive his appeals and to be executed. Although the judge has not yet signed the death warrant, he is expected to do so in mid-November and to set a 6 December execu-tion date. Lawyers for the non-governmental Oregon Capital Resource Center have appealed to the state Supreme Court to order another competency hearing, arguing that to allow “a defendant to choose his own sentence introduces an uncon-scionable arbitrariness into the capital punishment system” and allowing “an arguably incompetent capital defendant to suppress evidence that he is incompetent” risks Oregon carry-ing out an execution prohibited by the constitution.

PLEASE WRITE IMMEDIATELY in your own language: ◌ Express concern that the State of Oregon looks set to con-

duct its first execution in 14 years;

◌ Express concern that Gary Haugen has been found com-petent for execution by a judge who did not hear testimony from a neuropsychologist who has come to the opposite conclusion;

◌ Note the growing concern in the USA about the death penalty, the isolation of the USA on this punishment, and the international calls for a worldwide moratorium on executions;

◌ Urge the governor to oppose his state taking this negative step, to support a moratorium on executions in Oregon, and to do all he can to prevent any executions, including that of Gary Haugen.

PLEASE SEND APPEALS BEFORE 6 DECEMBER 2011 TO: Governor John Kitzhaber 160 State Capitol 900 Court Street Salem, Oregon 97301-4047 USA Fax: 1-503-378-6827

Email: http://governor.oregon.gov/Gov/contact.shtml Salutation: Dear Governor

Please check with the AIUSA Urgent Action Office if sending appeals after the above date.

Additional Information At Gary Haugen’s trial in 2007, his sister testified about their childhood, which she described as having been marked by al-coholism, mental instability and violence on the part of their parents. Their mother, and later their father, abandoned the children, who were divided up and placed in various foster homes. As an adult, Gary Haugen was diagnosed with mood and seizure disorders. At the sentencing phase of his trial, a psychiatrist testified that he had diagnosed the defendant with intermittent explosive personality disorder and partial complex seizures. He reached the latter diagnosis partly on account of the fact that the medical authorities at Oregon State Penitentiary had treated Gary Haugen with an anti-seizure drug, Neurontin, which apparently was successful in alleviating his mental condition. The murder of David Polin is reported to have taken place at a time when Gary Haugen had been taken off this drug. A second mental health expert also provided his opinion that it was likely that Gary Haugen suffered from partial complex seizures and had committed an “explosive act” when taken off Neurontin. Prior to the trial, the defence lawyers had sought to have quantitative electro-encephalography (QEEG) testing of Gary Haugen to assess the extent of his mental dysfunction, but this type of brain mapping was not available at the time in Oregon.

One in 10 of the people put to death in the USA since judicial killing resumed there in 1977 had given up their appeals (see http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/087/2007). Any number of factors may contribute to a condemned inmate’s decision not to pursue appeals, including mental disorder, physical illness, remorse, bravado, religious belief, a quest for notoriety, the severity of conditions of confinement, including prolonged isolation and lack of physical contact visits, the bleak alternative of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, or pessimism about appeal prospects. In some cases it appears that the detainee may have committed the crime in order to receive a death sentence. Pre-trial or post-conviction suicidal ideation seems to motivate the de-»


cision-making of some such inmates, including some whose backgrounds had left them suffering mental health problems. With such cases in mind, the execution of “volunteers” is often compared to state-assisted suicide. However, “prisoner-assisted homicide” may be a more appropriate description. Given the rate of error found in capital cases on appeal, if the approximately 140 “volunteers” executed since 1977 had pur-sued their appeals, there is a significant possibility that a num-ber of them would have had their death sentences overturned to prison terms. To look at it another way, the phenomenon of “volunteers” contributes to the arbitrariness that is a part of the death penalty in the USA.

In the past four years, three states – New Jersey, New Mexico and Illinois – have legislated to abolish the death penalty. Signing these bills into law, the three state governors pointed to the death penalty’s flaws, such as the risk of irrevocable error and unfairness, its discriminatory application, its costs and diversion of resources from crime prevention and victim-assistance, the lack of any proven special deterrent effect, and its potentially brutalizing effect on society. In 2008, the then most senior member of the US Supreme Court, Justice John Paul Stevens, revealed that his 33 years on the Court had persuaded him that the “imposition of the death penalty rep-resents the pointless and needless extinction of life”. In the 14 years since Oregon last carried out an execution, some three

dozen more countries have abolished the death penalty, and today 139 countries are abolitionist in law or practice. Dur-ing scrutiny of the USA’s human rights record under the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review Process in late 2010, numerous countries called on the USA to end its use of the death penalty. The UN General Assembly has called on all retentionist countries to impose a moratorium on executions. While it is true that international human rights law, including article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), recognizes that some countries retain the death penalty, this acknowledgment of present reality should not be invoked “to delay or to prevent the abolition of capital punishment”, in the words of article 6.6 of the ICCPR. The USA ratified the ICCPR nearly 20 years ago. The UN Human Rights Committee, the expert body es-tablished under the ICCPR to monitor the treaty’s implemen-tation, has said that article 6 “refers generally to abolition in terms which strongly suggest that abolition is desirable. The Committee concludes that all measures of abolition should be considered as progress in the enjoyment of the right to life”. Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases, regardless of the crime, the offender or the method of execution. There have been 1271 executions in the USA since judicial killing resumed there in 1977, including 37 so far this year.

REPUBLIC OF CONGO: Urge Release of Men Held Since 2004Germain Ndabamenya Etikilome, Medard Mabwaka Eg-bonde and Bosch Ndala Umba are three former members of the DRC security services detained without trial or access to lawyers in the Republic of Congo. Amnesty International is seeking their release.

Background Germain Ndabamenya Etikilome, Medard Mabwaka Egbonde and Bosch Ndala Umba are former high-ranking members of the neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo’s (DRC) security forces. They have been detained without charge or trial by the military security service, Direction Centrale des Renseignements Militaires (DCRM) in Brazzaville, capital of the Republic of Congo since March 2004. The three men are held at the headquarters of the DCRM military security service in Brazzaville.Germain Ndabamenya »


All three men say that they fled the DRC to avoid being ar-rested by the authorities. They allege that they were being falsely accused of seeking to overthrow the DRC government. They all claimed asylum in Brazzaville. Bosch Ndala Umba was granted refugee status while the two others are still wait-ing for a decision on their asylum application.

Their detention constitutes a violation of the Republic of Con-go’s obligations under the 1951 Geneva Convention on the status of refugees. In addition, the detention of the three men violates the Republic of Congo’s Code of Penal Procedure. The Code provides that a suspect should be brought before a judicial official within 48 hours of being arrested, and should either be charged with an offense or released. The Code also provides that an accused person should also be brought to trial within six months of his or her arrest. The unexplained and prolonged detention of the three men who went to the Republic of Congo to seek asylum is unlawful and constitutes an unlawful deprivation of their liberty.

The three men are concerned that they may be forcibly returned to the DRC upon their release, where they could be subjected to arbitrary arrest, unlawful detention, torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, unfair trial and the death penalty, A group of former soldiers forc-ibly returned from Brazzaville to Kinshasa in early 2001 were subjected to torture and other forms of ill-treatment before they were sentenced by a military court to 20 years’ imprison-ment after unfair trial. Amnesty International believes that these three former soldiers are likely to be subjected to similar human rights violations on return to the DRC.

Action Please write a polite letter similar to the sample letter below to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Defense in the Republic of Congo. The Minister of Justice has the responsi-bility is to ensure that arbitrary arrests and detentions do not take place and the Minister of Defense has authority for the military security service (DCRM).

Minister of DefenseM. Charles Zacharie Bowao

Ministre à la présidence chargé de la défense nationale Présidence de la République

B.P. 2006, Brazzaville République du Congo Fax: 011 242 2 81 45 60 Salutation: Dear Minister

Minister of Justice: Me Aimé Emmanuel YOKA Ministre de la Justice, Garde des sceaux et des Droits humains Ministère de la Justice BP Brazzaville République du Congo Fax 011 242 2 81 41 67 Salutation Dear Minister

Copy to The Honorable Serge Mombouli Ambassador of the Republic of Congo to the United States Embassy of the Republic of Congo

Group CoordinatorJoanne [email protected]

Concert TablingWill [email protected]

Newsletter EditorDan [email protected]

TreasurerTena [email protected]

Legislative CoordinatorDan Johnson503-310-4540 [email protected]

Indonesia RANMax [email protected]

Central Africa RANTerrie Rodello503-246-6836 [email protected]

OR State Death Penalty Abolition CoordinatorTerrie Rodello503-246-6836 [email protected]

Central America RANMarylou Noble503-245-6923marylou_noble@ yahoo.com

Prisoners' Cases & DarfurJane [email protected] [email protected]

AIUSA Group 48 Contact Information

»


4891 Colorado Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20011 Salutation: His Excellency

Sample Letter Dear Minister, I am writing to ask about the status of three individuals, Germain Ndabamenya Etikilome, Medard Mabwaka Eg-bonde and Bosch Ndala Umba, three asylum seekers from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) detained without trial since Mach 2004. I hope that you can provide information about their long-detention without trial.

Before their detention, these individuals and their families have filed for asylum in Brazzaville. Their detentions for over five years by the authorities of the Republic of Congo violates

the laws of the Republic of Congo, as well as its international obligations to the International Covenant on Civilian and Political Rights, the Africa Charter on People’s Rights and the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees.

These individuals should be given the opportunity to access lawyers and to challenge the legal basis of their initial arrest and long-detention before an independent and impartial ju-diciary with the authority to release them immediately if their detention is unlawful.

I also urge you to consider their application for asylum and to not forcibly return them the DRC upon their release due to their well-founded fears of torture.

I look forward to your response to my concerns. Regards,

CHINA: Death Penalty, Impunity, Medical Concern, TortureLeng Guoquan (m)

On May 6, 2011, the Higher People’s Court sent Leng Guo-quan’s case back to the Dandong City Immediate People’s Court for retrial due to “unclarity about the facts” and “lack of evidence”. The date for the retrial has not been announced yet.

Leng Guoquan was detained on January 19, 2009. He says he was severely tortured for three days and three nights while be-ing interrogated by the Dandong City criminal investigation sub-team, a special branch under the public security bureau (police) responsible for organized crime. Three police officers placed him on a “tiger bench” (a small iron bench), with his legs tied on the bench and his hands behind his back. They then pushed his head down in between his legs and punched him with their fists. Later, they lit one end of rolled paper and stuffed the other end into his nose and covered his mouth. When Leng Guoquan could not hold his breath any longer and inhaled, the fire ran into his nose. The police then poured cold water on him and left the window in the room open. The temperature outside was around -20˚C. They also tied a plas-tic bag, filled with cold water, over his head. Leng Guoquan felt he was suffocating and eventually lost consciousness.

On January 22, 2009, Leng Guoquan was transferred to Dan-dong City Detention Center, where officials further tortured him with an electric rod. He still refused to confess and on February 9, 2009, he was transferred to Fengcheng County Detention Centre where he has been held since.

Leng Guoquan, a seafood trader, was sentenced to death on December 16, 2009 by the Dandong City Intermediate People’s Court in Liaoning province. He was tried for being a leader of a criminal group engaged in smuggling and traffick-ing drugs following an unfair trial that was solely based on testimonies from witnesses who either have since retracted their testimony or say they were tortured. Leng Guoquan himself has always denied the charges against him and says he confessed only because he was tortured.

Leng Guoquan appealed against the judgment to the Liaon-ing Provincial Higher People’s Court, and was defended by lawyers Teng Biao and Liang Xiaojun. His appeal hearing took place on December 7, 2010. Leng Guoquan showed the Higher People’s Court the scars on his head, wrists and legs which he said were inflicted by torture. The defense had called 56 witnesses but the court only heard three of them. »

Doru Lupeanu S

tock.Xchng


At the Fengcheng County Detention Center, Leng Guoquan was first registered under a false name, Chen Dong, seem-ingly in an attempt to prevent his lawyer and family from finding out where he was held, meeting with him and seeing the marks of torture he had suffered. Although his lawyer and family later found out where he was being held, his family have never been allowed to visit him or send him clothes.

Leng Guoquan says that he continued to be tortured until on March 24, 2009, Leng Guoquan was forced to recite a con-fession script in front of a camera. This recording is the first formal report of his interrogations included in his case file.

According to Leng Guoquan’s sister-in-law, the family had appointed four lawyers to represent Leng Guoquan. The ju-dicial authorities forced his first defense lawyer to resign after taking pictures of Leng Guoquan’s scars which he says were a result of torture. The Dandong City Public Security Bureau also denied his second and third lawyers access to him. Yang Junzhe was the fourth lawyer hired by Leng Guoquan’s fam-ily to represent Leng Guoquan. The criminal investigation sub-team initially tried to stop him too from visiting Leng Guoquan. After negotiating with the Dandong City Public Security Bureau, Yang Junzhe finally gained access to Leng Guoquan and was able to meet with him four times before his first trial.

The Dandong City Intermediate People’s Court heard Leng Guoquan’s case on October 26 and November 10. During this first trial, the majority of the prosecution’s witnesses did not testify in court but their statements were provided in writing. As a result, Leng Guoquan’s lawyer had no chance to cross-examine key witnesses. Those who did testify, retracted their previous statements. Leng Guoquan’s co-defendant said that he had confessed and given his statement under torture. An-other witness said that he had given the police false informa-tion because he owed money to Leng Guoquan and because Leng Guoquan has insulted him when he tried to recover his debts. Yet, he had not realized Leng Guoquan could be sentenced to death. He now felt sorry and had decided to tell the truth.

The prosecution did not provide any material evidence to support the witness statements during the first trial. They also

did not establish the source, quantity, type or whereabouts of the drugs that Leng Guoquan was said to have smuggled and trafficked.

On July 19, 2009, Yang Junzhe filed a complaint with the Dan-dong City Procuratorate. In the complaint he raised concerns that his client Leng Guoquan might have been tortured in custody, urging the procuratorate to initiate an investiga-tion with a view of bringing those responsible to justice. To support his complaint, he provided statements from three de-tainees who all testified having seen Leng Guoquan’s wounds and scars. The torture allegations were not considered by the Dandong City Intermediate People’s Court that tried Leng Guoquan.

On August 23, 2010, Liaoning Provincial Procuratore con-tacted Leng Guoquan’s brother telling him that they had con-cluded the investigation into the allegations that Leng Guo-quan had confessed under torture but that they had found the allegations to be unfounded.

Action Please send politely worded appeals calling on the authorities:

◌ not to execute Leng Guoquan;

◌ to retry Leng Guoquan in a trial that meets international fair trial standards;

◌ to insure that Leng Guoquan is no longer tortured or other-wise ill-treated by the authorities;

Within the United States $0.28 - Postcards $0.44 - Letters and Cards up to 1 oz.

To Canada $0.75 - Postcards $0.75 - Airmail Letters and Cards up to 1 oz.

To Mexico $0.79 - Postcards $0.79 - Airmail Letters and Cards up to 1 oz.

To all other destination countries $0.98 - Postcards $0.98 - Airmail Letters and Cards up to 1 oz.

Postage Rates

»


◌ to conduct an independent and impartial investigation into the allegations that Leng Guoquan has been tortured, with a view to bringing those responsible to justice.

Appeals To President of the People’s Republic of China HU Jintao Guojia Zhuxi The State Council General Office 2 Fuyoujie Xichengqu Beijingshi 100017 People's Republic of China Email: [email protected] Salutation: Your Excellency

President of the Liaoning Provincial Higher People’s CourtWANG Zhenhua Yuanzhang

132 Huigongjie Shenhequ Shenyangshi 110013 Liaoningsheng People’s Republic of China Email: [email protected] Salutation: Dear President

Copies To Ambassador ZHANG Yesui Embassy of the People’s Republic of China 3505 International Place NW Washington DC 20008 Phone: 202 495 2266 Fax: 1 202 465-2138 Email: [email protected] Salutation: Your Excellency

MYANMAR: Urgent Action - Torture, Ill-treatment, Health Concern, Prisoners Denied Drinking WaterNyi Nyi Tun (m), Thaw Zin aka Ngapain (m), Kaung Myat Hlaing (m), Ko Saw Nobel (m), Than Naing Oo (m), Ko Wunna Htay aka U Vithoddi (m), Aung Naing (m), Nyan Tun Lin aka Yan Naing (m), Ko Aung (m), Inter aka Spy (m), Swam Khant Thwam (m), Zin Min Shein (m), Sandimar aka Tun Naung (m), Aung Moe Zaw (m), and Ko Soe Moe Tun (m)

Fifteen political prisoners, currently on hunger strike in Insein prison in Myanmar, are reportedly being tortured or otherwise ill-treated. According to sources in Myanmar, they have been denied drinking water, and eight of the prisoners have been held in cells designed to hold dogs.

The 15 political prisoners, all men, started a hunger strike at Insein prison at midday on 26 October. The strike is in protest that political prisoners in Myanmar are commonly denied the reductions in their sentences which are allowed to criminal convicts. Between 27 October and 2 November it was report-ed that the hunger strikers were being denied drinking water and no further updates are available at present. Depriving prisoners of drinking water as a punishment for participating

in a hunger strike could result in the prison authorities being responsible for the rapid death of the hunger strikers due to dehydration. This would amount to a violation the right to life according to international law, including in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

This also violates Rule 21(2) of the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, which states that drink-ing water shall be available to every prisoner whenever they need it.

Eight of the 15 hunger strikers were reportedly moved to dog cells on 29 October. The names of the eight political prisoners sent to dog cells have not yet been confirmed. The dog cells at Insein Prison are about 3m in length, just over 2m wide, but it is possible to stand upright. They are windowless and often have poor ventilation. There is generally no proper sanitation, no bed and no mats on the floor.

By the morning of 1 November it was reported that two of the hunger strikers had been sent to hospital. The names of those hospitalized and details of their medical situation are current-»

Nate Brelsford Stock.Xchng


ly not available. The hunger strikers have also been denied visits from their families and receipt of parcels from relatives, which may include medicine, food or letters.

Please write immediately in English, Burmese or your own language:

◌ Requesting the Myanmar authorities to take immediate action to ensure that the hunger strikers are provided with adequate drinking water and removed from dog cells, and not subjected to further torture or other ill-treatment, including subjecting them to mental or physical abuse;

◌ Explaining to the authorities that torture and other forms of ill-treatment are absolutely prohibited under international law;

◌ Urging the authorities to conduct a full and impartial inves-tigation into the reports that eight hunger strikers were placed in dog cells and that others were deprived of drinking water; with the results of the investigation made public and those responsible brought to justice.

Appeals To PLEASE SEND APPEALS BEFORE 15 DECEMBER 2011 Minister of Home Affairs Lt. Gen. Ko Ko Ministry of Home Affairs Office No. 10, Nay Pyi Taw REPUBLIC OF THE UNION OF MYANMAR Fax: 011 95 67 412 439 Salutation: Dear Minister

Chairman U Win Mya Myanmar National Human Rights Commission 27 Pyay Road Hline Township, Yangon REPUBLIC OF THE UNION OF MYANMAR Salutation: Dear Chairman

Copies To Deputy Director, Insein Central Prison U Thet Shay Insein Central Prison Middle Ywama Ward Insein Township, Yangon, REPUBLIC OF THE UNION OF MYANMAR

Tuesday, November 8, 2011, 7:30 PM Portland Building Auditorium, 1120 SW 5th Ave, Portland, OR

An evening forum will be held to discuss the threat to our civil liberties caused by the prior and current administration’s systematic policies of torture and targeted killing, extraordinary rendition and warrantless wiretaps, military commissions and indefinite detention, political surveillance and religious discrimination – policies which have dubious or no value in preserving our safety and national security.

Panelists will also highlight ongoing efforts by ACLU, the National Lawyers Guild and others to uncover such abuses and hold those responsible accountable in the legal courts and the court of public opinion.

Speakers include ◌ Steven Wax, Federal Public Defender,

who has represented a number of Guanta-namo detainees; ◌ Kayse Jama, Executive Director, Center

for Intercultural Organizing; ◌ Steven Goldberg, a National Lawyers

Guild attorney whose litigation successfully challenged the NSA warrantless surveil-lance program; and ◌ Brandon Mayfield, a local Muslim attorney

falsely accused and imprisoned on terror-ism charges.The event is free and open to the public. It is sponsored by the National Lawyers Guild, ACLU of Oregon, American Constitution Society, Peace and Justice Works – Iraq Affinity Group, and Amnesty International USA – Group 48.

For more info, contact: Mark Kramer, National Lawyers Guild, (503) 243-2733, [email protected]

Civil Liberties 10 Years After 9/11 Can We Be Safe and Free

»


Salutation: Dear Deputy Director

U Soe Paing Minister-Counselor, Charge d’Affaires Ad Interim Embassy of the Union of Myanmar 2300 S St. NW Washington DC 20008 Tel: 202 332 3344 Fax: 1 202 332 4351 Email: [email protected]

Please check with the AIUSA Urgent Action Office if sending appeals after the above date.

Additional Information Five of the 15 political prisoners who are involved in the current hunger strike were also involved in a hunger strike at Insein Prison in May 2011, demanding improvements to the harsh prison conditions. During the May hunger strike, seven of the protesters were placed in solitary confinement in dog cells, including three of the political prisoners who are in-volved in the current hunger strike. The names of those who were also involved in the May hunger strikes are Nyi Nyi Tun, Ko Wunna Htay aka U Vithoddi, Aung Naing, Zin Min Shein, Ko Soe Moe Tun. The three who have again been sent to the dog cells as punishment for their role in the current hunger strike are Nyi Nyi Tun, Ko Wunna Htay aka U Vithoddi and Ko Soe Moe Tun. The UN Special Rapporteur on the situ-ation of human rights in Myanmar met with Nyi Nyi Tun during a visit to Insein Prison in August 2011.

Many political prisoners in Myanmar have used hunger strikes as a form of protest. Prison authorities have tortured those who protest, or subjected them to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including shackling them, and confining them in dark cells or military dog cells for protracted periods.

Amnesty International has been reporting on the use of dog cells as punishment cells for the last 15 years, as numerous political prisoners have been confined in them for varying periods after breaking sometimes arbitrary prison regulations.

Political prisoners who were placed in dog cells in the past have reported that they were periodically denied food and water and also refused the right to receive visits from rela-tives. One political prisoner reported that the dog cell he was placed in was covered in white lice and smelled of excrement. Sometimes prisoners were put in dog cells alone, on other oc-casions up to four prisoners were forced into one space. There are also reports that on some occasions criminal convicts have been placed in dog cells with political prisoners, which could have placed political prisoners at risk of physical abuse. Prisoners were often beaten, sometimes severely, when they were taken to the dog cells and were not provided with any medical treatment for their injuries. Prison authorities appear to apply such punishments against political prisoners regard-less of their state of health or age, which leads to health prob-lems and the exacerbation of existing medical conditions.

Finland Must Further Investigate US Rendition Flights11/4/2011 aircraft connected to the CIA’s rendition and secret detention

programs but said they were only seeking clarification from the United States on one flight despite questions over a num-ber of flights.

The ministry also claimed that all but one of the flights in the data set were “civilian” in nature and therefore not connected to unlawful activity by the United States or any other state.

“While it is welcome that Finland has published the data, this is only a first step,” said Julia Hall, Amnesty International’s expert on counter-terrorism and human rights. “The mate-rial raises more questions than it answers and provides ample reason for further investigation. Finland has a legal obligation to do so since we know that many of those subjected to rendi-tion were tortured and otherwise ill-treated.”

The Finnish authorities must further investigate newly re-leased data to determine if U.S. rendition flights landed in the country, Amnesty International said today.

The Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs published informa-tion last week revealing some 150 landings in Finland by

John Nyberg S

tock.Xchng

»

Postage


AIUSA group 48 Newsletter November 2011

The Finnish authorities identified one aircraft operated by Mi-ami Air, tail number N733MA, that had travelled between the Manas U.S. Air Force transit base in Kyrgyzstan and Finland in December 2002. The plane flew from Helsinki to Kyrgyz-stan and back to Helsinki on the same day. The U.S. authori-ties had contacted the Finnish authorities in advance and requested that the flights be cleared for landing. The Finnish defense ministry granted permission for the aircraft to land.

“The Finnish government’s distinction between ‘civilian’ and ‘state’ aircraft in the rendition context is a patently false one,” said Hall.

“It is well-documented and widely acknowledged that the CIA contracted with private carriers – a number of which appear in the recently released data – to conduct renditions. The CIA purposely hid its covert rendition operations behind civil-ian aviation companies and now the Finnish government is purposely obscuring the possible nature of these so-called ‘civilian’ aircraft. All the suspect flights must be investigated further, not just one.”

The precise source of the data remains unclear. Amnesty In-ternational will submit a follow-up request to the government seeking additional information and clarification regarding key details, such as whether the information derived from flight plans or actual landing/departure records; the full names of the companies operating the aircraft; the number of crew and passengers aboard each flight; the full flight path for each air-craft; and whether any customs or border control procedures were conducted.

“Requesting information from the United States on its covert operations is a dead end, not an investigation,” said Hall. “The U.S. has already said that it won’t share such data, not even with close allies. The investigation should and can continue in Finland with an in-depth and transparent review of its own records. Finnish government claims that it has done all it can are simply not credible. We do not have the full story yet.”

Group 48 Newsletter - November 2011

Documents

Transcript of Group 48 Newsletter - November 2011