Study International Human Rights Law at Lund University

Lund University is a world class university located in the beautiful city of Lund in southern Sweden. The university has been repeatedly ranked among the world's top universities. In 2009 for instance, Lund University was ranked among the world's top 100 universities. In 2011, it was listed in the QS world university rankings, the Times Higher Education World University World Rankings 2011/2012 and the Shanghai Jiao Tong University's Academic Ranking of World Universities 2011/2012. Anyone thinking about pursuing a Master programme in International Human Rights Law should consider Lund.

I obtained my Master of Laws degree in International Human Rights Law from Lund University. The two years (2007-2009) spent at Lund University were a high point in my life. I therefore naturally recommend the University.

Apparently, I'm not the only ex-student recommending this prestigious institution of higher learning.

On 14 February 2012, a short video was posted on Lund University's Facebook page in which an alumna living and working in Jordan spoke highly about Lund University and how the institution influenced her career. WATCH.



Lund University is highly recommended.

Visit Lund University's website for more information about the Master programme in International Human Rights Law.

*Photo: Dunia Magazine.

Share

Tweet

African states urged to reaffirm support for international justice

In a letter to Foreign Ministers of African states parties to the International Criminal Court (ICC), more than 30 African civil society organizations and international organizations with a presence in Africa urged African states parties to the ICC to reaffirm support for international justice. The letter, signed by 34 organizations, was written ahead of the 18th Ordinary Session of the Assembly of the African Union (AU), which ends on 30 January 2012.

The letter to Foreign Ministers of African states parties to the ICC came less than a week after the Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth, said during the launching of the organization's World Report 2012 in Cairo, that the AU was founded to promote democracy but has acted in the last year as if it is a "dictators' support club" that backs authoritarians and ignores the democratic interests of the people. It is hard to disagree with this assertion.

The AU consists of Heads of States who cling to power through controversial elections and constitutional amendments that tamper with presidential term limits. President Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal, for instance, recently amended the Constitution so as to be eligible to run for (re-)election. This is similar to what happened in Cameroon in 2008 - when President Paul Biya's government eliminated presidential term limits from the Constitution.

With more similarities than differences, such Heads of States are bound to support each other, even if it means turning a blind eye on blatant rights violations or providing safe haven for ousted dictators and their cronies.

Besides failing to take a tough stance against dictators during the "Arab Spring", African states failed to protect the rights of Sub-Saharan Africans who were systematically targeted in Libya during pro-democracy demonstrations in 2011 on accusations of working as mercenaries for the Gaddafi regime. During the conflict, Sub-Saharan Africans in Libya were considered a vulnerable group in desperate need of evacuation, but they were abandoned by their governments and the AU. Many African states turned a blind eye on human rights and democratic interests in Libya, and were preoccupied with blaming western democracies for interfering in the "internal affairs" of Libya.

The ICC is committed to ending impunity for international crimes such as crimes committed in Libya during the 2011 revolution that toppled a 42-year-old regime. African governments should support the ICC and do more to protect the interests of victims of rights violations and oppression, not the interests of dictators and perpetrators of crimes under the jurisdiction of the court.

Impunity for grave crimes is not an option. Perpetrators of crimes under the jurisdiction of the ICC should be brought to justice at the Hague - especially in cases where a fair trial is not guaranteed in a national court.

Share

Tweet

Libya: Asylum for Saadi Gaddafi by Niger points to a broken Rule of Law

First Published in: Dunia Magazine



Saadi Gaddafi, third son of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, the ousted and slained long-time leader of Libya, has reportedly been granted asylum on "humanitarian grounds" by one of Libya's neighbors - the Republic of Niger, a landlocked country in west Africa. Although one of the poorest countries in the world, Niger seems to know something about human rights and the international law principle of not returning asylum seekers to countries where they might be persecuted, tortured or killed. The country's decision to grant Saadi asylum points to a broken rule of law in a "liberated" Libya.

When opposition forces, backed by NATO, stormed Tripoli during the historic 2011 pro-democracy uprising, Muammar Gaddafi, members of his family and his close associates reportedly fled the city that fell without much resistance. As pressure mounted on the 42-year-old regime, some members of the Gaddafi family fled across Libya's borders into neighboring countries.

Some Gaddafis, including Aisha, the only daughter of the Muammar Gaddafi and his wife, fled to Algeria. Saadi Gaddafi, a businessman, former professional soccer player and third son of Muammar Gaddafi fled south to Niger.

The authorities in Niger decided to grant Saadi asylum - less than a month after his father and brother were illegally killed by opposition fighters in Sirte. (It is worthy to remember that the murdered Gaddafis were treated with dishonor even in death, as their bloodied bodies were displayed like trophies for a couple of days, in a meat store in Misrata - in violation of Islamic norms).

Saadi is wanted in Libya for alleged crimes committed during the infamous rule of his father, but it is unclear how he would be treated upon return to answer the charges. The world witnessed the treatment received by two members of his family last month, in the hands of opposition fighters.

States are expected to cooperate with each other to bring perpetrators of crimes to justice. In this vein, it is true that Niger was expected to cooperate with the National Transitional Council (NTC) of Libya - by returning Saadi to face justice for alleged crimes during the Gaddafi era.

However, events in Sirte, Libya, on 20 October 2011, following the capture of Muammar Gaddafi, put the spot light on a broken rule of law in Libya and the NTC's inability and/or unwillingness to guarantee safety and humane treatment of wanted Gaddafi children and Gaddafi supporters in post-Gaddafi Libya.

Disturbing images of the operation that ended an era in Libya, shocked human rights groups, rights advocates and several people across the world... including those with only an iota of respect for human life. Raw video footage from the scene revealed that Gaddafi was captured alive, beaten by an angry mob and killed without due process. Autopsy results later revealed that Gaddafi died as a result of a single gunshot to the head. It remains unclear who pulled the trigger. Even more disturbing is the fact that many Libyans are not interested in calls for the killer to be brought to justice for acting outside the law.

One of Muammar Gaddafi's sons, Muatassim Gaddafi, captured on the same day, was also killed in the custody of opposition forces.

According to human rights groups, many supporters of Gaddafi and black Africans accused of supporting the infamous regime faced persecution, torture and summary killings by anti-Gaddafi forces. The perpetrators of atrocious crimes committed against supporters and perceived supporters of Muammar Gaddafi walk free in a liberated Libya, yet there are loud calls for Gaddafi loyalists to face justice. This double standard undermines "national unity" what justice is all about.

Drawing from events that led to the death of Muammar Gaddafi, it is reasonable to conclude that if returned to Libya as requested by the NTC, Saadi Gaddafi could face "vigilante justice" like his father, brother and other supporters of the deposed regime.

International human rights law demands that individuals seeking asylum with "well-grounded" fear of persecution, torture or any other form of degrading treatment in their country of origin should not be returned. This law protects every asylum seeker, including children of the most ruthless dictators.

Every individual has the right to equal protection of the law.

After watching the gruesome treatment of his father and brother in Sirte on 20 October 2011, Saadi Gaddafi has "well-founded" fears to return home and is entitled to protection by Niger.

Asylum for Saadi on "humanitarian grounds" is therefore in the interest of human rights and in line with international law.

The killing of Muammar Gaddafi did not represent justice and the rule of law. It would have been great to see Gaddafi face his victims in a court of law.

The NTC should focus of building a legal system that works. Investigation and trial of those responsible for the unlawful killing of Muammar Gaddafi and Muatassim Gaddafi is a good place to start. Other crimes, well-documented by organizations like Human Rights Watch (HRW), committed during the 8-month-long conflict, by forces loyal to Gaddafi and anti-Gaddafi fighters should also be impartially investigated. Perpetrators from both sides should bear the full weight of the law. Failure to show that a liberated Libya respects the rule of law would lead to asylum for many more individuals wanted for crimes committed during the dark years of the Gaddafi regime.

Share

Tweet

Human Rights Watch urges US to investigate George Bush for torture

One of the world's leading rights organizations, Human Rights Watch, published a report on 12 July 2011 in which the organization urged US president Barack Obama to "... begin a criminal investigation into US government detention practices" under the Bush administration.

It is known that the Bush administration authorized the commission of widespread and systematic acts of torture against detainees in US custody. The administration allegedly authorized the abduction and transfer of individuals suspected of terrorism to countries where they were tortured.

Perpetrators of torture, more often than not, try to distance themselves from allegations of torture and deny it happened under their watch, but George W. Bush makes no secret of his involvement in "enhanced interrogation techniques" that violate basic human rights and international law.

In a controversial interview in 2010, W. Bush, 43rd president of the US, admitted he authorized torture and attempted to justify torture and other cruel practices exacted against detainees in US custody.

The 107-page report by Human Rights Watch exposes torture in US counter terrorism operations, including the CIA Detention Program and the CIA Rendition Program. The report shines light on the role of four key US officials:

• Former president, George W. Bush.
• Former Vice President, Dick Cheney.
• Former Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.
• Former CIA Director, George Tenet.

Human Rights Watch believes there is enough evidence to launch a criminal investigation and prosecute the above officials for torture and ill-treatment of detainees. 

The US has signed the UN Convention Against Torture and has a legal, as well as moral, obligation to investigate and prosecute acts of torture, cruel and inhuman practices. Failure to carry out an impartial investigation into state-sponsored torture under the Bush administration weakens the voice of the US in international human rights discourse.

Some torture techniques cited in the report include waterboarding, stress positions, light and noise bombardment, near suffocation, sleep deprivation, hooding during questioning, use of detainees' phobias, "short shackling."

In the report (page 58-59), Human Rights Watch points out that the US has criticized other countries, including Burma, Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, North Korea, Eritrea, Iran and Libya for using the above techniques against individuals in custody.

You are encouraged to read the detailed report by Human Rights Watch, "Getting Away with Torture: The Bush Administration and Mistreatment of Detainees." 

An opinion piece published on the Washington Post, titled "The books aren't closed on Bush's torture policy," written by the Executive Director of Human Rights Watch is also worth reading.

*Photo of George W. Bush. Source: myclassiclyrics.com.

Share

Tweet

Colonel Gaddafi of Libya wanted at The Hague

On 27 June 2011, judges at the International Criminal Court (ICC), in line with Article 58(1) of the Rome Statute, issued arrest warrants for the leader of Libya - Muammar Gaddafi. This means the embattled "leader of the revolution" who promised earlier this year to "cleanse" Libya of pro-democracy demonstrators is officially a wanted man at The Hague.

The issuance of this arrest warrant comes exactly one month and eleven days after the prosecutor of the ICC, Luis Moreno-Acampo applied for three international criminal arrest warrants for Gaddafi, his son - Saif al-Islam - and brother-in-law, Abdulla a-Sanussi.

ICC judges approved all three arrest warrants.

The judges believe that Gaddafi, Saif and Abdulla "conceived and orchestrated a plan" to crackdown on protesters and that the arrest of Gaddafi et al. "appears necessary."

Colonel Gaddafi of Libya is wanted for allegedly ordering attacks against demonstrators and committing crimes that amount to crimes against humanity.

According to the Director of Law and Policy at Amnesty International, Michael Bochenek, "justice must be delivered to victims of serious human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law committed in Libya..." 

This decision to issue three arrest warrants for some of the most feared men in Libya is commendable, but more crucial steps should be taken to ensure that Muammar Gaddafi  and his cronies are hauled to The Hague to face justice for systematic violence against civilians.

On a side note: In 2009, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for the President of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir, on charges of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in Darfur. But the Sudanese leader still walks free.

Pursuant to Article 58(4) of the Rome Statute, arrest warrants issued by the court "shall remain in effect until otherwise ordered by the court." Hence Omar al-Bashir remains wanted.

States Parties are obliged to cooperate with the ICC and arrest persons wanted by the court.

Share

Tweet

Pauline Nyiramasuhuko: First woman convicted of genocide

Normally, when women break the "glass ceiling," the world celebrates. However, when a woman breaks a wrong glass ceiling, there is no reason to celebrate. This is the case with Pauline Nyiramasuhuko - who has broken a wrong glass ceiling and gone down in history as the first woman to be charged (and convicted) of genocide.

On 24 June 2011, 65-year-old Pauline Nyiramasuhuko, Rwanda's former Minister of Family and Women Development, was convicted and sentenced to life imprison by the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal  for Rwanda (ICTR). She was arrested in July 1997 for her role in perpetuating the 1994 Rwandan genocide which claimed 800,000 Rwandan lives. She was accused of ordering and assisting massacres and rapes in Butare, southern Rwanda.

Pauline Nyiramasuhuko first appeared in court for the "Butare case" in 2001. The trial dragged on for 10 years before the court sentenced the ex-Minister to life imprison for "conspiracy to commit genocide, genocide, crimes against humanity (extermination, rape and persecution), and serious violations of article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and of additional Protocol II..". [Source]

According to a summary of the judgement in the case of The Prosecutor v. Nyiramasuhuko et al., the court found that:

"Nyiramasuhuko entered into an agreement with members of the Interim Government on or after 9 April 1994 to kill Tutsis... with the intent to destroy in whole or in part the Tutsi ethnic group. She conspired with the Interim Government to commit genocide against Tutsis..."

The 18-paged summary of judgement and sentencing reveals "horrific events" - including rapes, abduction, beatings and killings of Tutsis - in Butare, perpetrated by Pauline and other interim government officials.

The Trial Chamber sentenced Pauline Nyiramasuhuko and her 41-year-old son Arsène Shalom Ntahobali to life imprisonment for their role during the genocide.

Four other accused, namely: Silvia Nsabimana, Alphonse Nteziryayo, Joseph Kanyabashi and Elie Ndayambaje were sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment, 30 years' imprisonment, 35 years' imprisonment and life imprisonment, respectively.

During the trial, a total of 189 witnesses were presented and about 13,000 pages of documents.

The long trial and eventual sentencing of Pauline Nyiramasuhuko et al. sends a clear message to perpetrators of heinous crimes that they would have their day in court.

*Photo of Pauline Nyiramasuhuko. [Source].

Share

Tweet

Justification of torture by George W. Bush sends wrong message

In his first interview since leaving office in 2009, former U.S. President George W. Bush shouldered responsibility for authorizing torture, and sent across a wrong message by attempting to justify waterboarding - a form of torture, and other cruel and inhuman practices against detainees.

Watch part of the compelling interview below:



The U.S. is party to the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) which it ratified in October 1994.

For clarity, article 1 of the Convention defines torture as: "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

With the consent and authorization of George W. Bush, detainees in detention facilities like Guantanamo Bay were intentionally tortured for the purpose of obtaining information or confessions.

The U.S. has a moral, and legal obligation under international law to prosecute the perpetrators of torture and other cruel and inhuman treatment of detainees. The victims are numerous and the perpetrators, including state agents who destroyed evidence of torture, are within reach. Failure to prosecute the culprits, even after such a public confession and shocking justification of cruelty by former President George W. Bush would further weaken the position of the U.S. in human rights discourse both at home and abroad.

As stipulated in article 2(2) of CAT, there is no exception to the law against torture. Freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is a non-derogable right.

Share

Tweet