crime
-
EL SALVADOR: ‘The election is only a formality to give the green light to a dictatorship’
CIVICUS speaks about El Salvador’s general election with Carolina Amaya, a Salvadoran freelance journalist specialising in climate crises and socio-environmental conflicts.What’s at stake in this election?
Eighty years after the end of the Maximiliano Martínez dictatorship, El Salvador is approaching a new dictatorship. On 4 February, once President Nayib Bukele is unconstitutionally re-elected, Salvadorans will lose guarantees for our basic human rights.
Bukele's first administration was characterised by widespread human rights violations: excessive militarisation, a prolonged state of emergency, stigmatisation and criminalisation of poverty as synonymous with involvement in gangs, attacks on independent press, land dispossession, environmental destruction, persecution of environmental defenders – the list goes on. This reality is disguised by propaganda disseminated by media and content creators aligned with the government. Their narrative is that gangs will be back on the streets if Bukele or his party, Nuevas Ideas, lose power.
Bukele is seeking re-election after ignoring the Salvadoran constitution, which does not allow it. Therefore, his new administration will be unconstitutional, as will all the decisions he makes. It is to be feared that all the rights enshrined in that same constitution will be violated. And we will no longer know how long Bukele and his circle will remain in power.
In short, what is at stake in the election is our dying democracy. Salvadoran citizens will get to have their say at the ballot box now, but it is uncertain whether they will be able to do so freely again in the future.
What are the chances of this election being truly free and fair?
The election will be free, but completely irregular given that the front-runner’s candidacy is unconstitutional. The process has been flawed from the moment the Supreme Electoral Tribunal allowed the registration of Bukele’s candidacy, despite him being ineligible for re-election.
As for fairness, there are other parties running on different platforms, but competition is unequal. The ruling party has made use of official funds for its electoral campaign, while the rest had to use their own funds to compete against a lavishly funded apparatus with a strong presence on both social and traditional media. This annihilates any alternative, so the election is only a formality to give the green light to a dictatorship.
The democracy that was born in 1992 has been eroded over the years. Every political party that has held power has been embroiled in corruption scandals. Corruption, the arrogance of elites, the inefficiency of the state and the lack of transparency have resulted in widespread distrust. Impoverished communities have become strongholds of Bukelism because they depend on government welfare to satisfy immediate needs; it is clear to them that they cannot expect long-term solutions.
The government has campaigned intensely by handing out food boxes and cutting the ribbon on construction projects, all of which is prohibited by the Electoral Code. But there is no authority that can put a stop to these illegal acts because the entire state structure is co-opted by Bukelism, including the judiciary and watchdog bodies.
What has the climate of opinion been ahead of the election?
Social media such as YouTube and TikTok are dominated by disinformation and the manipulation of information, while a campaign of fear has taken hold on television. This is nothing new in El Salvador: political parties have long campaigned on the fear that El Salvador could become another Cuba or Venezuela. Now the threat is focused on insecurity and the preservation of life.
It is very concerning that this messaging has permeated Salvadoran society to the point of not only normalising Bukele's unconstitutional candidacy but also giving him the certainty of a comfortable win.
What’s the position of civil society, the political opposition and public opinion regarding the government's security policy?
Bukele’s government has been authoritarian throughout all these years and in many ways, not just in the area of security. During the pandemic it locked up thousands of people who did not comply with isolation directions. When the quarantine was over, it established the state of emergency that continues to allow it to spy on us, persecute us and lock us up. Bukele has militarised the streets, and this has intensified in January 2024, on the eve of the election. The military has been patrolling every neighbourhood of San Salvador, the capital, to demonstrate its presence and power.
The public is grateful that the gangs lost much of their grip over the country. That is the main achievement of the Bukele administration. The problem is that most people are unaware of the reality of Bukele’s negotiations with gangs, so they think that he managed to clear the streets of gang members just by subjecting them to his state of emergency.
The media’s handling of images of imprisoned gang members has been very effective, to the point that it has had international repercussions. In several Latin American countries experiencing the scourge of organised crime, people are calling for an authoritarian figure just like Bukele to put an end to it. Even the president of Honduras, ideologically far removed from Bukele, has opted for militarisation and the use of repression to deal with gangs.
How has civic space been restricted under Bukele?
As a journalist, I can attest to the fact that many people shy away from the cameras because they dare not make public statements. Sources that spoke to me for years have increasingly stopped responding to my calls, starting from 2019, when Bukele came to power. The situation has worsened as this administration has progressed. Freedom of expression is increasingly limited, as is freedom of assembly. For example, when marches are called in the capital, police blockades are set up to hold back buses coming from the interior.
Harassment of dissenting voices is also apparent on social media. Day after day, journalists and human rights defenders are denigrated by armies of trolls. I am among the 10 female journalists most attacked on Twitter. Attacks against us women are often misogynistic in nature.
Some organisations, such as Acción Ciudadana, the Association of Journalists of El Salvador and Cristosal, continue to denounce the lack of a free environment for the expression of opinions, but their complaints have had little effect. Freedom of expression has continued to erode. And a country without freedom of expression, where human rights are violated and human rights defenders are persecuted, is nothing short of a dictatorship.
Civic space in El Salvador is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
Follow@sharkgirl_sv on Twitter.
-
GLOBAL ARMS TRADE: ‘By halting the supply of weapons, states can help prevent human rights violations’
CIVICUS discusses civil society efforts to control arms proliferation with Hine-Wai Loose, Director of Control Arms, a global civil society coalition with over 300 partners in all regions of the world.Despite the extensive international effort that led to the 2013 Arms Trade Treaty, challenges remain in regulating the international arms trade and ensuring compliance with international law. Rising tensions only encourage increases in military spending, which is evidenced in the arms industry’s ongoing expansion. Civil society advocates such as Control Arms are pushing for disarmament, stronger arms controls and greater compliance and accountability.
Why’s disarmament important, and why’s it so difficult to achieve?
Disarmament can make a significant contribution to building global peace and security. When countries such as Russia and the USA agree to reduce the size of their nuclear arsenals through treaties such as the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, it fosters trust and cooperation between nations.
Disarmament and arms control measures also play a crucial role in protecting civilians caught in the crossfire of armed conflict or subjected to serious human rights abuses committed with guns, for instance. A good example of an instrument with the potential to protect civilians and civilian infrastructure during armed conflicts is the Declaration on Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas, the first international instrument to explicitly recognise that the use of explosive weapons in populated areas has serious humanitarian consequences.
Weapons are also an expensive business. Disarmament can free up resources that can be redirected to economic and social wellbeing.
However, when tensions between countries are as high as they are today, it is particularly challenging to advance disarmament and arms control treaties and norms. In these moments of elevated tensions there can be an increased risk of miscalculations or mistakes that could result in the threat or use of a nuclear weapon.
Another major challenge is that states invest heavily in arms, using them as an insurance policy against uncertainty. As a result, the ever-expanding arms industry undermines efforts to create a more stable environment. Once tensions eventually subside, it will be difficult to reverse the arms industry’s increased capacity.
What’s the role of the arms industry in fuelling conflicts?
In the wake of the events of 7 October, the Wall Street Journal reported a six per cent increase in the value of US arms industry stocks, highlighting the inextricable link between the arms industry and the war machine.
According to the United Nations (UN) Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the arms industry has clear human rights obligations. But the industry is reluctant to accept responsibility for the impact of its products on human rights.
In western countries, the arms industry often claims to defend democracy, borders and human rights. If these claims were sincere, the arms industry would ensure its operations comply with human rights standards. This would be crucial to reducing the negative impact of arms production and distribution on global conflicts.
How does Control Arms work for effective arms control?
Control Arms was established to build an international coalition to support the negotiation of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). This treaty aims to regulate the international arms trade, prevent the transfer of arms that could facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law or international human rights law and reduce the human suffering caused by irresponsible arms transfers.
Our first objective is amplifying the voices of civil society in the arms control dialogue. We aim to ensure that those affected by irresponsible arms transfers and those working on the ground are heard and included in deliberations on the international arms trade.
Our second objective focuses on strengthening the rules governing international conventional arms transfers. We seek to strengthen the ATT’s norms and rules by engaging directly with states and advocating for stronger regulations.
The third objective is to promote transparency and accountability in the global arms trade. An independent project of Control Arms is the ATT Monitor, through which an annual report assessing reports submitted under the ATT and providing valuable insights into the implementation of the treaty is produced.
We participate in multilateral forums, from the ATT Conferences of States Parties to the Human Rights Council, to raise awareness how real-world cases of arms transfers that are not in compliance with international law impact on civilians. We explain how arms transfers affect human rights and international humanitarian law in places such as Gaza, Myanmar and Yemen. We identify states involved in questionable arms transfers and seek to hold them accountable for their actions. Engaging in such advocacy is not always easy, and nor is it necessarily welcome, but it is essential to ensuring that multilateral deliberations are informed by reality and states are called to account for their actions.
What are the ATT’s key provisions?
The ATT places international humanitarian law and international human rights law at the centre of arms transfers decisions. Article 6 prohibits transfers contrary to a state’s obligations under international law, or in cases where a state party has knowledge at the time of the authorisation that the weapons would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity and grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
If the provisions of Article 6 do not apply, then before a state can transfer weapons it must undertake an assessment under Article 7. Under this assessment, an exporting state party is required without discrimination to ‘assess the potential’ that the weapons ‘would contribute to or undermine international peace and security’ or could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law or international human rights law. I am oversimplifying the risk assessment, but this is it in a nutshell.
Even states that have not joined the ATT still have obligations under international customary law, which includes countries such as the USA. The four Geneva Conventions and customary international law obligate all states to ensure respect for international humanitarian law. By ending their supply of items at risk of being used in conflict, major arms exporting states can help bring an end to serious violations of international humanitarian law and most importantly to the suffering being witnessed in places such as Gaza, Haiti, Myanmar and Sudan.
What are the challenges to the ATT’s effectiveness?
There are a range of challenges, and these largely concern compliance with the ATT. For example, some national courts refuse to deal with legal challenges to government decisions to transfer weapons, considering them a matter of government policy rather than law. This limits the ability of the judiciary to hold governments accountable for arms transfers that may violate international law. Another problem being encountered is that some states announce a suspension of arms transfers but continue to transfer weapons, ammunition and parts and components under contracts established before suspension was announced. A third example is when companies originally established in countries that have strict regulations set up offshore entities in countries with less stringent controls so they can continue to transfer weapons to questionable contexts.
What further agreements or regulations are needed?
A key area of focus in disarmament and arms control right now is the regulation of new and emerging technologies such as lethal autonomous weapons systems. Given the rapid development of new technologies, this focus on autonomy is entirely understandable.
Guns, however, remain the primary weapon of choice in everyday violence, organised crime and gender-based violence. Despite their impact, they are subject to limited international regulation, such as the UN Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons. While this has helped states implement gun control legislation, a more systematic and rigorous approach is needed.
Unfortunately, the prevailing view, which has spread from the USA to other parts of the world, is that people have a right to bear arms. To prevent human rights abuses and violations committed with guns, states must enact robust legislation on gun ownership and control, and ensure it is backed by strong criminal penalties.
Get in touch with the Control Arms through itswebsite orFacebook andInstagram page, and follow@controlarms on Twitter.
-
HAITI: ‘Gangs control the country instead of the authorities’
CIVICUS speaks with freelance journalist Nancy Roc about the increase in gang violence and the political situation in Haiti.With 38 years of experience, Nancy is a Haitian-born journalist renowned for her work for press freedom. She is the recipient of numerous awards, including UNESCO’s Jean Dominique Prize for Press Freedom.
What’s the current security situation in Haiti?
The situation is untenable, to use the exact words of Volker Türk, the United Nations (UN) High Commissioner for Human Rights. Despite a state of emergency and a succession of curfews the government has declared since 4 March to try to regain control of the capital, Port-au-Prince, not a week goes by without kidnappings. Violence is a daily occurrence.
People are holed up in their homes, most schools are closed and economic activity is severely affected. The same goes for roads, where gangs have been imposing their law for more than three months and many drivers are out of work. Virtually all the capital’s infrastructure has been destroyed or seriously affected by gang attacks.
An attack on the National Penitentiary on 2 March came as a great shock to Haitians, even though they are used to living under the constant threat of violence. More than 4,500 inmates are believed to have escaped, including prominent gang members and people arrested in connection with the assassination of President Jovenel Moïse in July 2021. There have been widespread looting and attacks, particularly against the National Library, which was stormed on 3 April.
On the evening of 2 April, heavily armed bandits looted dozens of homes and seized private vehicles in the villages of Tecina and Théodat, in Tabarre municipality, northeast of Port-au-Prince. The vast majority of the population, already living in extreme poverty, have now been plunged into hell and left to fend for themselves.
As for the police, despite some efforts, they are neither equipped nor numerous enough to deal with such a situation of urban guerrilla warfare against heavily armed gangs. There are currently around 23 gangs operating in the Port-au-Prince metropolitan area, divided into two major coalitions: G-Pèp, led by Gabriel Jean Pierre, known as Ti Gabriel, and G9 Family and Allies, led by Jimmy Chérizier, alias Barbecue. However, UN experts estimate there are between 150 and 200 gangs throughout Haiti.
According to the UN, since the start of the year, 1,193 people have been killed and 692 injured as a result of gang violence. The health system is on the verge of collapse, and hospitals often lack the capacity to treat the injured. The economy is suffocating as the gangs impose restrictions on people’s movements. The main supplier of drinking water has stopped deliveries. The situation has led to a major food crisis: almost half of Haiti’s 11 million inhabitants need some form of food assistance.
How did the gangs become so powerful?
The gangs have powerful backers in government and the private sector. Under former de facto Prime Minister Ariel Henry, who resigned in March, the government funded 30 per cent of the members of the G9. It wouldn’t be surprising if some people, both in the private sector and former senior government officials, have continued to fund them, particularly those who have been sanctioned by the international community.
A UN expert report published in 2023 also singled out former president Michel Martelly, in power between 2011 and 2016, as well as several prominent business leaders and legislators, as providing resources to armed gangs, whether in kind or in cash.
The proliferation of gangs began under Martelly and intensified after Moïse’s assassination. By 2019, some 162 armed groups had been identified, more than half of them operating in the metropolitan area. In total, they are said to potentially have over 3,000 soldiers armed with firearms, including adolescents and children.
Under Moïse, numerous massacres took place, such as the La Saline massacre in 2018, the Bel Air massacre in 2019 and the Cité Soleil massacre in 2020. All took place in neighbourhoods with significant electoral power where members of the opposition lived, and these crimes all went unpunished.
In 2020, the situation worsened when Chérizier, a former police officer, federated the gangs with the G9 Family, allied to the nine most powerful gangs in the region. This enabled him to control a large part of Port-au-Prince – all while being covertly financed by high-ranking government officials.
The federation of gangs was even hailed by the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative in Haiti, who claimed that federating the gangs had reduced the number of homicides by 12 per cent in three months. This caused such a scandal that she was forced to retract her statement, describing it as a ‘misinterpretation‘.
A year after the assassination of Moïse, as the situation worsened, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution establishing a sanctions regime that targeted gang leaders and those who financed them. Chérizier was the only gang leader named in an annex to the resolution, but to date no action has been taken against him.
On 29 February 2024, the situation in the capital took a decisive turn for the worse when Chérizier announced, in a video posted on social media, the reconstitution of the coalition of armed groups known as Viv Ansanm (Living Together). In the video, he claimed responsibility for the tensions that have shaken Port-au-Prince and declared that the gangs’ primary objective was to overthrow the government. He also stated that a hunt was now on for ministers and the Director General of the National Police. He wanted to arrest them and prevent Henry, who was in Puerto Rico, returning to the country. Police officers were killed, police stations were attacked and several flights were cancelled following an assault by gangs at Toussaint Louverture international airport, which has since been closed.
Chérizier claims to be launching a revolution to liberate the Haitian people from the authorities and the oligarchs. But the gangs have targeted every stratum of society, as well as the poor districts of Port-au-Prince and many state structures that serve the poor, such as the main public hospital. The destruction is such that the UN refers to Haiti as ‘a state on the brink of collapse’.
By December 2023, more than 310,000 people had been displaced within Haiti. According to the International Organization for Migration, more than 50,000 people left Port-au-Prince in three weeks in March 2024. The scale of the disaster is staggering, and all the countries that had promised police or military aid are absent. Haiti has been abandoned to its sad fate and gangs are controlling the country instead of the authorities.
Why hasn’t the government reacted to the growing gang threat?
Four years ago, the Haitian National Police officially had a force of 15,498 police officers, among them only 1,711 women, although the actual number of officers was estimated to be much lower. Moreover, the humanitarian programme put in place by the Biden-Harris administration to make it easier for Haitians to live in the USA has put the police at risk of losing up to a third of its workforce to emigration.
Against this backdrop, chaos and violence have reached unprecedented levels. Since Moïse’s assassination, the government has been unable to establish order with the police, and the army has only had around 2,000 soldiers. No legislative or general elections have been held since 2016. As a result, there are no longer any elected representatives, as the terms in office of the previously elected ones have expired. Critics of Henry, who was very unpopular, considered his government illegitimate.
In October 2022, Henry appealed to the international community, requesting the intervention of a foreign force. Given his unpopularity, this aroused public mistrust, as people feared this intervention would strengthen an illegitimate government accused of colluding with gangs. What’s more, the composition of this mission turned into a headache.
Almost a year later, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution authorising the use of force by an international security assistance mission in Haiti. Neither Canada nor the USA wanted to intervene directly, stressing that the solution had to come from Haitians themselves. But Haitians have been unable to reach agreement, and what’s more, they fear foreign intervention, given the catastrophic interventions led by the UN since 2004. Canada, which had been asked by the USA to take the lead in the intervention, withdrew in March 2023, passing the leadership on to Kenya.
Deployment of a multinational intervention force was due to begin on 1 January 2024. Last July, Kenya offered to lead the mission with a thousand police officers. Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas and Jamaica had pledged to send security personnel, and more recently Belize and Guyana did as well. Canada has also pledged to participate in the mission. For its part, the US government pledged to fund the mission to the tune of at least US$100 million.
As the gangs extended their hold over Port-au-Prince and formed an alliance with the declared aim of overthrowing Henry, he planned to travel to Kenya to sign a reciprocity agreement. While he was away, Chérizier’s criminal gangs launched their attacks on police stations, the airport and prisons. They threatened civil war if Henry returned to Haiti. He resigned on 11 March 2024. The next day, Kenya suspended the dispatch of police to Haiti.
Who is in charge today, and what are the chances of democracy being restored?
In the wake of Henry’s resignation, the government declared a state of emergency. On the same day, it was announced that a Presidential Transitional Council (PTC) had been formed to restore order. The Council is made up of nine members: seven voting members and two observers. It includes representatives of the main political parties, civil society and the private sector. Its 22-month mandate is due to end on 7 February 2026 after it has organised ‘democratic, free and credible elections’.
There are already a number of obstacles to achieving this goal. First, how can security be re-established when the gangs are still receiving weapons from the USA? The latest twist is that when Henry issued the decree announcing the formation of the PTC, it didn’t include any of the members’ names. Since then, the organisations of the PTC’s appointed representatives have expressed their disagreement with the government decree published in the official gazette on 12 April 2024. Finally, the decree formalising the appointment of PTC members was published on 16 April.
In addition, the Council wishes to be sworn in at the National Palace before the nation, even though the Palace has been targeted by gangs on several occasions. Who will provide security? How can peace be restored to Haiti in a context of such political uncertainty and economic fragility? Will the members of the Council, some of whom are frenemies, be able to look beyond their own interests for the benefit of the nation? And who will rebuild the country after so many young people have left? Will the diaspora finally be called upon?
Further, the possibility of famine looms on the horizon and the World Food Programme fears that its food stocks will run out by the end of April.
Finally, how can gangs be persuaded to lay down their arms when they are making millions from kidnappings and arms sales? Crime is a very lucrative business for gangs and for citizens facing great poverty.
How can we restore justice and punish those who have committed so many crimes against humanity? As the saying goes, no justice, no peace. Finally, what about the gangs’ political ambitions? On 11 March, Chérizier declared that it would be ‘the Viv Ansanm alliance, along with the Haitian people, who will elect the person who will lead the country’. Will the PTC have to negotiate with the gangs?
The challenges facing the PTC are therefore significant, and one of the most arduous will be to find a way of articulating a request for external aid without losing Haiti’s sovereignty.
Civic space in Haiti is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
Get in touch with Nancy Roc on herFacebook page and follow@TheNancyRoc on Twitter.
-
HAITI: ‘If the mission succeeds, the authorities won’t have to turn again to the international community to maintain peace’
CIVICUS speaks with Haitian lawyer Rosy Auguste Ducéna about the situation in Haiti and the prospects for a newly deployed international mission.Rosy is Head of Programmes at the National Human Rights Defence Network (RNDDH), a civil society organisation working to support the establishment of the rule of law in Haiti.
Following the resignation of de facto prime minister Ariel Henry in April, a Transitional Presidential Council was appointed to try to start the process of restoring peace in gang-besieged Haiti. Riven by internal divisions, it took until June for the council to appoint a new prime minister, academic and development practitioner Garry Conille. In the same month, the first contingent of a long-delayed Kenya-led United Nations Multinational Security Support Mission began to arrive. Given the long history of failed international interventions in Haiti, civil society is sceptical, and demands that the mission has a strong human rights focus.
What has changed since the resignation of de facto prime minister Ariel Henry?
After supporting him throughout his government, the international community finally withdrew its support for Henry, who resigned in disgrace. He was a human rights predator, so we are glad to see him go, even if it wasn’t in the way we would have liked.
A Transitional Presidential Council was set up with the involvement of the international community through the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), the regional organisation. It’s made up of people who don’t inspire confidence among Haitian people. The only woman on the Council has an observer role, and all the candidates for prime minister it interviewed were men.
A month after the council was established, with Haitian people ravaged by insecurity and armed gangs, a prime minister was finally chosen: Garry Conille, backed by the international community. The next logical step is to set up a transitional government.
What does civil society expect from the new prime minister?
We expect the new prime minister to keep his first promise: to form a government where women don’t play a symbolic role but are in positions of power. And we hope women will be chosen with an agenda to fight for women’s rights in the context of the transition. It’s important to respect the minimum 30 per cent quota of women in decision-making bodies – without this being the ceiling, since over half of Haiti’s population is female – but it’s also important that the women who occupy these positions be involved in the fight against sexual and gender-based violence, discrimination and the social injustices suffered by women.
We hope the new government’s decisions will take people’s priorities into account’: fighting against insecurity and against the impunity that benefits armed bandits, putting the victims of insecurity at the centre of decision-making and organising elections.
And since this transition must produce results, everything must be done to ensure the roadmap drawn up by the Council and prime minister is implemented.
What’s the security and human rights situation like?
The human rights situation on the ground is very concerning: robberies, murders, rapes, gang rapes, massacres, armed attacks, kidnappings for ransom and the burning of people’s homes and vehicles are commonplace.
Two large coalitions of armed gangs, formerly at war with each other – G-9 an Fanmi e Alye, led by Jimmy Chérizier, alias Barbecue, and G-Pèp, led by Gabriel Jean Pierre, alias Ti Gabriel or Gabo – have joined forces and are attacking civilians as they seek to consolidate their power.
The consequences for the lives and security of Haitian people are enormous: armed bandits control the movement of goods and services, including fuel and medical supplies, and sow terror. Some areas have been completely emptied of their population. The victims of insecurity are living in overcrowded camps, in promiscuity, exposed to all kinds of abuse and contagious diseases.
Not all schools are functioning. Thousands of school-age children and young people who should be attending university have lost an academic year. Hospitals and health centres have been forced to close due to insecurity. Warnings of an acute food crisis have been issued. Haiti is facing an unprecedented humanitarian crisis. And if nothing is done about it, it will only get worse.
In an impoverished country where the education system was already not inclusive and social rights have always been seen as commodities to be bought, the gap in access to education and quality healthcare is widening. Women, children and people with physical, sensory or cognitive disabilities have been the first to suffer the harmful consequences of the chaos created by armed bandits, with the complicity of the police and Henry’s government.
Against this backdrop of massive and continuing human rights violations, the Transitional Presidential Council has yet to demonstrate that it understands the need to act quickly.
How was the new international mission set up and how does it differ from its predecessors?
On 6 October 2022, Henry called for a ‘robust force’ to be sent, in his words, ‘to combat insecurity, restore peace and conduct elections’. Almost a year later, on 2 October 2023, the United Nations Security Council adopted a resolution authorising the deployment of a force called the Multinational Security Support Mission, after Kenya agreed to take the lead.
Setting up the mission has taken a long time. It is now up and running, but we remain sceptical.
This will be the 11th mission since 1993. All its predecessors have been implicated in human rights violations against the Haitian people, including summary executions, beatings and attacks on physical and mental integrity, sexual trafficking and rape of minors and women. The only punishment for these violations has been repatriation.
The United Nations brought cholera, the spread of which caused the deaths of over 10,000 people, and paid only lip service to its responsibility. Promises of reparations have never been fulfilled.
The results of the various missions to Haiti, which have cost millions of dollars, have been meagre. The police and judicial institutions, and the electoral body they were supposed to strengthen, have never been more dysfunctional. The cost-benefit calculation of these missions and their involvement in human rights abuses suggest they are counterproductive.
However, it must be acknowledged that many people, tired of the insecurity that robs them of their lives and their humanity, and having lost confidence in the Haitian criminal justice system, are pinning their hopes on this international force. At present, the police don’t pursue notorious bandits and the courts don’t try them, even in absentia, despite the fact that several hundred victims of massacres, supported by RNDDH, have filed complaints against their attackers. On the rare occasions they are arrested, they escape or spend years in prison without charges against them ever being cleared up and without their victims receiving justice.
How can the international mission contribute to sustainable peace?
Alongside six other Haitian civil society organisations, we have reflected on this question and come up with several recommendations. These include defining the mission’s objectives and ensuring the concerns of human rights organisations are taken into account in the development of the mission’s legal framework and strategic security plan.
As the United Nations’ resolution is silent or says little on some important issues, we stress the need to address the obligations of security agents in relation to water management, ethical standards and transparency, as well as mechanisms for monitoring and following up on their conduct.
We also recommend the establishment of mechanisms to prevent human rights abuses and a means for victims to have complaints heard. It is essential that countries that provide those coming to Haiti commit themselves to doing everything possible to ensure abuses are punished and the legal guarantees of victims are protected and respected.
Above all, we hope the mission will carry out its operations on the ground with the participation of Haitian police officers, who will benefit from training in tactics to fight armed gangs, so when the mission leaves, Haitian authorities won’t have to turn again to the international community to maintain peace and security.
Civic space in Haiti is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
Get in touch with RNDDH through itswebsite orFacebook page, follow@RnddhAyiti and@AugusteRosy on Twitter, and contact Rosy Auguste Ducéna on herInstagram account orFacebook page.
-
INDIA: ‘Civil society organisations are at the forefront of the fight against gender-based violence’
CIVICUS discusses the recent wave of protests against gender-based violence (GBV) in India with Dr Kavitha Ravi, a member of the Indian Medical Association (IMA).Protests erupted across India after a 31-year-old female medical trainee was raped and murdered in a Kolkata hospital on 9 August. The IMA called a strike, with protests held in major cities including Kolkata and Mumbai. While the official strike has ended, many doctors, particularly junior doctors, remain on strike and protests continue to demand justice, accountability and safer working conditions for women.
What triggered the recent protests against GBV in India?
Protests erupted after the tragic rape and murder of a young female doctor at the R G Kar Medical College in Kolkata on 9 August. This horrific incident shocked the nation and sparked widespread outrage. In response, a coalition of doctors, medical associations such as the IMA and various resident and faculty associations joined together in a nationwide strike to demand justice for the victim and better safety measures for health workers, particularly women who face significant risks in the workplace.
Protesters are calling for major reforms, including the adoption of a Hospital Protection Act, which would designate hospitals as safe zones and introduce measures to create a safer environment for health workers. Their demands are part of a larger movement to comprehensively address GBV, prevent similar tragedies in the future and create a safer and more supportive working environment for everyone in the health sector.
What steps have been taken so far to ensure justice and the safety of female health workers?
The judicial system has acted swiftly by transferring the case to a higher authority to ensure a thorough investigation after concerns were raised about the police’s initial inquiry, which was not accepted by the students or the victim’s family. They were sceptical, believing the police might be favouring the college authorities and supporting the accused.
This decision aims to ensure a detailed investigation so justice can be done. The Supreme Court of India is also overseeing the case to monitor its progress, address any issues that may arise and ensure all necessary steps are taken to uphold justice.
In parallel, several initiatives are underway to improve the safety of female health workers. The Ministry of Health has proposed establishing a committee to review and improve safety protocols in health facilities. There are also plans to increase security in hospitals and establish a new national taskforce dedicated to improving safety through better infrastructure, advanced technology and additional security measures. However, despite these efforts, more needs to be done to combat GBV and ensure that these measures effectively protect female health workers.
How have the authorities responded to the protests?
The authorities have taken a mixed approach to the nationwide strike, combining concessions with new measures to address immediate concerns. The Health Ministry has drawn up a detailed plan to increase security in central government hospitals. This includes installing high-resolution CCTV cameras, monitoring access points with identification badges, deploying trained security personnel for constant patrolling and securing duty rooms for female staff. Hospitals are also encouraged to develop and regularly update emergency response plans and conduct mock drills.
In response to these measures, the IMA suspended its strike. However, other doctors’ associations have continued to protest for more substantial reforms. Many people remain dissatisfied, particularly after recent incidents of police violence. While the Supreme Court’s intervention may have temporarily eased the tensions, protesters remain concerned about the new measures’ effectiveness and full implementation.
Why is GBV so prevalent in India, and what’s being done about it?
Deep-rooted cultural, social, economic and legal factors account for the high prevalence of GBV in India. This is a patriarchal country where traditional gender roles and the subjugation of women are deeply entrenched. Women tend to be economically dependent on men, which traps them in abusive relationships that make it difficult for them to seek help or escape. Intergenerational cycles of violence perpetuate the problem, as children who witness or experience abuse may come to see such behaviour as normal.
Low literacy rates, particularly in rural areas, further limit women’s understanding of their rights and the available support. When they do seek justice, the system often fails to protect the victims or hold perpetrators accountable. Systemic failures in law enforcement and justice help perpetuate GBV.
Many initiatives and campaigns have helped highlight and address this issue. But it has not been easy. A lack of consistent political will and weak implementation of policies have hindered substantial change. Feminist and social justice movements often face resistance from conservative parts of society, making it difficult to change these deeply entrenched cultural norms.
To combat GBV effectively, we need a comprehensive approach that includes better education, legal reform, economic empowerment and cultural change. Civil society organisations are at the forefront of this fight, actively advocating for stronger laws, better enforcement and increased public awareness. Continued and robust efforts are essential to address this widespread problem and ensure meaningful change.
Civic space in India is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
Get in touch with the Indian Medical Association through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@IMAIndiaOrg on Twitter.
-
SUDAN: ‘The only way out of this mess is through civilian rule’
CIVICUS speaks about thewar in Sudan and its repercussions for women and civil society with Reem Abbas, a Sudanese feminist activist, writer and fellow at the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy (TIMEP).Founded in 2013, TIMEP is a civil society organisation that works to centre advocates and experts from and in the Middle East and North Africa in policy discourse to foster more fair and democratic societies.
What’s the current humanitarian situation in Sudan?
Active conflict persists in around 60 per cent of Sudan’s territory. The continuous fighting entails targeting of civilians and mass displacement. In some states, much of the civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, markets, schools and universities, has been damaged. In Khartoum and West Darfur states, about 70 per cent of hospitals have been damaged or partially destroyed.
Civilians and civil society activists are unsafe. The situation greatly restricts people’s freedom of movement, their ability to sustain a livelihood and their capacity to express their opinions freely. There are pockets of relative security in Eastern and Northern Sudan, but even in areas deemed secure displacement persists and schools remain closed because internally displaced people are living in them and other public buildings.
Many livelihoods have totally collapsed, leaving people increasingly dependent on aid. We are already witnessing cases of famine, particularly affecting children, resulting in deaths.
How has the conflict impacted on women and girls?
Women have always been targeted in conflicts in Sudan. Political violence, rife in Sudan given its volatile political history, has also often taken aim at women. There’s rarely any accountability for sexual and gender-based violence. The Rapid Support Forces (RSF) – the militias that are fighting against the army – are abducting women and selling them as sexual slaves in markets or holding them captive for extended periods. Families are left in distress, unsure of the whereabouts of their daughters, and are sometimes embezzled for money.
This is a war on women. Part of it stems from structural factors that place women in subordinate positions, but there’s also a punitive element directed at women for their pivotal role in the 2019 revolution that overthrew dictator Omar al-Bashir. During the revolution, women were out there, highly visible on the frontlines, and now it feels like they’re being punished for it.
The targeting of women is tearing the social fabric apart. As public spaces become unsafe for women, fewer women are participating in public life, including in economic activities and activism. This will have long-term consequences.
What roles is civil society playing in this context, and what challenges does it face?
It’s important to recognise that civil society in Sudan isn’t a monolithic entity, but rather a complex mix of different layers. Some were heavily involved during the transitional period that followed the revolution, getting deeply integrated with government structures at the time. Then there are women’s groups, each with their own focus and agenda. Alongside them, there are more formal organisations such as non-governmental organisations and trade unions. And let’s not overlook the revolutionary elements, such as the resistance committees and emergency responserooms, decentralised and horizontal structures working to shelter displaced people, support hospitals and secure food and water supplies.
The more formal parts of civil society are currently heavily involved in politics, while its revolutionary segments are deeply engaged in grassroots humanitarian efforts. They’re essentially functioning as local governments in areas where official governance structures are absent.
Despite its crucial role, civil society faces numerous challenges. The organic growth of grassroots movements is stunted by conflict and dictatorship. The polarising effects of war have led to divisions along political, ethnic and regional lines, further fragmenting civil society. Activists are increasingly targeted by the RSF or the army, threatening their ability to operate.
In an environment where conformity to mainstream opinions is increasingly enforced, it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain dissenting voices. This situation underscores the urgent need to safeguard the diversity and autonomy of civil society in Sudan.
However, attention and funding often gravitate towards already well-funded organisations, leaving grassroots initiatives to rely solely on community support. While funding alone doesn’t create a functional organisation, it’s important for organisations and groups to grow in an organic way and be able to garner support from the community.
How is civil society advocating for peace and democracy?
Right now, the conversation is all about security and getting things back to normal. People are doubting whether we can even think about democracy after all this chaos. The situation’s tough, with militarisation and conflict everywhere. But the only way out of this mess is through civilian rule. We need to figure out how to link the peace process to a long-term political solution that puts us back on track for democracy.
Unfortunately, the focus of the political elite appears to be more on preserving its positions rather than addressing urgent issues. There are concerns that the largest political coalition has developed close ties with the militia, causing unease among those involved in the revolution. Without a bigger political group that really listens to people and leads responsibly, we’re going to be stuck with military rule for ages. Right now, it should be all about finding common ground and putting the focus on the people who’ve suffered most from this war – not about politicians trying to claw back power or siding with the military.
There’s a lot of talk about how the transitional government messed up and led to the coup and the war. People are sceptical about civilian rule and whether it can fix things. It’s easier to sell the idea of a military-run government when people are feeling scared and vulnerable. Even though it’s militarisation that got us into this mess in the first place, it’s understandable because people just want to feel safe again.
What should the international community do to address Sudan’s dire security and humanitarian situation?
It’s time for the international community to stop sticking to one side of the story and start listening to everyone involved. They’re pumping all their funds into one camp and ignoring a whole bunch of other perspectives. We need more humanitarian aid, particularly considering the famine situation. Millions of people are at risk, with nowhere to turn and nothing to support themselves with.
Investment in basic infrastructure like hospitals and water plants is crucial too. People need services, and they need them now. Some areas haven’t had clean water for months because water plants are getting caught in the crossfire.
The international community must also demonstrate political determination. People’s lives are on the line. We need clear plans and urgent action to stop this war.
I want to emphasise the significance of civil society solidarity. This is crucial when our governments show ambivalence towards our concerns. In such situations, we must become each other’s voices and amplify our collective message. We must seek ways to connect, demonstrate solidarity and collaborate effectively.
It’s important to learn from one another and work together towards shared objectives. Collaboration with civil society groups and networks across the world is greatly appreciated. It’s through such partnerships that we can make a meaningful impact and bring about positive change.
Civic space in Sudan is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
Get in touch with TIMEP through itswebsite or itsFacebook andLinkedIn pages, and follow@TimepDC and@ReemWrites on Twitter.
-
UN CYBERCRIME TREATY: ‘Civil society is fact-checking the arguments made by states’
CIVICUS speaks with Ian Tennant about the importance of safeguarding human rights in the ongoing process to draft a United Nations (UN) Cybercrime Treaty.Ian isthe Chair of theAlliance of NGOs on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, a broad network of civil society organisations (CSOs) advancing the crime prevention and criminal justice agenda through engagement with relevant UN programmes and processes. He’s the Head of the Vienna Multilateral Representation and Resilience Fund at theGlobal Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime, a global CSO headquartered in Geneva, focused on research, analysis and engagement on all forms of organised crime and illicit markets. Both organisations participate as observers in negotiations for the UN Cybercrime Treaty.
Why is there need for a UN treaty dealing with cybercrime?
There is no consensus on the need for a UN treaty dealing with cybercrime. The consensus-based bodies dealing with cybercrime at the UN, primarily the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (CCPCJ), could not agree on whether there was a need for the treaty since the issue was first raised officially at the UN Crime Congress in 2010, and in 2019 it was taken to a vote at the UN General Assembly. The resolution starting the process towards a treaty was passed with minority support, due to a high number of abstentions. Nevertheless, the process is now progressing and member states on all sides of the debate are participating.
The polarisation of positions on the need for the treaty has translated into a polarisation of views of how broad the treaty should be – with those countries that were in favour of the treaty calling for a broad range of cyber-enabled crimes to be included, and those that were against the treaty calling for a narrowly focussed treaty on cyber-dependent crimes.
What should be done to ensure the treaty isn’t used by repressive regimes to crack down on dissent?
Balancing effective measures against cybercrime and human rights guarantees is the fundamental issue that needs to be resolved by this treaty negotiation process, and at the moment it is unclear how this will be accomplished. The most effective way to ensure the treaty is not used to crack down on dissent and other legitimate activities is to ensure a treaty focused on a clear set of cyber-dependent crimes with adequate and clear human rights safeguards present throughout the treaty.
In the absence of a digital rights treaty, this treaty has to provide those guarantees and safeguards. If a broad cooperation regime without adequate safeguards is established, there is a real risk that the treaty could be used by some states as a tool of oppression and suppression of activism, journalism and other civil society activities that are vital in any effective crime response and prevention strategy.
How much space is there for civil society to contribute to the negotiations process?
The negotiations for the treaty have been opened for CSOs to contribute to the process through an approach that does not allow states to veto individual CSOs. There is space for CSOs to bring in their contributions under each agenda item, and through intersessional meetings where they can present and lead discussions with member states. This process is in some ways a model that other UN negotiations could follow as a best practice.
CSOs, as well as the private sector, are bringing vital perspectives to the table on the potential impacts of proposals made in the treaty negotiations, on practical issues, on data protection and on human rights. Fundamentally, CSOs are providing fact-checking and evidence to back up or challenge the arguments made by member states as proposals are made and potential compromises are discussed.
What progress has been made so far, and what have been the main obstacles in the negotiations?
On paper, the Ad Hoc Committee has only two meetings left until the treaty is supposed to be adopted – one meeting will take place in August and the other in early 2024. The Committee has already held five meetings, during which the full range of issues and draft provisions to be included in the treaty have been discussed. The next stage will be for a draft treaty to be produced by the Chair, and then for that draft to be debated and negotiated in the next two meetings.
The main obstacle has been the existence of quite fundamental differences in visions for the treaty – from a broad treaty allowing for criminalisation of and cooperation on a diverse range of offences to a narrow treaty focussed on cyber-dependent crimes. Those different objectives mean that the Committee has so far lacked a common vision, which is what negotiations need to discover in the coming months.
What are the chances that the final version of the treaty will meet international human rights standards while fulfilling its purpose?
It is up to the negotiators from all sides, and how far they are willing to move in order to achieve agreement, whether the treaty will have a meaningful impact on cybercrime while also staying true to international human rights standards and the general human rights ethos of the UN. This is the optimal outcome, but given the current political atmosphere and challenges, it will be hard to achieve.
There is a chance the treaty could be adopted without adequate safeguards, and that consequently only a small number of countries ratify it, thereby diminishing its usefulness, but also directing the rights risks to only those countries who sign up. There is also a chance the treaty could have very high human rights standards, but again not many countries ratify it – limiting its usefulness for cooperation but neutering its human rights risks.
Get in touch with the Alliance of NGOs on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice through itswebsite and follow@GI_TOC and@IanTennant9 on Twitter.
-
UN CYBERCRIME TREATY: ‘This is not about protecting states but about protecting people’
CIVICUS speaks withStéphane Duguin aboutthe weaponisation of technology and progress being madetowards a United Nations (UN) Cybercrime Treaty.Stéphaneis an expert onthe use of disruptive technologies such as cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns and online terrorism and theChief Executive Officer of the CyberPeace Institute,a civil society organisation (CSO) founded in 2019 to help humanitarian CSOs and vulnerable communitieslimit the harm of cyberattacks andpromote responsible behaviour in cyberspace. It conducts research and advocacy and provides legal and policy expertise in diplomatic negotiations, including theUN Ad Hoc Committee elaborating the Cybercrime Convention.
Why is there need for a new UN treaty dealing with cybercrime?
Several legal instruments dealing with cybercrime already exist, including the 2001 Council of Europe Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, the first international treaty aimed at addressing cybercrimes and harmonising legislations to enhance cooperation in the area of cybersecurity, ratified by 68 states around the world as of April 2023. This was followed by regional tools such as the 2014 African Union Convention on Cyber Security and Personal Data Protection, among others.
But the problem behind these instruments is that they aren’t enforced properly. The Budapest Convention has not even been ratified by most states, although it is open to all. And even when they’ve been signed and ratified, these instruments aren’t operationalised. This means that data is not accessible across borders, international cooperation is complicated to achieve and requests for extradition are not followed up on.
There is urgent need to reshape cross-border cooperation to prevent and counter crimes, especially from a practical point of view. States with more experience fighting cybercrimes could help less resourced ones by providing technical assistance and helping build capacity.
This is why the fact that the UN is currently negotiating a major global Cybercrime Convention is so important. In 2019, to coordinate the efforts of member states, CSOs, including CyberPeace Institute, academic institutions and other stakeholders, the UN General Assembly established the Ad Hoc Committee to elaborate a ‘Comprehensive International Convention on Countering the Use of Information and Communication Technologies for Criminal Purpose’ – a Cybercrime Convention in short. This will be the first international legally binding framework for cyberspace.
The aims of the new treaty are to reduce the likelihood of attacks, and when these happen, to limit the harm and ensure victims have access to justice and redress. This is not about protecting states but about protecting people.
What were the initial steps in negotiating the treaty?
The first step was to take stock of what already existed and, most importantly, what was missing in the existing instruments in order to understand what needed to be done. It was also important to measure the efficacy of existing tools and determine whether they weren’t working due to their design or because they weren’t being properly implemented. Measuring the human harm of cybercrime was also key to define a baseline for the problem we’re trying to address with the new treaty.
Another step, which interestingly has not been part of the discussion, would be an agreement among all state parties to stop engaging in cybercrimes themselves. It’s strange, to say the least, to be sitting at the table discussing definitions of cyber-enabled and cyber-dependent crimes with states that are conducting or facilitating cyberattacks. Spyware and targeted surveillance, for instance, are being mostly financed and deployed by states, which are also financing the private sector by buying these technologies with taxpayers’ money.
What are the main challenges?
The main challenge has been to define the scope of the new treaty, that is, the list of offences to be criminalised. Crimes committed with the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) generally belong to two distinct categories: cyber-dependent crimes and cyber-enabled crimes. States generally agree that the treaty should include cyber-dependent crimes: offences that can only be committed using computers and ICTs, such as illegally accessing computers, performing denial-of-service attacks and creating and spreading malware. If these crimes weren’t part of the treaty, there wouldn’t be a treaty to speak of.
The inclusion of cyber-enabled crimes, however, is more controversial. These are offences that are carried out online but could be committed without ICTs, such as banking fraud and data theft. There’s no internationally agreed definition of cyber-enabled crimes. Some states consider offences related to online content, such as disinformation, incitement to extremism and terrorism, as cyber-enabled crimes. These are speech-based offences, the criminalisation of which can lead to the criminalisation of online speech or expression, with negative impacts on human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Many states that are likely to be future signatories to the treaty use this kind of language to strike down dissent. However, there is general support for the inclusion of limited exceptions on cyber-enabled crimes, such as online child sexual exploitation and abuse, and computer-related fraud.
There is no way we can reach a wide definition of cyber-enabled crimes unless it’s accompanied with very strict human rights safeguards. In the absence of safeguards, the treaty should encompass a limited scope of crimes. But there’s no agreement on a definition of safeguards and how to put them in place, particularly when it comes to personal data protection.
For victims as well as perpetrators, there’s absolutely no difference between cyber-enabled and cyber-dependent crimes. If you are a victim, you are a victim of both. A lot of criminal groups – and state actors – are using the same tools, infrastructure and processes to perform both types of attacks.
Even though there’s a need to include more cyber-enabled crimes, the way it’s being done is wrong, as there are no safeguards or clear definitions. Most states that are pushing for this have abundantly demonstrated that they don’t respect or protect human rights, and some – including China, Egypt, India, Iran, Russia and Syria – have even proposed to delete all references to international human rights obligations.
Another challenge is the lack of agreement on how international cooperation mechanisms should follow up to guarantee the practical implementation of the treaty. The ways in which states are going to cooperate and the types of activities they will perform together to combat these crimes remain unclear.
To prevent misuse of the treaty by repressive regimes we should focus both on the scope of criminalisation and the conditions for international cooperation. For instance, provisions on extradition should include the principle of dual criminality, which means an act should not be extraditable unless it constitutes a crime in both the countries making and receiving the request. This is crucial to prevent its use by authoritarian states to persecute dissent and commit other human rights violations.
What is civil society bringing to the negotiations?
The drafting of the treaty should be a collective effort aimed at preventing and decreasing the amount of cyberattacks. As independent bodies, CSOs are contributing to it by providing knowledge on the human rights impacts and potential threats and advocating for guarantees for fundamental rights.
For example, the CyberPeace Institute has been analysing disruptive cyberattacks against healthcare institutions amid COVID-19 for two years. We found at least 500 cyberattacks leading to the theft of data of more than 20 million patients. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
The CyberPeace Institute also submits recommendations to the Committee based on a victim-centric approach, involving preventive measures, evidence-led accountability for perpetrators, access to justice and redress for victims and prevention of re-victimisation.
We also advocate for a human-rights-by-design approach, which would ensure full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms through robust protections and safeguards. The language of the Convention should refer to specific human rights frameworks such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is important that the fight against cybercrime should not pit national security against human rights.
This framing is especially significant because governments have long exploited anti-cybercrime measures to expand state control, broaden surveillance powers, restrict or criminalise freedoms of expression and assembly and target human rights defenders, journalists and political opposition in the name of national security or fighting terrorism.
In sum, the goal of civil society is to demonstrate the human impact of cybercrimes and make sure states take this into consideration when negotiating the framework and the regulations – which must be created to protect citizens. We bring in the voices of victims, the most vulnerable ones, whose daily cybersecurity is not properly protected by the current international framework. And, as far as the CyberPeace Institute is concerned, we advocate for the inclusion of a limited scope of cybercrimes with clear and narrow definitions to prevent the criminalisation of behaviours that constitute the exercise of fundamental freedoms and human rights.
At what point in the treaty process are we now?
A consolidated negotiating document was the basis for the second reading done in the fourth and fifth sessions held in January and April 2023. The next step is to release a zero draft in late June, which will be negotiated in the sixth session that will take place in New York between August and September 2023.
The process normally culminates with a consolidation by states, which is going to be difficult since there’s a lot of divergence and a tight deadline: the treaty should be taken to a vote at the 78th UN General Assembly session in September 2024.
There’s a bloc of states looking for a treaty with the widest possible scope, and another bloc leaning towards a convention with a very limited scope and strong safeguards. But even within this bloc there is still disagreement when it comes to data protection, the approach to security and the ethics of specific technologies such as artificial intelligence.
What are the chances that the final version of the treaty will meet international human rights standards while fulfilling its purpose?
Considering how the process has been going so far, I’m not very optimistic, especially on the issue of upholding human rights standards, because of the crucial lack of definition of human rights safeguards. We shouldn’t forget negotiations are happening in a context of tense geopolitical confrontation. The CyberPeace Institute has been tracing the attacks deployed since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. We’ve witnessed over 1,500 campaigns of attacks with close to 100 actors involved, many of them states, and impacts on more than 45 countries. This geopolitical reality further complicates the negotiations.
By looking at the text that’s on the table right now, it is falling short of its potential to improve the lives of victims in cyberspace. This is why the CyberPeace Institute remains committed to the drafting process – to inform and sensitise the discussions toward a more positive outcome.
Get in touch with the CyberPeace Institute through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@CyberpeaceInst and@DuguinStephane on Twitter.
-
USA: ‘The framers of the constitution envisioned an accountable president, not a king above the law’
CIVICUS discusses the recent US Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity and its potential impact on the 5 November presidential election with Praveen Fernandes, Vice President at the Constitutional Accountability Center, a US think tank and public interest litigation organisation dedicated to studying and applying the constitution’s text, history and values.On 1 July, the US Supreme Courtruled that presidents have absolute immunity for the exercise of their core constitutional powers and are entitled to a presumption of immunity for other official acts, although they don’t enjoy immunity for unofficial acts. The decision comes as Donald Trump faces criminal charges for trying to overturn his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden. The question now is whether Trump’s actions will be considered official or unofficial. But it’s unlikely he’ll be tried before the election, and if he returns as president he could pardon himself. Critics claim the Supreme Court ruling violates the spirit of the US Constitution by placing the president above the law.
What has the Supreme Court said about presidential immunity?
In Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled that a former president can be granted a measure of immunity from criminal prosecution for acts committed while in office.
The majority opinion held that there is absolute immunity from prosecution for acts within the president’s ‘exclusive and preclusive authority’ – powers the constitution specifically assigns to the president and no other branch of government. There is a presumption of immunity for official acts that are part of a president’s duties, although this can be rebutted if the government can show that prosecution would not threaten the powers and functions of the executive branch. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.
As the dissenting opinions make clear, the court’s doctrine of presidential immunity departs not only from the text and history of the constitution, but also from the court’s own precedent.
How does this ruling affect the criminal charges against Trump?
While it’s impossible to know with certainty how this Supreme Court decision will affect all of the pending criminal cases against Trump, what we do know is that it will cause additional delays in prosecutions that have already been delayed far too long.
For instance, the federal criminal case related to the 6 January 2021 attempted overturning of the 2020 election was paused for over 200 days until the Supreme Court issued its decision. Now the district court has to deal with issues such as which alleged crimes involve unofficial acts and can therefore be prosecuted.
However, it is highly unlikely that the federal trial will reach a verdict before the presidential election in November. As a result, voters will likely be forced to cast their ballots without knowing whether one of the candidates is criminally responsible for attempting to overturn the results of the last election.
Do you think this ruling could allow for an unfettered second Trump presidency?
The danger seems great in a possible future Trump presidency where the fear of prosecution has been largely removed. But this goes far beyond Trump – it’s a danger that extends to anyone who holds such a powerful role without being held accountable to the same criminal laws that bind all other individuals.
But there are still safeguards. Prosecutors can still pursue crimes related to unofficial acts, and there are still political accountability mechanisms, such as the ability to impeach a president for high crimes and misdemeanours by a vote in the House of Representatives and conviction in a trial in the Senate.
What are the broader implications of this ruling for US democracy?
The conservative majority opinion in Trump v. United States challenges the accountability envisioned by the framers of the constitution and moves the nation closer to the monarchical systems they sought to avoid. The framers envisioned a president accountable to the governed, not a king above the law.
Immunising such a powerful position in the federal government from criminal accountability poses a significant risk and should be sobering to all Americans.
This ruling is the latest reminder that even when the constitution is clear, we depend on judges to interpret it fairly. Judicial nominations matter. Electing presidents who will nominate fair and principled judges is important. Electing senators who will rigorously scrutinise those nominations is important. Let’s not forget that.
Civic space in the USA is rated ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
Get in touch with the Constitutional Accountability Center through itswebsite and follow@MyConstitution on Twitter.
