August, 16 2010, 10:39am EDT
Kyrgyzstan: Probe Forces' Role in June Violence
Ongoing Investigation Marred by Abuses
BISHKEK
Some government forces acted, knowingly or unwittingly, to
facilitate attacks on ethnic Uzbek neighborhoods in the violence in
southern Kyrgyzstan in June 2010, Human Rights Watch said in a new
report released today. Local law enforcement agencies also failed to
provide appropriate protection to the Uzbek community, Human Rights
Watch said.
The 91-page report "'Where is the Justice?': Interethnic Violence in Southern Kyrgyzstan and its Aftermath,"
also said that the government's investigation into the violence, which
left hundreds dead and thousands injured, has been marred with abuses,
while new ethnically motivated attacks are taking place in the south.
The authorities should thoroughly investigate government forces' role in
the violence and prosecute those responsible, Human Rights Watch said.
The report is based on more than 200 interviews with Kyrgyz and Uzbek
victims and witnesses, lawyers, human rights defenders, government
officials, and law enforcement personnel. The report also analyzes
satellite imagery and photographic, video, documentary, and forensic
evidence.
"It's clear that the massive ethnic violence posed colossal
challenges for Kyrgyz security forces," said Ole Solvang, emergencies
researcher at Human Rights Watch and one of the authors of the report.
"Yet we found that some of the security forces became part of the
problem rather than the solution."
The violence in southern Kyrgyzstan began on June 10, when a large
crowd of ethnic Uzbeks gathered in response to a minor fight between
Uzbeks and Kyrgyz in a casino in the center of Osh. Several violent
attacks during the night of June 10 against ethnic Kyrgyz and the
torching of several buildings enraged ethnic Kyrgyz from Osh and outside
villages, thousands of whom filed into the city. From early morning on
June 11 through June 14, crowds attacked Uzbek neighborhoods, whose
residents in some cases fought back. Mobs looted and torched Uzbek shops
and homes in Osh, Jalal-Abad, Bazar-Kurgan, and other southern towns -
in several areas burning entire neighborhoods to the ground.
At least 371 people, and possibly many more, were killed as a result
of the mayhem. Several thousand buildings, mainly belonging to ethnic
Uzbeks, were completely destroyed.
Witnesses from the destroyed neighborhoods consistently told Human
Rights Watch that men in camouflage uniforms on armored military
vehicles removed makeshift barricades erected by residents, giving the
mobs access to the neighborhoods. Often, witnesses said, armed men
followed the armored vehicles into the neighborhoods, shot at and chased
away remaining residents, and then let crowds loot and torch homes.
While the authorities claim that Kyrgyz mobs stole some weapons and
vehicles used in the attacks, this cannot completely account for the use
of military vehicles in the attacks, Human Rights Watch said.
Information gathered by Human Rights Watch indicates that in at least
some neighborhoods, government forces were in control of the vehicles.
It further shows that in some instances government forces that went to
the neighborhoods to disarm residents living there, either intentionally
or unintentionally gave cover to violent mobs carrying out attacks. An
additional question that requires investigation is whether they actively
participated in these attacks, and if so, to what extent.
Human Rights Watch said that while the authorities might have had
legitimate security reasons to enter Uzbek neighborhoods, they did not
uphold their obligation to ensure the safety of the residents in light
of the clear and imminent threat posed by the mobs.
"National and international inquiries need to find out just what the
government forces did and whether the authorities did everything they
could to protect people," Solvang said. "This is crucial both for
justice and to learn lessons about how to respond to any new outbreaks."
Human Rights Watch said that widespread violations have taken place
in the course of the Kyrgyz authorities' investigation into the June
violence, which now consists of more than 3,500 criminal cases.
The report documents large-scale "sweep" operations in Uzbek
neighborhoods, during which law enforcement officers beat and insulted
residents and looted their homes. During one operation, in the village
of Nariman, security forces injured 39 residents, two of whom
subsequently died.
The report also documents abusive search and seizure operations that
security forces have conducted daily in Osh's predominantly Uzbek
neighborhoods. Dozens of witnesses provided consistent accounts of how
security forces searched homes without identifying themselves,
presenting a warrant, or explaining the reasons; detained people
without warrants; refused to tell the families where detainees were
being taken; and, in some cases, beat detainees and planted evidence,
such as spent cartridges.
The authorities routinely denied detainees the right to a lawyer and
other rights, and subjected them to ill-treatment and torture in
custody. Human Rights Watch received information about torture and
ill-treatment of more than 60 detainees, at least one of whom died as a
result of injuries suffered in custody.
While Kyrgyz authorities have not released figures showing the ethnic
breakdown of the detainees and claim they have detained both Uzbek and
Kyrgyz suspects, information collected by Human Rights Watch indicates
that the majority of the detainees are ethnic Uzbeks.
In the course of its research in Kyrgyzstan, Human Rights Watch
raised the issue of arbitrary arrests and torture in detention with
Kyrgyz authorities, including the president and interior minister, as
well as local law enforcement officials.
To their credit, senior government officials in Bishkek made several
statements calling on local officials to halt the abuses, and in a media
interview in August, President Roza Otunbaeva also acknowledged that
some abuses had taken place. Yet in meetings with Human Rights Watch,
law enforcement officials in Osh variously dismissed allegations of
abuse and defended the practice.
"Those responsible for the heinous crimes against both Kyrgyz and
Uzbeks during the June violence should be prosecuted irrespective of
their ethnicity, title, or rank," Solvang said. "But there cannot be a
proper investigation unless the authorities respect Kyrgyz and
international laws, and there is no reason the Kyrgyz authorities can't
immediately put a stop to the abuses in custody."
Human Rights Watch said continued abuses fuel tensions in the already volatile situation.
On July 22, the member states of the Organization for Security and
Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) agreed to deploy a small advisory police
group to southern Kyrgyzstan to assist the Kyrgyz authorities in
reducing ethnic tensions. Human Rights Watch called on the OSCE to
ensure that the force arrives quickly and works effectively. Human
Rights Watch also called on all interested governments and the United
Nations to support an international inquiry into the violence and its
aftermath.
"The June violence has left deep scars," Solvang said. "For those
scars to heal there needs to be justice for what happened and equal
protection for all ethnic communities."
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
Critics Blast 'Reckless and Impossible' Bid to Start Operating Mountain Valley Pipeline
"The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over," said one environmental campaigner.
Apr 23, 2024
Environmental defenders on Tuesday ripped the company behind the Mountain Valley Pipeline for asking the federal government—on Earth Day—for permission to start sending methane gas through the 303-mile conduit despite a worsening climate emergency caused largely by burning fossil fuels.
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC sent a letter Monday to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Acting Secretary Debbie-Anne Reese seeking final permission to begin operation on the MVP next month, even while acknowledging that much of the Virginia portion of the pipeline route remains unfinished and developers have yet to fully comply with safety requirements.
"In a manner typical of its ongoing disrespect for the environment, Mountain Valley Pipeline marked Earth Day by asking FERC for authorization to place its dangerous, unnecessary pipeline into service in late May," said Jessica Sims, the Virginia field coordinator for Appalachian Voices.
"MVP brazenly asks for this authorization while simultaneously notifying FERC that the company has completed less than two-thirds of the project to final restoration and with the mere promise that it will notify the commission when it fully complies with the requirements of a consent decree it entered into with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration last fall," she continued.
"Requesting an in-service decision by May 23 leaves the company very little time to implement the safety measures required by its agreement with PHMSA," Sims added. "There is no rush, other than to satisfy MVP's capacity customers' contracts—a situation of the company's own making. We remain deeply concerned about the construction methods and the safety of communities along the route of MVP."
Russell Chisholm, co-director of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR) Coalition—which called MVP's request "reckless and impossible"—said in a statement that "we are watching our worst nightmare unfold in real-time: The reckless MVP is barreling towards completion."
"During construction, MVP has contaminated our water sources, destroyed our streams, and split the earth beneath our homes. Now they want to run methane gas through their degraded pipes and shoddy work," Chisholm added. "The MVP is a glaring human rights violation that is indicative of the widespread failures of our government to act on the climate crisis in service of the fossil fuel industry."
POWHR and activists representing frontline communities affected by the pipeline are set to take part in a May 8 demonstration outside project financier Bank of America's headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Appalachian Voices noted that MVP's request comes days before pipeline developer Equitrans Midstream is set to release its 2024 first-quarter earnings information on April 30.
MVP is set to traverse much of Virginia and West Virginia, with the Southgate extension running into North Carolina. Outgoing U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and other pipeline proponents fought to include expedited construction of the project in the debt ceiling deal negotiated between President Joe Biden and congressional Republicans last year.
On Monday, climate and environmental defenders also petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging FERC's approval of the MVP's planned Southgate extension, contending that the project is so different from original plans that the government's previous assent is now irrelevant.
"Federal, state, and local elected officials have spoken out against this unneeded proposal to ship more methane gas into North Carolina," said Sierra Club senior field organizer Caroline Hansley. "The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over. After MVP Southgate requested a time extension for a project that it no longer plans to construct, it should be sent back to the drawing board for this newly proposed project."
David Sligh, conservation director at Wild Virginia, said: "Approving the Southgate project is irresponsible. This project will pose the same kinds of threats of damage to the environment and the people along its path as we have seen caused by the Mountain Valley Pipeline during the last six years."
"FERC has again failed to protect the public interest, instead favoring a profit-making corporation," Sligh added.
Others renewed warnings about the dangers MVP poses to wildlife.
"The endangered bats, fish, mussels, and plants in this boondoggle's path of destruction deserve to be protected from killing and habitat destruction by a project that never received proper approvals in the first place," Center for Biological Diversity attorney Perrin de Jong said. "Our organization will continue fighting this terrible idea to the bitter end."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Seismic Win for Workers': FTC Bans Noncompete Clauses
Advocates praised the FTC "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
Apr 23, 2024
U.S. workers' rights advocates and groups celebrated on Tuesday after the Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to approve a ban on most noncompete clauses, which Democratic FTC Chair Lina Khansaid "keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism."
"The FTC's final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market," Khan added, pointing to the commission's estimates that the policy could mean another $524 for the average worker, over 8,500 new startups, and 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year.
As Economic Policy Institute (EPI) president Heidi Shierholz explained, "Noncompete agreements are employment provisions that ban workers at one company from working for, or starting, a competing business within a certain period of time after leaving a job."
"These agreements are ubiquitous," she noted, applauding the ban. "EPI research finds that more than 1 out of every 4 private-sector workers—including low-wage workers—are required to enter noncompete agreements as a condition of employment."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has suggested it plans to file a lawsuit that, as The American Prospectdetailed, "could more broadly threaten the rulemaking authority the FTC cited when proposing to ban noncompetes."
Already, the tax services and software provider Ryan has filed a legal challenge in federal court in Texas, arguing that the FTC is unconstitutionally structured.
Still, the Democratic commissioners' vote was still heralded as a "seismic win for workers." Echoing Khan's critiques of such noncompetes, Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert declared that such clauses "inflict devastating harms on tens of millions of workers across the economy."
"The pervasive use of noncompete clauses limits worker mobility, drives down wages, keeps Americans from pursuing entrepreneurial dreams and creating new businesses, causes more concentrated markets, and keeps workers stuck in unsafe or hostile workplaces," she said. "Noncompete clauses are both an unfair method of competition and aggressively harmful to regular people. The FTC was right to tackle this issue and to finalize this strong rule."
Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, praised the FTC for "listening to the comments of thousands of entrepreneurs and workers of all income levels across industries" and finalizing a rule that "is a clear-cut win."
Demand Progress' Emily Peterson-Cassin similarly commended the commission "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
While such agreements are common across various industries, Teófilo Reyes, chief of staff at the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, said that "many restaurant workers have been stuck at their job, earning as low as $2.13 per hour, because of the noncompete clause that they agreed to have in their contract."
"They didn't know that it would affect their wages and livelihood," Reyes stressed. "Most workers cannot negotiate their way out of a noncompete clause because noncompetes are buried in the fine print of employment contracts. A full third of noncompete clauses are presented after a worker has accepted a job."
Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) executive director Mike Pierce pointed out that the FTC on Tuesday "recognized the harmful role debt plays in the workplace, including the growing use of training repayment agreement provisions, or TRAPs, and took action to outlaw TRAPs and all other employer-driven debt that serve the same functions as noncompete agreements."
Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at Open Markets Institute, highlighted that the addition came after his group, SBPC, and others submitted comments on the "significant gap" in the commission's initial January 2023 proposal, and also welcomed that "the final rule prohibits both conventional noncompete clauses and newfangled versions like TRAPs."
Jonathan Harris, a Loyola Marymount University law professor and SBPC senior fellow, said that "by also banning functional noncompetes, the rule stays one step ahead of employers who use 'stay-or-pay' contracts as workarounds to existing restrictions on traditional noncompetes. The FTC has decided to try to avoid a game of whack-a-mole with employers and their creative attorneys, which worker advocates will applaud."
Among those applauding was Jean Ross, president of National Nurses United, who said that "the new FTC rule will limit the ability of employers to use debt to lock nurses into unsafe jobs and will protect their role as patient advocates."
Angela Huffman, president of Farm Action, also cheered the effort to stop corporations from holding employees "hostage," saying that "this rule is a critical step for protecting our nation's workers and making labor markets fairer and more competitive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Discriminatory' North Carolina Law Criminalizing Felon Voting Struck Down
One plaintiffs' attorney said the ruling "makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society."
Apr 23, 2024
Democracy defenders on Tuesday hailed a ruling from a U.S. federal judge striking down a 19th-century North Carolina law criminalizing people who vote while on parole, probation, or post-release supervision due to a felony conviction.
In Monday's decision, U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs—an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama—sided with the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action NC, who argued that the 1877 law discriminated against Black people.
"The challenged statute was enacted with discriminatory intent, has not been cleansed of its discriminatory taint, and continues to disproportionately impact Black voters," Biggs wrote in her 25-page ruling.
Therefore, according to the judge, the 1877 law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
"We are ecstatic that the court found in our favor and struck down this racially discriminatory law that has been arbitrarily enforced over time," Action NC executive director Pat McCoy said in a statement. "We will now be able to help more people become civically engaged without fear of prosecution for innocent mistakes. Democracy truly won today!"
Voting rights tracker Democracy Docket noted that Monday's ruling "does not have any bearing on North Carolina's strict felony disenfranchisement law, which denies the right to vote for those with felony convictions who remain on probation, parole, or a suspended sentence—often leaving individuals without voting rights for many years after release from incarceration."
However, Mitchell Brown, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, said that "Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to reengage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
"It also makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society, specifically Black voters who were the target of this law," Brown added.
North Carolina officials have not said whether they will appeal Biggs' ruling. The state Department of Justice said it was reviewing the decision.
According to Forward Justice—a nonpartisan law, policy, and strategy center dedicated to advancing racial, social, and economic justice in the U.S. South, "Although Black people constitute 21% of the voting-age population in North Carolina, they represent 42% of the people disenfranchised while on probation, parole, or post-release supervision."
The group notes that in 44 North Carolina counties, "the disenfranchisement rate for Black people is more than three times the rate of the white population."
"Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to re-engage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
In what one civil rights leader called "the largest expansion of voting rights in this state since the 1965 Voting Rights Act," a three-judge state court panel voted 2-1 in 2021 to restore voting rights to approximately 55,000 formerly incarcerated felons. The decision made North Carolina the only Southern state to automatically restore former felons' voting rights.
Republican state legislators appealed that ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which in 2022 granted their request for a stay—but only temporarily, as the court allowed a previous injunction against any felony disenfranchisement based on fees or fines to stand.
However, last April the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the three-judge panel decision, stripping voting rights from thousands of North Carolinians previously convicted of felonies. Dissenting Justice Anita Earls opined that "the majority's decision in this case will one day be repudiated on two grounds."
"First, because it seeks to justify the denial of a basic human right to citizens and thereby perpetuates a vestige of slavery, and second, because the majority violates a basic tenant of appellate review by ignoring the facts as found by the trial court and substituting its own," she wrote.
As similar battles play out in other states, Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont in December introduced legislation to end former felon disenfranchisement in federal elections and guarantee incarcerated people the right to vote.
Currently, only Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia allow all incarcerated people to vote behind bars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular