August, 25 2009, 04:25pm EDT
Honduras: Rights Report Shows Need for Increased International Pressure
Widespread and Continuing Abuses Documented by Inter-American Commission
WASHINGTON
The finding by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of widespread abuses in Honduras should compel the international community to take firm action, such as targeted sanctions, to resolve the country's ongoing crisis, Human Rights Watch said today.
The Commission released a report on August 21, 2009, showing a pattern of serious violations under the de facto government, including excessive use of force, arbitrary detention, sexual violence, and attacks on the media, as well as several confirmed deaths and possible "disappearances." The Commission also documented an absence of effective legal protections from abuse.
"Given the ongoing abuses documented by the Commission and the lack of effective legal protection, it is urgent that the international community exert concerted and effective pressure to restore democratic government in Honduras," said Jose Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch
In the aftermath of the June 28 coup d'etat, Human Rights Watch and other local and international advocacy groups urged the Organization of American States (OAS) to address serious human rights abuses being committed in Honduras under the de facto government. Given the scope of alleged abuses, and the region's history of bloody coups leading to massive violations, human rights advocates believed the situation warranted the direct intervention of the region's most authoritative human rights investigative body, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.
The Commission conducted an extensive fact-finding mission from August 17 to 21. It met with representatives of the de facto government and representatives of various sectors of civil society, and received complaints, testimony, and information from more than 100 individuals.
"While the OAS has yet to show results in resolving Honduras's democratic crisis, the Commission has demonstrated the crucial role that this regional mechanism can play when a country's rule of law is badly undermined," Vivanco said.
INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION'S FINDINGS
In its preliminary findings, the Commission found "a pattern of disproportionate use of public force" by the military and police, which has resulted in the deaths of at least four people, dozens of wounded, and thousands of arbitrary detentions. It also found that the de facto government has abused its emergency powers, using the military to limit freedom of assembly and expression. The Commission confirmed that women had suffered sexual violence, and that threats, detentions, and beatings of journalists had created an atmosphere of intimidation among critical media outlets. While the Commission reported some serious acts of violence and vandalism by protesters, it noted that the majority of demonstrations were peaceful.
Deaths and Possible 'Disappearances'
The Commission documented four deaths resulting from the use of excessive force under the de facto government. Isis Obed Murillo Mencias died after being shot in the head while participating in a demonstration outside Tegucigalpa's Toncontin Airport on July 5. The body of Pedro Magdiel Munoz, which bore signs of torture, was found on July 25 in the department of El Paraiso. Witnesses told the Commission that Munoz had participated in a rally in front of military roadblocks that day and had been arrested by the military. Roger Vallejos Soriano, a teacher, was shot in the head during a protest in Comayaguela on July 30. Pedro Pablo Hernandez was shot in the head by a soldier at a military roadblock in the valley of Jamastran on August 2, according to testimony collected by the Commission.
The Commission also reported that, despite four requests for information, the state has been unable to account for two individuals. One was last seen at a protest on July 12, and the other was seized at home on July 26.
Excessive Use of Force
The Commission found "a pattern of disproportionate use of public force" by the military and police. More than 100 people verified that a disproportionate use of force was used in repressing demonstrations. The excessive use of force characterized the security forces' suppression of demonstrations in Tegucigalpa, San Pedro Sula, Choloma, Comayagua, and the town of El Paraiso-and resulted in deaths, cases of torture and mistreatment, and hundreds of wounded.
According to the report: "In the various departments to which it traveled, the Commission received testimony about individuals wounded by lead bullets or injured by blows with police truncheons and other blunt objects made of rubber, iron, and wood, and about the indiscriminate use of tear gas, as customary methods used to deter demonstrations. The Commission received testimony from dozens of people with serious injuries to the head as a result of the repression exercised both by police and military personnel."
Arbitrary Detentions
The Commission condemned the widespread use of arbitrary detentions to "silence and obstruct expressions of protest." It concluded that between 3,500 and 4,000 people had been arrested arbitrarily by the military and police during protests, and detained for periods ranging from 45 minutes to 24 hours. Many detainees were subjected to beatings, threats and verbal attacks while in custody.
In many cases, the due process rights of individuals were also violated. Detainees were not informed of the grounds for their arrest, records were not kept of their imprisonment, and neither judicial authorities nor public prosecutors were informed of their cases, the Commission found. Furthermore, detainees' right to challenge the grounds for their detention (habeas corpus) was not upheld. In some cases, judges who responded to petitions for habeas corpus were mistreated and threatened at gunpoint. In addition, the Commission found that, in many cases, public prosecutors failed to investigate the cases of detainees who had been injured or were being detained.
Sexual Violence
The Commission found that "women were especially subject to acts of violence and humiliation because of their gender." The Commission heard the testimony about two incidents that reportedly took place in San Pedro Sula, one in which a woman said she had been raped by police officers and another in which a woman said she was stripped from the waist down and beaten with batons.
The Commission confirmed that the police and army groped the breasts and genitals of women in detention. And women denounced security officers for forcibly spreading the women's legs and touching their genitals with police batons.
Attacks on the Media
The Commission found that attacks on the media have intensified in recent weeks, generating "an atmosphere of intimidation that inhibits the free exercise of freedom of expression." Among other tactics, it reported that the de facto government, military and police had suspended or closed TV channels and radio stations; threatened, detained, and beaten members of the media; and attacked the offices of critical news outlets.
The Commission confirmed that at least eight national TV stations, three major radio stations, and several international news channels were interrupted or suspended during the June 28 coup. It collected testimony from 10 journalists who were assaulted by security forces while attempting to cover demonstrations, and five more who said they were detained and beaten by police or the military. It also compiled information about nearly 20 threats against journalists, and five major attacks on the offices of critical media outlets. On August 12, for example, a Channel 36 cameraman, Richard Cazula, was filming a rally in Tegucigalpa when security officers assaulted him, beating him and damaging his camera.
While the attacks predominantly targeted critics of the de facto government, the Commission also reported attacks on journalists and outlets that support the coup, such as the newspaper El Heraldo, which was attacked on August 14 by a group of masked men who threw Molotov cocktails at its building.
Abuse of Emergency Powers
The Commission expressed concern about the continuing use of the military to control protests and maintain public order. While acknowledging that "under exceptional circumstances the armed forces may be called on to participate in controlling demonstrations," the Commission argued that this exercise must be limited in scope because the military lacks training for policing. The report criticized the military's ongoing use of curfews, which are being enforced "without any type of legal foundation" and are being applied in a discriminatory fashion. The Commission found that thousands of people have been trapped between military checkpoints, which have been set up with no justification. From July 24 to 27, between 4,000 and 5,000 people were caught between military roadblocks near the border with Nicaragua. Participants told the Commission that the military used teargas on them, denied them food and water, and would not give medical attention to the wounded.
Lack of Legal Protection
In addition to documenting widespread abuses, the Commission found that the judiciary had failed in its duty to review the actions of the de facto government, in spite of clear violations of Honduran and international law and various appeals (amparos) for legal review. It also found the judiciary had failed to assess the legality of the emergency measures implemented by the de facto government, neglecting its responsibility to act as a check on executive power. In the context of this inaction, and as a result of the judiciary's inadequate response to reported violations, the Commission concluded that "the judicial remedies available in Honduras do not currently offer efficient and effective protection against human rights violations in the context of the coup d'etat."
The Commission also questioned the performance of the public prosecutor's office. It reported receiving "consistent and repeated information confirming that, in many cases, the offices of public prosecutors have not begun official investigations into the existence of groups of people who have been injured and in custody."
(The justice system's credibility as an impartial guarantor of fundamental rights is further undermined by the fact that both the president of the Supreme Court and the attorney general have been outspoken in their support of the coup. Moreover, on August 23 -two days after the Commission released its findings- the Supreme Court issued a ruling in which it formally endorsed President Manuel Zelaya's removal from power and the legitimacy of the de facto government.)
Violence and Vandalism by Zelaya Supporters
While the Commission found that the majority of demonstrations had been peaceful, it noted there have been exceptional cases in which protesters have committed acts of violence, "some of them serious, against persons and against property." These acts include the burning of a restaurant and an attack on a congressional deputy.
THE NEED FOR CONCERTED INTERNATIONAL PRESSURE
An OAS delegation arrived in Honduras on August 24 to meet with various public and private actors with the goal of promoting the signing of the San Jose Accord, a plan that would return Zelaya to power until elections are held by the end of November. The delegation includes the foreign ministers of Argentina, Canada, Costa Rica, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama and the Dominican Republic, as well as by OAS Secretary General Jose Miguel Insulza.
"If the OAS delegation is unable this week to persuade Honduras's de facto government to allow Zelaya's return to the presidency, the only option left will be for the international community to ratchet up the pressure," said Vivanco. "The US government in particular could play a key role through the use of carefully targeted sanctions."
The United States has condemned the coup and suspended about US$18 million in mostly military and development aid to the de facto government. However, the Obama administration has so far resisted imposing more far-reaching sanctions, citing the detrimental impact they could have on the Honduras's struggling economy.
Human Rights Watch has previously urged the Obama administration to consider using carefully tailored sanctions that would directly target officials in the de facto government without affecting the broader population. These might include cancelling their travel visas, denying them access to the US banking system, and targeting their private sources of income.
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
Right-Wingers Plot to Give Trump Control Over Federal Reserve If Reelected
"Under such an approach, the chair would regularly seek Trump's views on interest-rate policy and then negotiate with the committee to steer policy on the president's behalf," The Wall Street Journal reported.
Apr 26, 2024
Right-wing allies of former U.S. President Donald Trump are reportedly crafting a plan to give the executive branch control over Federal Reserve policy decisions, an effort that comes as the presumptive GOP nominee continues to signal his authoritarian intentions for a potential second term.
The Wall Street Journalreported Thursday that former Trump administration officials and other supporters of the ex-president "have in recent months discussed a range of proposals, from incremental policy changes to a long-shot assertion that the president himself should play a role in setting interest rates."
"A small group of the president's allies—whose work is so secretive that even some prominent former Trump economic aides weren't aware of it—has produced a roughly 10-page document outlining a policy vision for the central bank," the Journal reported. "The group of Trump allies argues that he should be consulted on interest-rate decisions, and the draft document recommends subjecting Fed regulations to White House review and more forcefully using the Treasury Department as a check on the central bank. The group also contends that Trump, if he returns to the White House, would have the authority to oust Jerome Powell as Fed chair before his four-year term ends in 2026."
During his first four years in the White House, Trump repeatedly criticized Powell—whom the former president appointed in 2017—over the central bank's interest rate policy and insisted he had the authority to oust the Fed chair before the end of his term. The Fed is an independent body subject to limited congressional oversight.
"I have the right to do that," Trump said in 2019 of ousting Powell. "I'm not happy with his actions, I don't think he's done a good job."
The Fed, still under Powell's leadership, has since jacked up interest rates to their highest level in decades in an attempt to combat inflation—an approach that progressive lawmakers and economists have criticized as misguided, arguing that prices were elevated primarily by pandemic-related supply chain disruptions and corporate profiteering and that hiking rates would harm workers. (Progressives have historically pushed for Fed reforms that would make the powerful central bank more accountable to the public.)
Late last year, Trump said interest rates were "too high" but did not say he would pressure the central bank to lower them, saying: "Depends where inflation is. But I would get inflation down."
More recently, Trump suggested the Fed's indication that rate cuts are coming in the near future as inflation cools is a political ploy to "help the Democrats."
"It looks to me like he's trying to lower interest rates for the sake of maybe getting people elected, I don't know," Trump said in a Fox Business appearance in February.
Economist Paul Krugman predicted in his New York Timescolumn earlier this year that "Trumpist attacks on the Fed for cutting interest rates are coming."
"What we don't know is how the Fed will react," Krugman wrote. "In a recent dialogue with me about the economy, my colleague Peter Coy suggested that the Fed may be inhibited from cutting rates because it'll fear accusations from Trump that it's trying to help Biden. I hope Fed officials understand that they'll be betraying their responsibilities if they let themselves be intimidated in this way."
"And I hope that forewarned is forearmed," he added. "MAGA attacks on the Fed are coming; they should be treated as the bad-faith bullying they are."
The Journal reported Thursday that "several people who have spoken with Trump about the Fed said he appears to want someone in charge of the institution who will, in effect, treat the president as an ex officio member of the central bank's rate-setting committee."
"Under such an approach, the chair would regularly seek Trump's views on interest-rate policy and then negotiate with the committee to steer policy on the president's behalf," the newspaper continued. "Some of the former president's advisers have discussed requiring that candidates for Fed chair privately agree to consult informally with Trump on the central bank's decisions... Others have made the case that Trump himself could sit on the Fed's board of governors on an acting basis, an option that several people close to the former president described as far-fetched."
According to earlier Journal reporting, Trump's team has discussed several possible replacements for Powell, including former White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett and Arthur Laffer, a former Reagan adviser and notorious tax-cut enthusiast.
Trump allies' plot to help the former president exert control over Fed policy if he's reelected in November provides further insight into the presumptive Republican nominee's likely approach to a second term.
During his 2024 campaign, Trump—who is facing 88 charges across four criminal cases—has vowed to be a dictator on "day one," wield federal authority to go after his political opponents, launch the "largest domestic deportation operation in American history," and use the U.S. military to crack down on protests.
"If a president is truly determined to make himself a dictator, the question at the end of the day is whether the military and other force-deploying agencies of the federal government are willing to go along," Josh Chafetz, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University, toldThe Washington Post in a recent interview. "If they are, there's not much Congress or the courts could do about it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Urged to 'Rule Quickly' After Trump Immunity Arguments
"It'd be a travesty for justices to delay matters further," said one legal expert.
Apr 25, 2024
After about three hours of oral arguments Thursday on former President Donald Trump's immunity claims, legal experts and democracy defenders urged the U.S. Supreme Court to rule swiftly, with just over six months until the November election.
Trump—the presumptive Republican candidate to challenge Democratic President Joe Biden, despite his 88 felony charges in four ongoing criminal cases—is arguing that presidential immunity should protect him from federal charges for trying to overturn his 2020 loss to Biden, which culminated in the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
Justices across the ideological spectrum didn't seem inclined to support Trump's broad immunity claims—which critics have said "reflect a misreading of constitutional text and history as well as this court's precedent." However, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) shared examples of what it would mean if they did.
"Trump could sell pardons, ambassadorships, and other official benefits to his wealthy donors, members of his clubs, or cronies who helped him commit other crimes," CREW warned. "Trump could sell nuclear codes and government secrets to help pay back crippling debts."
"But this isn't just about what Donald Trump could do. It's really about how total immunity for the president would threaten our democratic system of checks and balances," the group continued. "The president could order the military to assassinate activists, political opponents, members of Congress, or even Supreme Court justices, so long as he claimed it related to some official act."
After warning that a president could also order the occupation or closure of the Capitol or high court to prevent actions against him, CREW concluded that "the Supreme Court never should have taken this appeal up in the first place. They should rule quickly and shut these ludicrous claims down for good."
The organization was far from alone in demanding a quick decision from the nation's highest court.
"In the name of accountability, the court must not delay its decision," the Brennan Center for Justice said Thursday evening. "The Supreme Court's time is up. It needs to let the prosecution move forward. The court decided Bush v. Gore in three days—it should act with similar alacrity in deciding Trump v. U.S."
In Bush v. Gore, the case that decided the 2000 election, the high court issued a related stay on December 9, heard oral arguments on December 11, and issued a final decision on December 12.
On Thursday, the arguments "got away from the central question: Is a former president immune from criminal prosecution if he tried to overthrow a presidential election, using private means and the power of his office to do so?" the Brennan Center noted. "The answer is simple: No."
"It is not an 'official act' to try to overthrow the peaceful transfer of power or the Constitution, even if you conspire with other government officials to do it or use the Oval Office phone," the center said. "Trump's attorney was pushing the court to come up with a sea change in the law. That's unnecessary and a delay tactic that will hurt the pursuit of justice in this case."
In a departure from previous claims, Trump's attorney, D. John Sauer, "appeared to agree with Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is leading the prosecution, that there are some allegations in the indictment that do not involve 'official acts' of the president," NBC Newsreported, noting questions from liberal Justice Elena Kagan and conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee.
Barrett summarized various allegations from the indictment and in three cases—involving dishonest election claims, false allegations of fraud, and fake electors—Sauer conceded that Trump's alleged conduct sounded private, suggesting that a more narrow case against the ex-president that excluded any potential official acts could proceed.
Due to Trump attorney's concessions in Supreme Court oral argument, there's now a very clear path for DOJ's case to go forward.\n\nIt'd be a travesty for Justices to delay matters further.\n\nJustice Amy Coney Barrett got Trump attorney to concede core allegations are private acts.\u2b07\ufe0f— (@)
According to NBC:
Matthew Seligman, a lawyer and a fellow at the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School who filed a brief backing prosecutors, said Sauer's concessions highlight that Trump is "not immune for the vast majority of the conduct alleged in the indictment."
Ultimately, he said, the case will go to trial "absent some external intervention—like Trump ordering [the Justice Department] to drop the charges" after having won the election.
At the same time, Sauer's backtracking might have little consequence from an electoral perspective. Further delay in a trial, which Sauer is close to achieving, is a form of victory in itself.
Slate's Mark Joseph Stern pointed out that when Barrett similarly questioned Michael Dreeben, the U.S. Department of Justice lawyer arguing the case for Smith, it seemed like they "were trying to work out some compromise wherein the trial court could distinguish between official and unofficial acts, then instruct the jury not to impose criminal liability on the former."
"It was fascinating to watch Barrett nodding along as Dreeben pitched a compromise that would largely preserve Smith's January 6 prosecution but limit what the jury could hear, or at least consider," Stern added. "That, though, would take months to suss out in the trial court. More delays!"
Stern and other experts signaled that the decision likely comes down to Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts, with the three liberals seemingly supporting the prosecution of Trump and the other four conservatives suggesting it is unconstitutional.
People for the American Way president Svante Myrick said in a statement that "today's argument brought both good and bad news. It was chilling to hear Donald Trump's lawyer say that staging a military coup could be considered part of a president's official duties."
"Thankfully, the majority of the court, including conservative justices, did not seem to buy that very broad Trump argument that a former president is absolutely immune from prosecution under any circumstances," Myrick added. "On the other hand, it's not clear that there is a majority on this court that will quickly reject the immunity arguments and let the case go forward in time for a trial before the election. That's a huge concern."
Trump was not at the Supreme Court on Thursday; he was at his trial in New York, where he faces 34 counts for allegedly falsifying business records related to hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 election cycle. The are two other cases: a federal one for mishandling classified material and another in Georgia for interfering with the last presidential contest.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Just the Beginning': 50+ Arrested for Blockading Citigroup Bank Over Climate Crimes
"Through people-powered resistance, we can give money a conscience and stop Citi's destruction of our planet," said one Indigenous campaigner.
Apr 25, 2024
Twenty more demonstrators were arrested Thursday, the second day of Earth Week protests targeting Citigroup's Manhattan headquarters in what organizers called "the beginning of a wave of direct actions to take place over the summer targeting big banks for creating climate chaos that is killing our communities and our planet."
Protest organizers—who include Climate Defenders, New York Communities for Change, Planet over Profit, and Stop the Money Pipeline—said 53 activists were arrested over two days of demonstrations, which included blocking the entrance to Citigroup's headquarters, to "demand that the bank stop funding fossil fuels."
Organizers said this week's demonstrations "were just the beginning" of what they're calling a "Summer of Heat" targeting big banks for their role in the climate emergency and for "polluting our land, air, and water, and threatening the health of children, families, and our planet." Citigroup is the world's second-largest fossil fuel financier.
"We're holding Citi accountable for financing dirty fossil fuels from Canada to Latin America and beyond," said Chief Na'moks of the Wet'suwet'en Nation, one of several Indigenous leaders who took part in the action. "Through people-powered resistance, we can give money a conscience and stop Citi's destruction of our planet."
Jonathan Westin, executive director of Climate Defenders, asserted that "Citigroup's racist funding of oil, coal, and gas is creating climate chaos that's devastating communities of color across the country."
"We're taking action to tell Citi that we won't put up with their environmental racism for one more day," Westin continued. "Our communities have reached the boiling point. Our children have asthma, our city's sky was orange, and our air polluted because of the climate crisis caused by Citi and Wall Street."
"We're going to keep organizing and taking direct action until Citi listens to us," he vowed.
Stop the Money Pipeline co-director Alec Connon said: "To have any chance of reigning in the climate crisis, we must stop investing in fossil fuel expansion. Yet, Citibank is pumping billions of dollars into new coal, oil, and gas projects."
"We're here to make it clear: If they're going to fund the companies disrupting our climate and our lives, we're going to disrupt their business," Connon added.
Activists have repeatedly targeted Citigroup in recent years as the megabank has pumped more than $300 billion into fossil fuel investments around the world since the Paris climate agreement.
According to the protest organizers:
Citi has provided $668 million in funding to Formosa Plastics between 2001-2021, which is trying to build a $9.4 billion plastics facility in a majority Black community in the heart of Cancer Alley in Louisiana.
Citigroup is also one of the biggest funders of state-run oil and gas companies in the Amazon basin, pumping in over $40 billion between 2016-2020, and a major backer of Petroperú, which has been involved in oil spills and Indigenous rights violations.
"From wildfires, heatwaves, and floods to deadly air pollution and mass drought, Citi's fossil fuel financing is killing us," said Alice Hu of New York Communities for Change. "We've sent polite petitions and had pleading meetings with bank representatives, but Citi refuses to stop pouring billions each year into coal, oil, and gas."
"That's why we're fighting for our lives now with the best tool we have left: mass, nonviolent disruptive civil disobedience," Hu added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular