September, 10 2009, 02:59pm EDT
Egypt: Stop Killing Migrants in Sinai
Israel Should Stop Returning Migrants to Egypt Without Allowing Asylum Claims
NEW YORK
Egyptian authorities should bring an immediate end to the unlawful killings of migrants and asylum seekers near Egypt's Sinai border with Israel, Human Rights Watch said today. According to news reports, Egyptian border guards shot and killed four migrants on September 9, 2009, bringing to at least 12 the number killed since May as they tried to cross into Israel.
General Muhammad Shousha, the governor of North Sinai, was quoted after the recent killings justifying the policy of shooting at the migrants as "necessary." The latest killings come just days before President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel are scheduled to hold high-level talks in Cairo on September 13.
"Egypt has every right to manage its borders, but using routine lethal force against unarmed migrants - and potential asylum seekers - would be a serious violation of the right to life," said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "These individuals appeared to post no threat to the lives of the border guards or anyone else. Attempted border crossings are not a capital offense."
Human Rights Watch said that Israel's policy of forcibly returning to Egypt some of those who do make it across, without considering any possible asylum claims, also violates international law.
Al Masry Al Youm, an independent Egyptian daily, on September 9 quoted Shousha as saying: "Of course it's not a mistake that we shoot them - it's necessary to shoot them. To deal with an infiltrator, he has to be fired at. If we say, 'Stop where are you going?' he's not going to stop so we have to shoot him. The distance to the border is only a few meters so if the infiltrator does not realize that if he goes near the border he will be shot at, the situation will be chaotic."
Human Rights Watch previously documented that, between July 2007 and October 2008, Egyptian border guards killed at least 33 migrants and wounded scores of others at or near the Sinai border with Israel.
Some wounded migrants manage to cross into Israel. Visitors who regularly visit Ketziot prison in Israel, where the migrants are taken, told Human Rights Watch that they typically see five or more migrants who have recently been treated at the Soroka Hospital in Be'er Sheva for gunshot wounds after crossing the border with Egypt. The consistency of injuries, as well as the reported deaths, indicate that Egyptian border guards frequently resort to lethal force in their efforts to prevent people from crossing the border.
Under international law, security officials acting in a law enforcement capacity may use lethal force only as a proportional and necessary response to a threat to life. There is no evidence that the Egyptian border guards used lethal force in order to protect their lives or the lives of anyone else. The UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms provide that law enforcement officials "shall, as far as possible, apply non-violent means before resorting to the use of force" and may use force "only if other means remain ineffective." When the use of force is unavoidable, law enforcement officials must "exercise restraint in such use and act in proportion to the seriousness of the offence."
Human Rights Watch recognizes that the security situation in Sinai is complicated and that the government has legitimate security concerns. On August 3, smugglers shot an Egyptian border guard dead in an exchange of fire. However, these security concerns do not justify shooting unarmed migrants and refugees at all points along the 200-kilometer Sinai border.
Human Rights Watch also criticized Israel's policy of forcibly returning to Egypt, in violation of international refugee law, some migrants who do make it across the border and are captured near the border by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), without granting them an opportunity to present asylum claims.
An Israeli reserve soldier, testifying before an Israeli court, said that on June 13, his unit apprehended near the border with Egypt a group of 10 migrants and asylum seekers who identified themselves as Eritrean. His deputy commander ordered them to be returned to Egypt "if there is no one from Darfur among them."
"When the people understood we were about to return them to the Egyptian policemen who arrived at the place," the soldier continued, "they started to cry and beg. We did not understand the language they spoke, but it was obvious they were afraid and it was terrible. We ignored their pleas and transferred them to the Egyptian policemen who gathered on the other side of the fence."
Migrants and refugees who are forcibly returned to Egypt face arbitrary arrest and detention, unfair trials before military courts, and forcible deportation without the chance to make asylum claims.
Egyptian authorities are arresting an increasing number of refugees and migrants as they try to cross the border or when they are returned by Israel, and charging them with illegal entry. Egyptian security officers arrested 85 refugees and migrants between January and May, but the number jumped to 144 in June and 169 in July. The Egyptian authorities hold the refugees and migrants in detention centers in Aswan, New Valley, Red Sea, and North Sinai governorates and deny the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) access to them. They are subsequently tried before military courts, which do not meet international fair trial standards.
Under international human rights and refugee law, Israel and Egypt are obliged to assess the protection needs of the migrants and asylum seekers on their territory, including those apprehended by their security forces. Neither country should return anyone to a country where the person would face the risk of torture, persecution or other ill-treatment.
Egypt should also allow UNHCR access to all asylum seekers in custody, including those not yet registered with the agency, who claim a need for international protection. Under the terms of a 1954 memorandum of understanding, Egypt has devolved all responsibility for refugee status determination to the refugee agency. Under these circumstances, Egyptian officials need to ensure that UNHCR has access to all detained migrants to give them the opportunity to present asylum claims. Only after concluding that process could Egypt consider deporting those who fall outside the protection of international refugee and human rights law.
Eritreans, who form a large proportion of African migrants and refugees crossing the Sinai, are at particularly high risk if returned to Eritrea by Israel or Egypt. The UNHCR has recommended that host governments refrain from forcibly returning rejected asylum seekers to Eritrea because it is likely that all returned Eritreans will be subjected to detention and torture. Eritrea routinely imprisons individuals caught trying to flee the country and issues "shoot-to-kill" orders for anyone found crossing the border without permission.
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
Roughly 900 US Troops Still in Syria as Rebels Close in on Damascus
"Whether the Pentagon wants to admit it or not," U.S. troops "are likely involved in the broader conflict unfolding there right now," warned one analyst.
Dec 07, 2024
Syrian rebel groups' rapid advance on the nation's capital city of Damascus and the possible collapse of President Bashar al-Assad's government after more than a decade of civil war has brought renewed attention to the continued presence of U.S. forces in the country, despite the absence of a clear legal authorization.
The U.S. is believed to have around 900 troops deployed to Syria, mostly in the northeast, as well as an unknown number of private contractors. Nick Turse, a contributing writer for The Intercept, observed Thursday that American forces in Syria "have, on average, come under fire multiple times each week since last October," according to internal Pentagon statistics.
"Keeping military personnel in harm's way for the sake of foreign policy credibility has become increasingly risky with the Gaza war and the flare-up of the Syrian civil war," Turse wrote.
Kelley Vlahos, senior adviser to the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, wrote Saturday morning that "whether the Pentagon wants to admit it or not," U.S. troops "are likely involved in the broader conflict unfolding there right now."
Reutersreported Tuesday that as rebels advanced toward the city of Hama, "fighters from a U.S.-backed, Kurdish-led coalition battled government forces in the northeast, both sides said, opening a new front along a vital supply route" and "compounding Assad's problems."
As the coalition of groups led by the Islamist organization Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and factions of the Turkey-backed Syrian National Army has quickly seized control of large swaths of territory, the White House National Security Council (NSC) said in a statement last weekend that the U.S.—which has previously armed and trained Syrian rebels—"has nothing to do with this offensive."
"The United States, together with its partners and allies, urge de-escalation, protection of civilians and minority groups, and a serious and credible political process that can end this civil war once and for all with a political settlement consistent with UNSCR 2254," said NSC spokesperson Sean Savett. "We will also continue to fully defend and protect U.S. personnel and U.S. military positions, which remain essential to ensuring that ISIS can never again resurge in Syria."
On Friday, the White House said in a letter to Congress that "a small presence of United States Armed Forces remains in strategically significant locations in Syria to conduct operations, in partnership with local, vetted ground forces, to address continuing terrorist threats emanating from Syria."
President-elect Donald Trump, who during his first term opted to keep U.S. troops in Syria for the openly stated purpose of exploiting the country's oil fields, wrote in a social media post on Saturday that "the United States should have nothing to do with" the current conflict.
"This is not our fight," he wrote in all caps. "Let it play out. Do not get involved!"
Trump's post, as The Associated Pressreported, came as rebels' "stunning march across Syria gained speed... with news that they had reached the suburbs of the capital and with the government forced to deny rumors that President Bashar al-Assad had fled the country."
Hassan Abdul-Ghani, an insurgent commander, said in a Telegram post that rebels are entering the "final stage" of their offensive as they began to encircle Syria's capital. Citing unnamed local sources, Al Jazeerareported that "a state of panic has spread as army troops withdraw from their positions around Damascus."
"They also confirmed that opposition forces had advanced in the western Damascus countryside and the withdrawal of army forces from cities and towns in Eastern Ghouta," the outlet added. "There was a rush for food items in markets in the capital."
Government forces have been backed by Russian airstrikes, Hezbollah, and Iraqi militia fighters.
Reutersreported that "Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said in an Arabic-language interview that Tehran would consider sending troops to Syria if Damascus asked, and Russian President Vladimir Putin urged an end to 'terrorist aggression' in Syria."
In a video statement on Saturday, a Syrian military commander said that "our valiant army continues to carry out its operations against terrorist gatherings at high rates in the directions of the Hama and Homs countrysides and the northern Daraa countryside, inflicting hundreds of deaths and injuries on the terrorists."
Anti-war lawmakers in the U.S. have repeatedly questioned the role of American troops in Syria in recent years and launched efforts to force their withdrawal.
In March 2023, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the U.S. House put forth a resolution that would have required full withdrawal of American forces from Syria within 180 days of passage in the absence of congressional action authorizing their continued presence.
The resolution was voted down by 170 Republicans and 150 Democrats.
Months later, the U.S. Senate tanked a similar effort.
Erik Sperling, executive director of the advocacy group Just Foreign Policy, told The Intercept on Thursday that the Biden administration hasn't "put the war in Syria up for debate because they know the American people don't want another war in the Middle East."
"They know there is no popular support for putting U.S. troops at risk for this," said Sperling, who warned that "many of Trump's advisers will try to drag him deeper into this regional conflict in the Middle East."
The explosion of Syria's civil war in recent days has been disastrous for civilians in the crossfire.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) said Wednesday that "the outbreak of major hostilities... raises concerns that civilians face a real risk of serious abuses at the hands of opposition armed groups and the Syrian government."
"The bloody record of atrocities by all parties to the conflict in Syria is bound to persist until leaders go beyond words and support accountability efforts," said Adam Coogle, HRW's deputy Middle East director. "Without credible justice, there will be no end in sight to the suffering Syrians have endured, no matter who controls the land."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Fury as South Korea's Conservative Party Thwarts Impeachment Vote
"Today, citizens witnessed democracy taking a step backward," said the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions.
Dec 07, 2024
A bid to impeach South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol over his short-lived imposition of martial law failed Saturday after lawmakers from his conservative party left the National Assembly chamber and refused to take part in the vote.
Supporters of impeachment needed at least eight members of Yoon's People Power Party (PPP) to support removing the president, who apologized to the nation in a one-minute-long address Saturday morning but refused to step down after he briefly instituted martial law in a stated attempt to "eradicate shameful pro-North Korea" forces, plunging the country into a political crisis.
Yoon's gambit sparked immediate and sustained protests and was widely seen as a coup attempt.
Saturday's impeachment effort drew a massive number of people into the streets outside the National Assembly building despite below-freezing temperatures, and demonstrators voiced outrage when they learned that Yoon's allies thwarted the initial attempt to oust him. Just two PPP members returned to the National Assembly chamber to cast a ballot Saturday.
"I am so angry. I can't find the words to describe my frustration," 23-year-old Kim Hyo-lim toldThe New York Times. "I am devastated, but I feel honored to be a part of this historic moment for my country."
Another demonstrator said they intend to protest "every weekend" until Yoon is removed.
(Photo: Daniel Ceng/Anadolu via Getty Images)
Organizers said roughly a million people took part in demonstrations Saturday in support of Yoon's impeachment. Many also demanded his arrest.
The Financial Timesreported following the failed impeachment effort that Yoon—whose term expires in 2027—and PPP leaders "appeared to have reached a deal whereby the president would hand over political direction of the country to his party and agree to stand down at a time of the party's choosing, in return for support in the impeachment vote."
The Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU), which has over 1.1 million members, called PPP lawmakers who boycotted Saturday's vote "accomplices in treason."
"The People Power Party has turned its back on the people's wishes, effectively admitting their complicity," KCTU said in a statement posted to social media. "More than one million citizens gathered in front of the National Assembly. They came together because they cannot forgive a president who declared martial law and aimed weapons at his own people. Despite the cold winter weather, they took to the streets hoping desperately for the impeachment to pass."
"Today, citizens witnessed democracy taking a step backward," KCTU added. "They saw clearly who stands with those who would harm our democracy. The People Power Party must be dissolved. Those who protect Yoon must face consequences. It would be a grave mistake to think this can be resolved through compromise or constitutional amendments for an early resignation. Through the people's judgment, Yoon, his associates, and the People Power Party will face severe consequences."
Opposition lawmakers are expected to file a fresh impeachment motion next week as pressure mounts for Yoon to step down.
Additionally, as The Washington Postreported, "the national police have opened an investigation into Yoon on treason accusations by opposition parties and activists."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Top Democrat Issues Warning Over Trump Plot to 'Steal' From Federal Programs
"The Constitution provides no impoundment power to the president to unilaterally withhold funds appropriated by Congress," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro.
Dec 07, 2024
The top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee warned Friday that President-elect Donald Trump is planning to "steal from the programs and services that affect middle-class, working, and vulnerable families" by refusing to spend money appropriated by Congress.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said in a statement that Trump's strategy, known as "impoundment," is "uninformed and unconstitutional," adding that "the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice, and the Government Accountability Office are all in agreement—the Constitution provides no impoundment power to the president to unilaterally withhold funds appropriated by Congress."
"It is the sworn duty of the president of the United States to faithfully execute the law," DeLauro added, "and appropriations laws are no exception."
In a new fact sheet, Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee note that "the Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse, and nowhere does it give the president any unilateral power to either temporarily or permanently impound—steal, withhold, or prevent from being spent—funds appropriated by Congress."
"The Framers were right to give Congress the power of the purse," the fact sheet states. "If the president had the unilateral power to decline to spend resources as directed by Congress, then those who rely on Social Security, Medicare, Veterans Medical Care, and other federal spending programs would be subject to the whims of the executive branch. The American people would be unable to depend on promises made by Congress in appropriations laws."
Trump has explicitly vowed to use impoundment to "squeeze the bloated federal bureaucracy for massive savings," a plan endorsed by the billionaire pair tapped by the president-elect to run a new commission tasked with identifying spending and regulations to slash.
"With impoundment, we can simply choke off the money," Trump declared in a campaign ad.
"They have no authority. Does anybody get that?"
Following Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy's visit to Capitol Hill on Thursday to discuss their plans for the "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE) with GOP lawmakers, The Washington Postreported that Republicans are "keen on expanding the president's power to impound spending—or refuse to spend money Congress authorizes."
"Musk and Ramaswamy said they were eager to test the constitutional limits of Trump's ability to unilaterally control spending decisions," the Post reported, citing two unnamed lawmakers. "Republicans largely left the more than two-hour meeting giddy."
Analysts argue Trump's plan to withhold federal spending would run afoul of the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The law, as Propublica's Molly Redden explained, "forbids presidents from blocking spending over policy disagreements."
"A similar power grab led to his first impeachment," Redden wrote. "During his first term, Trump held up nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine while he pressured President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to open a corruption investigation into Joe Biden and his family. The U.S. Government Accountability Office later ruled his actions violated the Impoundment Control Act."
Democrats on the House Budget Committee recently pointed out that "although decided after the ICA passed, the Supreme Court unanimously held in Train v. City of New York that even without the ICA, the president does not have unilateral authority to impound funds."
That hasn't stopped Trump, Musk, and Ramaswamy from exploring ways to cut or block spending without congressional approval.
In a Wall Street Journalop-ed published last month, Musk and Ramaswamy wrote that "even without relying on" the view that the ICA is unconstitutional, "DOGE will help end federal overspending by taking aim at the $500 billion-plus in annual federal expenditures that are unauthorized by Congress or being used in ways that Congress never intended, from $535 million a year to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and $1.5 billion for grants to international organizations to nearly $300 million to progressive groups like Planned Parenthood."
Housing assistance, childcare aid, student loan programs, and other spending would also be vulnerable under such an approach.
"They want [to cut] $2 trillion," DeLauro told reporters Thursday. "Think about the discretionary budget. It's $1.7 trillion. Where are they going for the money? Where are they going?"
"They have no authority," she added. "Does anybody get that?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular