On Starvation as Long and Slow Violence

/ Rashmi Raman / 1 Comment

As the seizure of the Madleen reopens (public) debate on Gaza and the eyes of the world are upon Israel once again, it seems (as) apt (a moment as any) to revisit the conversation on starvation and hunger in Gaza, now more than 600 days into this humanitarian crises. In this brief comment, I argue that there is a method to the seemingly endless violence in Gaza. I call it long and slow violence by which I hope to draw attention to this singularity of form that hunger and starvation have taken on in Gaza.

A defining feature of the situation in Gaza is its continuity across various historical periods up to the present. A comprehensive understanding of the conditions faced by the people of Gaza, both from a humanitarian perspective and within a legal framework, necessitates an examination of the policies and practices that have shaped their lived realities over time. The Advisory Opinion of the International Court delivered on 19th July 2024 was instrumental in its ability to move beyond the limitations that the law of occupation carries by characterizing the policies and practices of Israel in terms of settler-colonialism. As Wolfe notes and the section on territory subsequently delves into, settler colonialism ‘destroys to replace’. In the context of Gaza specifically, and Palestine more broadly, this has been reflected in a series of actions by Israel that are framed as lawful, a framing made possible by the underlying structural biases embedded within the international legal system. Some of these acts were recorded in the Court’s recent opinion in the form of a reading of discrimination in the policies and practices of Israel that were not only violative of the rights of Palestinians in their own essence but contributed towards a large pattern of control that Israel exercises (Paragraphs – 229 “The Court observes that Israel’s legislation and measures impose and serve to maintain a near-complete separation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem between the settler and Palestinian communities. For this reason, the Court considers that Israel’s legislation and measures constitute a breach of Article 3 of CERD”). While other acts are independent, such as attacking vehicles carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza, they contribute to strengthening Israel’s control over basic and essential elements to Gaza.

Regardless of their particular nature, it is imperative to view the present day situation in the context of everything that has happened since 1949. Especially in reference to law, for the commission of a crime to be established within the factual matrix of the present day it is important to view where the intention of the crime lies. However, the language of international law is infamous for its ambiguity and deference to the status quo. In such situations what other perspectives must we introduce to use the law to its most effective end?

I want to introduce, conceptually, the dimensions of time and speed into the analysis of violence. This allows for a more nuanced understanding of crimes such as starvation. The temporal element is essential to contextualizing legal discourse on Palestine. This contextualization holds multifaceted legal significance. First, from the standpoint of common sense, situating events within their historical and sequential frameworks contributes to a more robust recognition of Palestinian subjectivity and the systematic nature of the violence inflicted upon them. Second, in terms of factual accuracy, contextualization enables a comprehensive account of the processes that precede seemingly isolated or “instantaneous” acts. For example, Israel’s invocation of self-defense in response to the events of 7 October 2023 becomes significantly less tenable when Palestinian suffering is understood not as incidental or collateral under the proportionality principle of international humanitarian law, but rather as part of an ongoing pattern of human rights violations.

Third, in what has often been described as a legal vacuum, the Palestinian question, provocatively termed by Nimer Sultany as a litmus test for international law, demands critical engagement with the structural limits and selective enforcement of legal norms. Fourth, for future legal and political discourse, contextualization disrupts the cycle of global desensitization to daily violations and highlights the importance of early recognition of settler-colonial patterns in order to prevent their long term consequences.

The concept of ‘slow violence’ is particularly instructive here. It refers to the incremental, attritive forms of harm that accumulate over extended periods in contexts of chronic deprivation. This introduces the element of speed, or rather, its deliberate deceleration. Slow violence inherently implies a temporally extended form of harm, that is, violence that is not explosive and spectacular but instead persistent and erosive. It draws attention to the cumulative impact of sustained practices and policies that systematically violate fundamental rights over time. In the current context, much of the harm endured by Palestinians stems not from isolated, prosecutable incidents (such as a single act of murder), but from a continuum of violations. The relevant legal wrong lies in this continuity, the enduring deprivation and violence experienced by Palestinians as the product of a sustained structure of domination and exclusion.

This characterization is essential to articulating starvation as a distinct crime, as it reveals a direct correlation between Israel’s sustained regulatory control over Palestinian lives and its settler-colonial objective of displacing the indigenous population. The mechanisms through which Israel exercises control over Palestinian people and resources have evolved over time, but the underlying intent has remained consistent. Israel’s regulation of access to Gaza did not emerge as a consequence of the events of October 7, 2023; to frame it as such would be a distortion of the historical record. The history of Gaza is defined by a longstanding and systematic regime of restrictions on the movement of people and goods, a regime that predates and transcends recent events.

The checkpoints and inspections at the Kerem Shalom Crossing, the highly restrictive and often unattainable criteria for entry through the Erez Crossing, and the comprehensive control of Gaza’s airspace and maritime access are not isolated policies but components of a continuous structure of domination. These practices persist despite Israel’s formal declaration of “disengagement” in 2005 and serve as concrete evidence of its ongoing control over Gaza. Collectively, they point to a sustained strategy aimed at rendering the territory uninhabitable for its native population.

Crucially, the framing of starvation as a form of slow violence must also incorporate its intergenerational impact. Scientific research demonstrates that starvation can cause long-term biological harm through mechanisms such as small RNA-induced gene silencing, with effects that extend beyond the directly afflicted generation to future ones. In the context of a state whose foundation involved the displacement and dispossession of another people, it would be both legally and historically negligent to ignore the likelihood that such a state might pursue policies that produce harm not only in the present but also across generations. The legal recognition of starvation as a distinct and continuing crime must therefore reflect both its structural roots and its enduring consequences. Christine Chinkin, in her analysis of human rights law’s engagement with women as both subjects and agents, provides a succinct framework for understanding the advancement of women’s rights. She argues that the full realization of women’s rights, recognizing women as a collective who experience violence, discrimination, and differential treatment based on gender, depends fundamentally on the eradication of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV). The cessation of SGBV is thus a prerequisite for the effective enjoyment of all human rights by women. Moreover, addressing SGBV opens critical spaces within International Human Rights Law to confront where such violence occurs. Abstractly, this can be expressed as follows: a specific right, ‘Y’, enables the realization and exercise of all human rights for a group ‘X’, but ‘Y’ is violated in relation to ‘X’ precisely because of a particular identity characteristic.

Applying this framework to the case of starvation in Palestine, I argue that starvation, as a specific violation, obstructs the realization of all human rights for Palestinians. This particular act of starvation is inflicted upon them specifically because of their Palestinian identity. Contextualizing this further, the targeted nature of this violence aligns with colonial-driven policy. A historical parallel can be drawn to the colonial-era Bengal famine under the East India Company, where starvation was deliberately induced as a mechanism of control. Such colonial tactics were underpinned by an “entitlement approach” and a denial of indigenous rights to land and resources, reinforcing the notion of a persistent and continuous intent to dispossess and subjugate native populations. This historical precedent underscores the continuity and intent behind the present-day practices observed in Palestine. The colonial examples of famine and forced starvation of colonial populations as part of the policies of the coloniser weaponised food again and again. The situation in Gaza brings the ideas of weaponising food against populations back… it is an echo chamber of these past horrors haunting our present.

Solidarity for Peace in Kashmir

/ Cecilia Marcela Bailliet / Leave a comment

Cecilia M. Bailliet, UN Independent Expert on Human Rights and International Solidarity

It is ironic that contemporaneous to the 30th Anniversary of the Bandung Declaration promoting the principle of peaceful coexistence, we witness the resurgence of the use of force over commitment to peaceful dispute resolution. We are reminded that the historic Simla Agreement of 1972 called for both Governments to take all steps within their power to prevent hostile propaganda directed against each other. They were also tasked with promoting the development of friendly relations between them.  The current risk of endangering peace within the region is grave.

The cycles of violence and displacement have created generations of children and youth growing up in limbo without the security of home, limitation of education due to closure of schools, denial of medical care, under-employment, and interference with the evolution of sound psycho-social identity.  Rather than promote peace, the polarization between the two states has limited freedom of expression and deprived the Kashmiri youth of a voice, instead breeding alienation and radicalization.

It is notable both India and Pakistan voted in favor of the UN Declaration on the Right to Peace that sets forth in Article 2 that States should respect, implement and promote equality and non-discrimination, justice and the rule of law, and guarantee freedom from fear and want as a means to build peace within and between societies.

India and Pakistan should show leadership in promoting Unity in Diversity within Kashmir by committing to setting up solidarity commissions comprised of Hindu and Muslim representatives to promote peace education institutions based on mutual respect and cooperation for the Kashmiri youth, teach civic participation, and create channels for discussion of important issues such as peaceful access to water and improvement of sustainable development for the region.

For Universities: Pursue Dialogue not Expulsion, Detention, and Deportation

/ Cecilia Marcela Bailliet / Leave a comment

The recent presidential order to the United States Department of Homeland Security and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement to pursue detention and removal of foreign students who have participated in university protests as allegedly falling under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3) is detrimental to the aim of reconciling university students and faculty.  These actions are disproportionate, unnecessary, and discriminatory. Expulsion, detention, and deportations will only lead to more trauma and polarization that will negatively impact the learning environment within university campuses. The Israeli Palestinian conflict has had a devastating level of human suffering that has shaken the world. Students on all sides have engaged in contrasting expressions of unitary solidarity resulting in frustration and pain as there has been little bridging communication. There have been significant instances of intimidation and harassment within social media and in the physical space effectively transformed campuses into divided communities and there is a need for reconciliation, mutual respect, and entente. 

Expulsion, detention, deportation, and denial of the right to graduate or receive an academic degree is devastating for the students because it denies them the right to a life’s project as they are prevented from pursuing their future academic or professional aspirations. This type of action is more often associated with authoritarian institutions. It will not promote peace within campuses because it this is a disproportional policy that fails to recognize the vulnerability of the students and does not advance healing dialogue. The principle of academic freedom is fundamental for the maintenance of  faculties and student bodies that are able to tackle critical issues for discussion without penalization.

It is essential to pursue dialogue to create sustainable, peaceful campuses for all students and faculty founded on the commitment to bridging solidarity between groups.  There is an urgent need to pursue mediation between students and faculty of different views in order to achieve a common understanding of shared feelings of harassment, discrimination, fear, pain, and isolation.  There is a need for good-faith efforts to consolidate university communities with compassion, constructive, open dialogue with mutual respect, and full enjoyment of human rights by all.

New Book on the International Criminal Court’s Ongwen Judgment

/ Beth S. Lyons / Leave a comment

I am thrilled to announce the publication of my book, Race, Culture and Mental Illness in the International Criminal Court’s Ongwen Judgment: Biases and Blindspots, Palgrave/Macmillan (2024). I am one of Mr. Dominic Ongwen’s defence counsel. Chief Charles A. Taku, Lead Counsel in Ongwen, contributed the Introduction to the book. The book is available as an e-book and in hardcover on the publisher’s website, as well as on Amazon and other sites.

Dominic Ongwen, an Acholi, was abducted in 1987, at the age of 8 or 9 years old, by the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in Northern Uganda. He made multiple attempts to escape (for which he was punished by imprisonment in the LRA), but only succeeded in late 2014. In January 2015, he surrendered on the ICC’s arrest warrant in Central African Republic and was transferred to the Hague for trial. He was prosecuted on an ICC indictment of 70 charges; these included war crimes; crimes against humanity, such as sexual and gender-based crimes; and conscripting child soldiers (like himself). In February 2021, the ICC’s Trial Chamber IX convicted Mr. Ongwen of 61 charges and two modes of liability and he was sentenced to a prison term of 25 years. The Appeals Chamber affirmed the Trial Judgment’s convictions and sentence in December 2022.

Anyone involved in international criminal law is likely familiar with the Ongwen case: it is a case of many “firsts:” the first ICC prosecution of a mentally ill and mentally disabled defendant who asserted the affirmative defences of mental disease or defect, and duress under the ICC’s Rome Statute, Article 31(1)(a) and (d) (grounds for excluding criminal responsibility) as complete defences; the first case in which culture and spiritualism played a prominent role in the Defence; the first ICC prosecution of a defendant for crimes for which he is also a victim; and, to date, the longest Confirmation of Charges (COC) decision charging a single defendant, and the longest single defendant Trial Judgment at the ICC.

There is no dearth of written material available on the Ongwen case and, more generally, the impact of race and culture, as well as disability, on international justice and the structural components of the ICC. However, this book presents a different aspect: it examines how the ICC’s default settings of white supremacy, racism, culturalism and lack of access to justice for the disabled impacted its jurisprudence in the Ongwen case. To this end, the text references Court decisions, trial transcripts and pleadings, and includes extensive footnotes with source material from other experts on child soldiers, mental illness, culture, spiritualism, racism, white supremacy, confirmation bias, affirmative defences, reasonable accommodation, and related topics.

Chapter 1 demonstrates how the Ongwen Trial Chamber’s biases and blindspots in respect to race and culture impacted its jurisprudence, resulting in its rejection of the mental illness and duress affirmative defences and any relevance of, and role for Acholi traditional justice in its sentencing. In 2023, I posted an abstract from a paper on my INTLAWGRRLS Blog, which I later edited and augmented for Chapter 1 of the book. Chapter 2 focuses on the Trial Chamber’s failure to reasonably accommodate Mr. Ongwen, a mentally disabled defendant and provide equal access to justice for him, resulting in a violation of his fair trial rights. The examples in the book of the intersection of language, culture and race are highlighted in a recently published piece in the March 2025 Spotlight, Language, Culture and Justice Hub at https://lcjh.bard.edu/march-2025-race-culture-and-mental-illness-in-the-international-criminal-courts-ongwen-judgment-biases-and-blindspots/.

Please send me your comments, if you have an opportunity to read the book or are using the Ongwen case in your academic work or litigation. My e-mail is bethlyons@aol.com. My website is bethslyons.com. Thanks.

Towards a New Epoch of International Solidarity Embracing Unity in Diversity

/ Cecilia Marcela Bailliet / Leave a comment

UN Independent Expert on International Solidarity, Cecilia M. Bailliet

The catastrophic defunding and dismantlement of international humanitarian and development assistance programs supporting the inclusion all people in the enjoyment of human rights is the abandonment of the aim of the international community to affirm the dignity and worth of each human person on the basis of equality and non-discrimination.

The adoption of governmental policies that deny access to food, water, medicine, housing, and access to asylum to vulnerable people is a betrayal of the commitment within Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that we should “act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood” in accordance with reason and conscience. 

The characterization of this shift as marking the end of a Liberal Age that was marked by an increase in inequality and turn towards a new epoch should be examined as the opportunity to declare allegiance to universal values that may restore the orientation of the international community towards recognizing an obligation to maintain peaceful relations between nations, support sustainable development, and genuinely protect  vulnerable people and the global commons. 

I call for the pursuit of an epoch of International Solidarity that would be premised upon an embrace of a new multilateralism founded on the principle of recognizing unity in diversity. Bottoms-up solidarity initiatives should be defined by local communities and supported by national and international partners, including states, international organizations, civil society, corporations, faith-based institutions, and others. Networked International Solidarity is the hallmark of  21st century multilateralism as set forth by the UN Secretary-General in Our Common Agenda. Different societies will demonstrate international solidarity in different ways according to culture, tradition, capacity.

The international community should follow the leadership of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples that pursue World Views based on solidarity with the environment.  Youth groups, in particular, should be given greater access to platforms connecting them with policy makers to create strategies for increasing inclusion of all in the enjoyment of human rights and combatting disinformation that feeds polarization. The new order may be decentralized but strengthened through a continued commitment to multilateralism to successfully address global challenges. 

Towards an International Solidarity Paradigm for Cultural Heritage

/ Cecilia Marcela Bailliet / Leave a comment

There is a need for the international community to show solidarity for restoration of cultural heritage in countries undergoing armed conflict, internal violence, and transition from authoritarian regimes that has been destroyed due to armed conflict through the adoption of a new International Solidarity Paradigm to address challenges during conflict and afterwards.

There is a protracted phenomenon of bombing and shelling of schools, universities, libraries, central archives, archeological sites, landmarks, palaces, fountains, churches, temples, mosques, shrines, and cemeteries in conflict zones that results in the complete loss of cultural heritage. This includes loss of literature, poetry, music, visual arts, artifacts, architecture, and other forms of cultural expression. 

There is an imperative need to restore cultural heritage through the adoption of an International Solidarity Cultural Program to enable the recording of music and poetry, the printing of literature, and the provision of scholarships and fellowships to artists to enable artists and writers to create their work in safe spaces. 

Artists, writers, scholars, and cultural actors need freedom to engage in expression without fear of repression. There is a marked increase in the number of artists (writers, poets, painters, musicians, singers, dancers, photographers, historians, filmmakers, visual artists) who are subject to attack, threat to life, or denial of medical assistance, food, or water in conflict zones. Artists communicate the identity and history of peoples- their work is tied to the transcendental qualities of being human and part of humanity.

States have a good faith obligation to assess artists and cultural actors for asylum based on recognition of their membership in a particular social group according to the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees. They may also be subject to intersectional discrimination due to their race, religion, nationality, sexual identity, political opinion, or other ground and hence may meet other categories within the definition of a refugee.  States may also design special Cultural Solidarity Humanitarian protection programs for artists, writers, scholars, cultural actors, and their families who are under threat of intimidation or persecution for their cultural expressions or who are unable to leave their countries.

States should also pursue programs to promote the role of artists and other cultural actors in the transitional period in the context of peace consolidation in the home country, incorporating them into Cultural Solidarity for Peace projects involving truth telling, reconciliation, and reintegration processes to promote a culture of peace, forgiveness, and mutual respect between different societal groups.

A nation’s cultural identity should never be erased and the destruction of cultural heritage should be condemned as a form of dehumanization. Restoration of cultural heritage should be pursued as an important mechanism of solidarity peacebuilding within societies divided by conflict. 

Towards a culture of transformative solidarity within Bangladesh

/ Cecilia Marcela Bailliet / Leave a comment

The phenomenon of the emancipatory student led solidarity movement in Bangladesh has created a space to create a new platform for governance founded on the principles of inclusion, non-discrimination, equality, transparency, and peace. The design of a new social contract is contingent on the recognition of the solidarity principle that everyone has an equal right of participation in civic life, freedom, and full enjoyment of all human rights that enable self-fulfillment and human centered development. The urgency of having free, fair elections to enable a successful transition to democracy underscores the need for international support to prevent interference, manipulation, disinformation, and other forms of intrusion.

There is also a need for the creation of an independent, impartial truth, reconciliation, and accountability mechanism to address the legacy of structural violence, exclusion, discrimination, and corruption which lay at the root of the cycles of violence and destruction on all sides.  Accountability for extra-judicial killings, repression of political opponents, censorship, enforced disappearances, forced displacement, and gender-based violence directed at women belonging to opposing political groups or minority religious communities requires serious investigation and prosecution and assistance, collection of evidence, protection and remedies for victims.

It is important to improve heterogeneity within the judiciary, police, and media in order to increase their legitimacy and connection to the society.  This can be supported by dissemination of human rights guidelines and principles on the democratic function of these institutions.

International and national stakeholders should promote peaceful dialogue through open processes that aim to create bridges between different sectors of society, teaching mutual respect among different religious and socio-economic communities, including within schools, thereby including children.  These are first steps to establish the necessary social trust for a new epoch in which Bangladesh’s diversity can be lauded as the strength of transforming the nation through solidarity.

To commemorate the 6th of April 1994, the IRMCT should prosecute the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) for its crimes in 1994 and fight for the freedom of the ICTR acquitted and released persons in Niger – who remain victims of 1994[1]

/ Beth S. Lyons / Leave a comment

[1] See, In Memory of the Acquitted and victims of selective justice and impunity (modernghana.com) by Chief Charles A. Taku.

Today, 6 April, is 30 years since the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) shot down the plane carrying two Hutu Presidents, Juvenal Habyarimana of Rwanda and Cyprien Ntaryamira of Burundi, killing them and the plane’s crew members.  These assassinations was the event which triggered the killings of Tutsis, Hutus and Twas throughout Rwanda in 1994, as the RPF – which had invaded from Uganda in 1990 – continued its military advances, culminating in its control of Kigali in July, 1994.

In November 1994, after the independent Commission of Experts investigated and reported on grave violations of international humanitarian law in Rwanda, the UN Security Council, in UN Security Resolution 955,  established the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR).  Its objective was to prosecute persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed by Rwandan citizens in Rwanda and in neighboring countries, on both sides of the conflict  from 1 January – 31 December 1994.   Rwanda was the only country which opposed the Resolution and China abstained (UNSC, 3453rd session).

The ICTR selectively investigated and prosecuted only Hutu defendants; no members of the RPF and no Tutsis were prosecuted.  It completed its work in 2015, and was replaced by the International Residual Mechanism for the Criminal Tribunals (IRMCT or MICT)  which continues to function today.

On 5 April 2024, the IRMCT  President, Prosecutor and Registrar (’IRMCT Principals’) issued a statement  to commemorate the “30 years since the start of the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda.”   The statement recalls the Appeals Chamber decision in June 2006, which took judicial notice, under ICTR Rule 94,  of the Rwandan genocide.  The Appeals Chamber concluded, at paragraph 35, that “[t]he fact of the Rwandan genocide is a part of world history, a fact as certain as any other, a classic instance of a ‘fact of common knowledge.’”  This holding was strongly contested by the Defence teams in Arusha, but was the cornerstone of the Prosecution’s theory.   

The “fact” of the Tutsi-only genocide has continued to dominate Rwanda’s propaganda about what happened thirty years ago.  It has been reflected in Rwanda’s genocide laws, its prosecution and punishment of “genocide deniers,” its political imprisonment of its opponents, its campaigns against Hutus in the diaspora and its continued egregious human rights abuses. 

In the IRMCT Principals’ statement, dated 5 April 2024, it certainly appears as if they have adopted and given their imprimatur to the RPF’s false narrative of 1994 and its policies of criminalizing the Hutus, while shielding the RPF from prosecution.   The other truths about what happened in 1994 are collateral damage and they are conveniently buried.

One of these forgotten truths is the crimes of the RPF in 1994, including its systematic killings of Hutus, which were reported in the  Gersony Report.  The Report, prepared by a UNHCR team led by Robert Gersony, found systematic killings of Hutus by the RPF’s army, the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA).  Gersony briefed the UN Commission of Experts on Rwanda in October 1994.  The Commission of Experts’ Report concluded that individuals from both sides perpetrated serious breaches of international humanitarian law.  

When this evidence is coupled with the failure of the ICTR to prosecute any Tutsi or RPF member for crimes in 1994, one cannot help but ask:  Isn’t this UN judicial body taking sides in the conflict in Rwanda in 1994?  The IRMCT’s Statement strips away any pretense of judicial independence, and support for the principle of applying the rule of law to all. 

This criticism of the IRMCT’s lack of judicial independence is not new: the ICTR prosecutions were selective justice, from the beginning.  And, in June 2023, in her report to the Security Council, the IRMCT’s President referred to the “disturbing trend of genocide denial.”   Allegations of “genocide denial” have been Rwanda’s justification for  imprisonment, torture and killings of government opponents.  Former political prisoner and opposition Presidential candidate, Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza, who dared to talk publicly about the two genocides – of the Hutus and Tutsis – was sentenced to a fifteen year prison term.  The explicit wording of the statement confirms that the IRMCT is more concerned with consolidating a legacy of “victor’s justice” than a legacy of  judicial fairness.

On the date of 6 April, the IRMCT Principals must commit to finishing the ICTR’s mandate, under Resolution 955.   IRMCT should focus on the unfinished justice for the killings of Hutus, Tutsis and Twas by the RPF in 1994 and hold the RPF accountable for its crimes – for the 1st time – in an international tribunal.    The IRMCT’s powers are conferred in  Resolution 1966 (2010), which established the IRMCT and contains its Statute.  It is true that the IRMCT Statute, Article 1(5) does not confer any power to issue new indictments, thus limiting any action to those which have been already issued by the ICTR.  However, this section appears to contradict the IRMCT Statute, Article 1(1), referencing the ICTR Statute, which  confers competence based on jurisdiction and is not limited by indictments.  This legal issue needs to be addressed, but the point is – if there is a political will, the IRMCT Principals can seek clarification and/or amendment of its Statute from the Security Council.  Finding a way to prosecute the RPF (who were never indicted) would be a fitting commemoration of the events of 1994.

On the date of 6 April, the IRMCT Principals should commit to ending the  travesty of justice of the continued illegal detention of Hutu ICTR acquitted persons, and those who have completed their sentences.     These include the seven men in the “safe house” in Niger –François-Xavier Nzuwonemeye, Prosper Mugiraneza, Protais Zigiranyirazo, Anatole Nsengiyumva, Alphonse Nteziryayo, André Ntagerura, and Innocent Sagahutu.  These men are stateless, and are being “held hostage” by the inability of the IRMCT (whose predecessor, the ICTR, adjudicated their cases and is responsible for them) to resolve the gross violations of their human rights.  Two examples:  (1) Dr André Ntagerura, whose 2004 acquittal was affirmed by the Appeals Chamber in 2006, has been forced to live in a “safe house” for two decades because no country, in which he will be safe, will accept him; (2) Major F.X. Nzuwonemeye, who was acquitted on appeal in 2014, has now completed four more years in ICTR custody (at the United Nations Detention Facility [UNDF] and in “safe houses”) than the twenty year sentence rendered by the Trial Chamber — for crimes for which he was acquitted.

As the IRMCT continues to take no significant actions to resolve these grievous violations of human rights, the date of 6 April will continue to commemorate this travesty of justice – which obliterates any legacy that the IRMCT would like to claim.

Lead Counsel Chief Charles A. Taku and Co-Counsel Beth S. Lyons represented Major F. X. Nzuwonemeye at trial and won (with their Defence team) an acquittal for him on appeal in February 2014 in the “Military II” case.

Come hear prominent Iranian human rights advocate at ASIL Annual Meeting

/ Stephanie Farrior / Leave a comment

“Out of tragedy, she created hope”
         –Iranian human rights defender, speaking of Roya Boroumand

If you are attending the ASIL Annual Meeting this week:

Come hear Roya Boroumand — courageous, tenacious and inspiring Iranian human rights advocate — who is being honored this year with the Goler T. Butcher Medal. The Butcher Medal, one of the ASIL’s highest honors, is awarded to a distinguished person each year “for outstanding contributions to the development or effective realization of international human rights.”

Through the human rights center she and her sister established after their father – an Iranian lawyer and pro-democracy activist — was assassinated in Paris by agents of the Iranian regime, Roya Boroumand has worked tirelessly to defend human rights in Iran in her extensive advocacy at the United Nations and elsewhere. She and her sister named the organization — the Abdorrahman Boroumand Center for Human Rights in Iran — for their father:

“[W]e have to send a message to those who killed that physically eliminating people doesn’t eliminate their ideas. This name is going to come and haunt you.”

Roya Boroumand’s work in support of frontline Iranian human rights defenders has been especially important since the massive protests in Iran that were sparked by the killing of Mahsa Amini while in the custody of the Iranian “morality police” for allegedly wearing her hijab “improperly.”

This work includes meticulous documentation of the repression of protestors, campaigning for the rights of Iranian human rights lawyers working in what is an extremely difficult environment, and briefing government officials to raise international awareness of violations of international human rights law in Iran.  

Roya Boroumand will engage in conversation on “International Law, Theocracy and the Struggle for Human Rights in Iran” at the ASIL Annual Meeting on:
Thursday, April 4, 2 pm-3 pm

Read On! Environmental Peacebuilding

/ Cecilia Marcela Bailliet / Leave a comment

On International Women’s Day I recommend seeking inspiration from the latest book edited by Daniëlla Dam-de Jong, Professor of International Sustainable Development Law, Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies, Leiden University, the Netherlands and Britta Sjöstedt, Senior Lecturer in Environmental Law, Lund University, Sweden- The Research Handbook on International Law and Environmental Peacebuilding, available via Open Access!

At a time in which the UN Secretary-General has criticized the international community for its lack of cooperation to address climate change or safeguard peace, this book shines a path towards potential progress in 18 highly inspiring, innovative chapters that open a window of visionary ideas in pursuit of a genuine sustainable peace. The authors underscore the need to address the global challenge of resolving armed conflicts that are connected to environmental threats, including resource scarcity and environmental degradation. The authors are: Virginie Barral, Carl Bruch, Daniëlla Dam-de Jong, Onita Das, Sondra Faccio, Ole Kristian Fauchald, Karen Hulme, Jens Iverson, Marie Jacobsson, David Jensen, Tadesse Kebebew, Merryl Lawry-White, Albert Martinez, Sequero Sarah Mead, Elisa Morgera, Isabelle Morley, Marco Pertile, Giulia Pinzauti, Naomi Roht-Arriaza, Bas Rombouts, Britta Sjöstedt, and Mara Tignino.
It is perhaps the willingness of the authors to explain how different fields of law and non-legal regimes converge to provide protection opportunities for inter alia, the environment, indigenous people, rural women, and future generations that provokes our imagination to consider creative approaches. The chapters are well-written, thoroughly researched, and highly readable!