Explore the interactive map of suspected places of detention in Eritrea.

As the 20 year anniversary of Eritrea’s independence from Ethiopia approaches, the euphoria and – one may speculate – hope, that characterized celebrations on May 24, 1993 could hardly be more incongruent with the bleak reality faced by the Eritrean people today.

The scope of repression in Eritrea is truly striking. Thousands of prisoners of conscience and political prisoners have disappeared into a vast and secret system of detention, many never to be heard from again. This system of abuse is used to silent all dissent and punish anyone who refuses to comply, including suspected critics of the government, journalists, pastors and other members of “unregistered” religious groups, those who have been caught attempting to flee the country and those forcibly returned to Eritrea from other countries.

When individuals successfully flee Eritrea, their family members may be arrested in their stead.

With no independent judiciary in Eritrea, detention is often indefinite, and there is no official accounting for the fate of those swept up by the government’s crushing repression of dissent and non-conformity. Family members of those arrested have themselves been detained for simply asking questions about the fate of their loved ones. The use of torture – in both interrogation and used as punishment – is common. Followers of banned religions are tortured to force a recanting of their faith.

Mapping ‘Widespread’ and ‘Systematic’
The scale and scope of the atrocities that characterize 20 years of Eritrea’s independence require infrastructure; the machinery of torture, arbitrary detention, indefinite incommunicado detention, and “disappearances” require investment, and deliberate design.

The widespread nature of repression in Eritrea requires an extensive network of detention. Civilian prisons, military camps, and security service stations are all used to detain prisoners for long periods of time. Some are well-known facilities; many are part of a secret network of detention throughout the country. Those detained in this systematized and overcrowded infrastructure of repression may find themselves languishing in metal shipping containers, in make-shift or tiny underground cells, and in isolation with no sanitation.

 We couldn’t lie down [in the underground cell]. It’s best to be standing because if you lie down, your skin remains stuck to the floor. The floor is terribly hot. – former detainee in an underground cell in Wi’a military camp

Detainees are known to be forced into hard labor—including in Mai Edaga, Wi’a, and Alla camps—and forced into construction work outside of camps, such as on Dahlak Kebir Island.

The human rights tragedy that has gripped Eritrea for the entirety of its independence is of the gravest order; the deliberate investment by the Eritrean government into the widespread and systematic repression that characterizes both public and private life in the country is rivaled only by its efforts to control information about the appalling scale of repression and abuse. With information tightly controlled through fear, intimidation, and surveillance, and with no account of those detained, the exact number of those detained, tortured, and disappeared is impossible to determine. Even knowing the exact number or location of sites where thousands of Eritreans are held incommunicado is difficult.

Click to see the full map of the extensive network of detention facilities in Eritrea.

What is certain, based on testimony from defectors and asylum seekers, is that the repression described in Amnesty International’s recent briefing on the situation is widespread. By mapping just a sample of the suspected detention centers in Eritrea that form the backbone of the regime’s repression, one gets a glimpse of not only the widespread nature of detention in Eritrea, but the systematization of detention without charge or trial, and the associated human rights abuses such as torture and disappearance.

Abuse Inside and Out
Among those targeted for detention and torture are those who attempt to flee the country. Those who have been caught attempting to flee Eritrea have been tortured to extract information about anyone who may have assisted, as well as punishment for the “act of criticism” by attempting to seek asylum. Reprehensible and illegal treatment of Eritreans with an (obviously) well-founded fear of persecution extends beyond the borders of Eritrea and its engineered machinery of repression. Many refugees – predominately Eritrean – face kidnapping and human trafficking by criminal networks, especially in the Sinai.

Many more who have successfully fled Eritrea face discriminatory treatment and denial of access to asylum, most notably in Israel. In Israel, there have been troubling reports of imprisoned Eritrean refugees being coerced into “voluntarily” returning to Eritrea. Noteworthy, the United States recently reported on Israel’s discriminatory treatment of Eritrean and Sudanese refugees – who constitute 85% of all asylum seekers in the country – in its annual report on human rights practices by other countries.

It is unlikely that many Eritreans who are seeking asylum are anxious to voluntarily return to the country. As the process of requesting asylum in another country requires testifying to the persecution an asylum-seeker fears, those returned to Eritrea have been forced, under torture and threat of torture, to confess to treason for falsely claiming persecution in asylum applications or “discrediting” Eritrea.

From Amnesty International’s latest briefing on Eritrea:

[The] thousands of arrests are illustrative of an absolute intolerance of dissent on the part of the government and President Isaias Afewerki – dissent in the form of actual or suspected criticism of the government – including discussions of reform and human rights issues; but also dissent in the form of anyone who does not comply with the restrictive system imposed by the state – including restrictions on freedom of religion and the requirement of indefinite national service conscription, or anyone who rejects the system by trying to flee the country.

As the 20th anniversary of Eritrea’s independence approaches join Amnesty in its efforts to expose the human rights catastrophe that has been independent Eritrea’s history to date, and work to reaffirm the hope and celebration on May 24, 1993.

PS: A big thank you to Rosemary Wardley for the static map of suspected detention facilities in our new report!

Click on the image above to access the full-size infographic

As news breaks about the surrender of the “Terminator,” Bosco Ntaganda, to the United States embassy in Kigali today, the US State Department was quick to note that it “strongly support[s] the ICC and their investigations on the atrocities committed in the DRC.” Further, Ambassador Stephen Rapp, head of the Office of Global Criminal Justice, tweeted “Bosco #Ntaganda surrenders in #Rwanda and asks to the taken to the #ICC. We are helping to facilitate his transfer.”

This development, and the U.S. administration’s quick signaling of its intent to adhere to obligations to transfer Ntaganda to the court to answer charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity is welcome, and encouraging. Thus, I will not start with the call that “the US should take all steps to ensure the speedy transfer of Ntaganda to The Hague.”

What Happened?

Amnesty International, as part of a wide swath of civil society demanding the same, has been campaigning to see the fugitive Ntaganda appear before the ICC for years, as part of its broader effort to demand and secure justice for the Congolese people; it is natural to be curious as to “why now?”

The story behind his surrender to the US embassy will likely take some time to emerge. With reports of in-fighting among the armed M23 group in the DRC, and reports over the weekend that fighters loyal to Ntaganda had been “routed” by a rival faction, it may be that he simply saw the ICC as a safe alternative to the faction’s deteriorating situation. Maybe he was “encouraged” to surrender. I will note that it was interesting—if not telling—that the news of the surrender was first announced by the Rwandan government…but enough speculation.

What I am confident in offering is that his surrender is inseparable from the massive surge in pressure to secure justice for the worst of crimes under the law that is the charge of last resort for the ICC. The cumulative effects of the grassroots movement “Kony2012,” the Bashir Watch and justice for Darfur campaigns, the demands and actions taken to address the crimes in Syria, Sri Lanka, and elsewhere , and indeed the sustained call by activists to see fugitives from the ICC brought to justice (to name just a few), are yielding results.

I am confident that Bosco Ntaganda’s “decision” to surrender for transfer to the Hague wasn’t much of a decision at all; rather, it was the only meaningful option left, given the climate made possible by the strengthened and increasingly global sentiment that the perpetrators of the worst crimes against humanity can no longer enjoy impunity.

What Next?

Now, as for what is next: the US should take all steps to ensure the speedy transfer of Ntaganda to The Hague. As of this afternoon, it looks promising that the US will do so.

While the delivery of Ntaganda to the ICC to face charges for crimes he is accused of committing in the DRC will be yet another step forward for international justice, I needn’t tell this audience that justice for atrocities remains elusive. There are still fugitives from the ICC. There are still unanswered crimes in Sri Lanka, and no justice in sight for tens of thousands of Syrians who face atrocity today.

Yet, the Obama administration can do more than hand over wanted fugitives. By deed and through action, the administration can continue to repair the credibility of the US on the international stage and—as President Obama offered in his second inaugural address—allow the US to serve as a “source of hope” for those who long for “human dignity and justice”.

With the (hopefully) imminent transfer of “the Terminator” to the ICC, President Obama should strengthen the credibility of the US as a source of hope for those who long for justice by reaffirming the United States’ signature to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

You can ask him to do so here

This post is also available in Spanish.

Idrissa Maiga, a Malian farmer, prays among the graves of his wife and three of his children in a cemetery behind the Konna school on January 27, 2013 who were reportedly killed by French army air strikes on January 11. Maiga’s second wife, 41, and two boys and a girl aged from 10 to 14 allegedly perished on the morning of the 11th during the air raid and were buried the same afternoon. (Photo: FRED DUFOUR/AFP/Getty Images)

For background information on the French intervention and human rights situation in Mali, see here.

The French Defense Minister on Thursday said publicly that the “French intervention has succeeded.” Insofar as armed opposition and armed Islamist groups have either abandoned areas in the north of the country or tactically retreated—and this is a measure of success—that statement may be true.

Also released Thursday were initial findings from a ten day research mission in Mali by Amnesty International. In an unfortunate confirmation of the realization of  Amnesty International’s fears raised in December, the findings from this mission tell of the executions and disappearances of civilians, arbitrary arrests, beatings and ill-treatment, inter alia.

In addition to the deaths of civilians—including children—as a result of helicopter attacks, the mission findings told of horrific abuses by the Malian armed forces participating in the offensive made possible by French intervention and the logistical support of other countries. I found personally disturbing findings reminiscent of crimes committed in Darfur and elsewhere: the bodies of executed civilians thrown in water wells of Waïlurdé neighborhood of Sévaré; civilians being stopped, arrested, and executed based on what appears to be their clothing or ethnicity.

“From where I stood, I noticed that they were asked to sit before being shot down and thrown into the well. I do not know where the other ones were taken.” –Witness testimony provided to AI researchers

The horror of these crimes is made worse only by the likelihood they will continue. As is generally acknowledged, the fighting in Mali is likely not over despite the ousting of Islamist and other armed opposition groups from towns in the north. Indeed, the UN-mandated force—whose deployment has been accelerated—will be faced with the same unconscionable proposition: to operate under a mandate from the United Nations, and to do so alongside some Malian forces that are responsible for the crimes noted above, and a long history of others.

It strains credulity to call the events in Mali over the last month a success, save by the narrowest assessment, and with the security, dignity, and most fundamental rights of the civilians left out of the equation.

The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court warned the Malian government that it must investigate and prosecute those responsible for the crimes committed by Malian forces since the French intervention. The rest of the international community must—as a matter of urgency—do the same. Should those responsible for these crimes be allowed impunity, and allowed to participate in the UN-mandated force, any moral authority of that mandate and the credibility of contributing states will be at grave risk.

In this latest briefing, Amnesty International’s makes these and other urgent recommendations:

• Malian authorities must immediately open a thorough, independent and impartial investigation into these allegations and remove from duty any of the persons suspected of carrying out or ordering such acts. Where there is sufficient admissible evidence, suspected perpetrators should be prosecuted in fair trials.
• United Nations human rights observers must immediately be deployed, in sufficient numbers and well resourced, to monitor and report publicly on the human rights situation in the conflict areas. Particular attention should be given to situation of children affected by the conflict, including the use of child soldiers, as well as gender and sexual-based violence.
• Strict compliance should be given to the United Nations Human Rights Due Diligence Policy. Support for any military unit or other entity must be denied if there are substantial grounds for believing individuals may commit grave violations of international humanitarian, human rights and refugee law.

The human rights crisis in Mali remains yet far from new, and far from over.

France has deployed some 550 soldiers to Mali© Eric Feferberg/AFP/Getty

(For a helpful cheat sheet of armed groups in the north of Mali, see the end of this post.)

The notion that Mali faces crisis is not new. For the better part of a year, Amnesty International has been documenting and reporting the long catalogue of abuses and outright atrocities committed in the country, by the Malian military and Junta government, and the various armed opposition groups in the North: amputations and other gruesome corporal punishment, extra-judicial executions, rape and sexual violence, child soldiering, torture, stoning, disappearances, and arrests and killings based on ethnicity, to name just the most egregious.

Indeed, on this very blog, as early as May 2012, the situation in Mali was described as a “forgotten crisis” and by July, an “urgent crisis.” There are many human rights situations that could be called a crisis, to be fair. But with the catalyzed attention as a result of French intervention at the request of the Malian government last week, recognition of the crisis in Mali warrants an urgent appeal to stave off a disastrous worsening of the conditions and abuses faced by Malians, in the north and south, as well as those displaced to neighboring countries.

International Action

In the North, long-standing Tuareg and other secular armed opposition groups have been heavily supplanted by Islamist armed opposition in the last year. Cynically, it is the threats that these groups posed to the integrity of the Malian state and to broader regional stability rather than any human rights situation that was the impetus for the UN Security Council (UNSC) to invoke Chapter 7 of the UN Charter and mandate an African-led armed intervention in Mali in December 2012.

Cynicism aside, UNSC Resolution 2085—authorizing political support, training and military action to restore control over the north of Mali—contains meaningful reference to human rights and civilian protection. Amnesty International voiced concern, however, recognizing that the pattern of abuses committed by state security forces and armed opposition in the past year suggested a likely increase in human rights violations associated with an armed intervention.

This should be of little surprise—armed intervention and armed conflict in general are associated with increases in human rights abuses. Yet, I was optimistic. The operational timetable put deployment of the African-led intervention force well past summer, which provided not only cushion for securing funding and logistics for military planners, but offered a window to address a few critical human rights protections and compliance needs:

1.      Human Rights Monitors: An absolute necessity for any intervention is the deployment of human rights monitors to observe the conduct of operations, and Mali is no exception. The presence and unfettered access of monitors is a vital part of ensuring compliance with international law and documenting any violations, and the remoteness of much of Mali requires careful planning and support for effective monitoring.

2.      Ending Impunity: Particularly troubling is that among the Malian forces—as well as pro-government militia—are individuals who enjoy impunity for egregious human rights violations. As Amnesty has documented, at the outset of the conflict in the north, security forces responded to the uprising “by bombing Tuareg civilians, and arresting, torturing and killing Tuareg people apparently only on ethnic grounds.” Malian soldiers have been responsible for extrajudicial executions and enforced disappearances, including the execution of 16 members of a movement of preachers (the Dawa), after being taken from a vehicle in Diabaly. This small Malian town has been the scene of the most recent, all-night bombing. Participation by culpable individuals in the 2085-mandated operations not only threatens any moral credibility of the civilian protection mandate, but would be a clear threat to civilians already at risk by the operations themselves.

3.      Operational Planning and Training: With the originally-scheduled multi-month run-up to the deployment of the African-led force, there was ample time to develop operational rules to minimize threats to civilians as a result of operations. Most importantly, there was at least some time to train (vetted, non-human rights abusing) Malian forces on international humanitarian law and their obligations under the law, in order to further ensure the civilian protection mandate was achievable. And there was time to ensure that children were demobilized and removed from the ranks of militia and pro-government forces, and removed from the increasingly dangerous battlefield.

4.      Humanitarian Response: Finally, though maybe too optimistic on my part, the time granted opportunity to gather resources and develop plans to address the humanitarian effects of intervention and concomitant armed conflict, made particularly challenging as a result of recurrent food crises in the north of the country, and the Sahel more broadly. Well before the planned intervention start window, hundreds of thousands were displaced, and many more in urgent need of assistance. Those already displaced or in need of relief would find themselves exceptionally vulnerable as hostilities increased.

The French Connection

Of course, the French intervention in Mali has accelerated the timetable for the deployment of the force– by a lot. The mandated 3,000+ force and operation originally planned for September or so must now be quickly assembled. Nigeria, one of the contributing states, says it will deploy troops within the next 24 hours.

The other trappings of conflict and intervention have also been accelerated. UNHCR says tens of thousands have been displaced following French-Islamist clashes. Training for Malian security force counterparts on human rights law and the Geneva conventions has not taken place. Children are still at checkpoints, and may find themselves in the midst of hostilities, far from demobilized.

And far from ending the impunity enjoyed by those responsible for reprehensible crimes among the Malian forces, the military ranks remain un-vetted, and we risk soon seeing perpetrators fighting alongside a Chapter 7-mandated force with international support, in the very places and among the very populations of their original victims.

What Must Happen

• As a matter of utmost urgency, the international community must deploy human rights monitors to Mali, and they must have the material and human resources to do their job.
• The international community and neighboring states must be prepared to deal with the humanitarian and relief consequences of the accelerated fighting, and ensure those displaced have access to safety, food, shelter, and other basic needs.
• All necessary steps must be taken by international forces to protect civilians, provide civilians with sufficient warning of offensive operations, and steadfastly resist any indiscriminate bombing and shelling.
• The international community must ensure that it is not complicit in future human rights violations and atrocities through collaborative or joint operations by international forces with Malian forces who are responsible for crimes. This includes abuses of the sort that have already been perpetrated: indiscriminate attacks on civilians, the targeting of civilians based on ethnic identity, sexual violence, the use of child soldiers, extrajudicial killings, and torture.
• The international forces, in addition to their steadfast adherence to civilian protection and international humanitarian law must ensure that the Malian authorities investigate and prosecute—in accordance with internationally recognized standards of fair trials—any crimes committed by any armed personnel in Mali. Finally, as mandated in UNSC resolution 2085, the intervention must support fully the work of the International Criminal Court.

The crisis in Mali continues, and time is not on anyone’s side.

Who’s Who in the North:

Azawad National Liberation Movement (MNLA)

The MNLA was established in October 2011 from the merger of several previous Tuareg groups. In particular, it includes Tuaregs who had fled to Libya and then returned to Mali after the fall of Mouammar Gaddafi. It declares itself to be “a revolutionary movement fighting for the right to have auto-determination for Azawad.” The MNLA asserts that it is a secular movement.

Ansar Eddin/Ansar Dine

The group Ansar Eddin (which means “Defenders of the religion” in Arabic) was created in December 2011. Unlike the MNLA, the group Ansar Eddin does not challenge the territorial integrity of Mali and declares its intention to impose the Shari’a across the whole country.

Al-Qa’ida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM)

Deriving from the Algerian Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC), Al-Qa’ida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) was created following its allegiance on September 11, 2006, to Osama Bin Laden. They settled in the North of Mali, encountering no resistance from the Malian government. AQIM has fighters of various nationalities amongst its ranks, in particular Algerian, Mauritanian, Senegalese and Malian. Moreover, reports indicate the presence in the region of Boko Haram combatants (an Islamic group active in Nigeria), which has established links with AQIM.

The Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa (MUJAO)

MUJAO was created, at the end of 2011, from a defection from the ranks of AQIM. The movement claimed responsibility for the kidnapping, at the end of October 2011, in the Tindouf region (Southwest Algeria) of three humanitarian workers (two Spaniards and one Italian) and then the kidnapping of seven Algerian diplomats on 5 April 2012 in Gao.

Arab militias

For years, the Malian government has delegated security tasks to an Arab militia in Timbuktu. In April 2012, a political official of this city told the Amnesty International delegation about the origins of this group: “The Arab militia is ATT’s creation [the Malian President Amadou Toumani Touré] to fight against armed Tuareg groups. It is equipped by the Malian government and trained by members of the Malian army.”

Songhay militias

Moreover, there are two Songhay militias (black populations living along the Niger River) called Ganda Koy (“Masters of the earth” in Songhay) and Ganda Izo (“Sons of the country”). The patriotic movement, Ganda Koy, was created by former members of the Malian army during the Tuareg rebellions of the 1990s. After the peaceful settlement of the Tuareg rebellion in the mid-1990s, most members of the Ganda Koy were integrated into the Malian army or administration or returned to civilian life, but members of these groups continue to harass Tuaregs.

Mali military junta supporters (ISSOUF SANOGO/AFP/Getty Images)

The gruesome and horrific stoning of a man and woman in northern Mali is the latest event to remind the world of the crisis that has engulfed the West African country Mali. Since a military coup overthrew the democratically elected government in March, armed groups have taken control of the north of the country, committing abuses in an attempt to change behavior in accordance with a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam.

In the south of the country, political instability is compounding the abject human rights situation, where soldiers loyal to the Junta (the so-called “Green Berets”) have carried out egregious crimes, especially following an attempted counter-coup on April 30. The ECOWAS-supported transitional government appears to exercise little control in the south, and in a report released yesterday, Amnesty International detailed findings from a 10-day mission documenting likewise horrific crimes and disappearances.

In May, my colleague Christoph Koettl was among those sounding the alarm to the forgotten crisis that was Mali at the time. Three months later, brutal executions such as the couple stoned to death in the North continue to add to the list of grave abuses, including torture, extrajudicial executions, rape and sexual violence, recruitment of child soldiers, and many others that have engulfed the whole of Mali.

The situation in Mali has become so dire, that even some leaders in the region are forecasting intervention. The climate of fear that has been created in the opposition-controlled North and the crimes committed there under international law demand condemnation, investigation, and accountability. In the South, widespread disappearances, torture, and killing are possible only through the environment of impunity that the authorities have allowed to fester.

At the highest levels of the state, such as it is, authorities must officially and publicly denounce and prohibit these flagrant violations, investigate these crimes, and prosecute without delay where there is sufficient admissible evidence.

The abuses suffered by the people of Mali and the lack of accountability has gotten too little attention to date — and we must now urgently pay attention to the consequences that have followed from that neglect.

Click image to view full infographic and list of wanted fugatives

Today, supporters of human rights mark the Global Day for International Justice, an anniversary the need for which makes ‘celebration’ difficult, if not impossible.  A cursory look over last year of developments as it relates to securing justice for the most egregious of crimes—war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide—might yield cause for optimism, however.

Five Steps Forward for Justice

1. Over the last year, following a UN Security Council referral of Libya, the International Criminal Court (ICC) found reasonable grounds for issuing arrest warrants for top Libyan officials, even as conflict was ongoing, demonstrating the ability and importance of the court in active crises.
2. The ICC saw the first verdict and sentence handed down as Thomas Lubanga answered for conscription of children in devastating conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
3. Also over the last year, Laurent Gbagbo, the former head of state of Cote d’Ivoire, became the first head of state to be surrendered to the ICC for alleged crimes, only one week after his indictment.
4. At the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia, Ratko Mladic finally faces prosecution for alleged war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide for the largest mass murder in Europe since the end of World War II.
5. The first conviction of a former head of state since the Nuremburg trials, as my colleague Angela Chang describes, was a historic step for international justice.

Finally, this year has seen a dramatic increase in interest by the public at-large in international justice issues. Likely a combination of the successes noted above, the dramatic interest in the #Kony2012 campaign, and awareness of the brutal and unconscionable crimes committed in Syria, the Sudan, Libya, and elsewhere, there has been a real and palpable public awareness of the essential need for a functioning system of international justice.

Five Steps Back

1. In Sudan, where Amnesty continues to document ongoing war crimes and possible crimes against humanity in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states, the Sudan Defence Minister, the governor of Southern Kordofan, and the President of Sudan remain fugitives from the ICC for charges related to crimes in Darfur. The UN Security Council has yet to take any decisive action on the crisis, nor any meaningful condemnation of several countries  that have hosted the fugitives.
2. In the DRC, Bosco Ntganda—wanted by the ICC to answer charges of war crimes and child conscription—served as a Congelese general much of the year, until his recent defection and resumption of armed insurgency now threatening civilians in eastern DRC.
3. In Yemen, President Saleh secured immunity from criminal investigation and prosecution despite widespread and grave human rights violations that demand independent investigation.
4. In Sri Lanka, impunity for war crimes and other grave abuses committed in the waning months of conflict remain a stain on our fight for justice for victims.
5. Finally, as atrocities continue in Syria, the Security Council has yet to act on what should be the most non-controversial demand of Amnesty and others: refer the situation to the ICC prosecutor. The crimes committed in Syria evade description in their brutality, and utter rejection of the most basic norms and international law.  Further, they are self-evident crimes of the highest order, and steadfast rejection of the Russian government to refer the situation to the ICC defies all logic and conscience, and threatens the very authority of the Council itself (tell them so here).

Indeed, it is hard to identify any singular interest that champions the ICC as powerful as those defending the Syrian or Sudanese regimes, save our collective power by acting in concert. In addition to the referral of the situation in Syria to the ICC, Amnesty International members are calling on the UN Secretary General to provide all necessary resources to support the arrest and surrender of fugitives from the ICC.

“Justice”—a concept older than any law—is not just about arrests and prosecutions, however. ‘Truth’ and ‘restitution’ for victims are integral to the concept. Amnesty International’s Demand Justice Now—launched today—is a resource for exploring the complexities of international justice, in addition to taking action to bring our collective power to effect.

While discussing International Justice Day, a friend and colleague of mine noted the success of Earth Day in entering the collective consciousness of people across the globe. International Justice Day, a young day of note in comparison, needs to be in our collective consciousness.

It is impossible to delink the atrocities we bear witness to today from our weaknesses in securing justice for abuses of the past. Justice cannot be an afterthought, decoupled from our efforts to protect the threatened and vulnerable. Justice cannot be something sought as political winds or diplomatic expediency favor.

Justice must be demanded now.

SOPA protesters in New York, January 2012 (Stan Honda/AFP/Getty Images)

Today, Amnesty International joined more than 100 organizations, academics, startup founders and tech innovators to sign on to a Declaration of Internet Freedom, a set of five principles that—if realized—would prove monumental in the longstanding fight for online freedom and universal human rights.

Many of these groups also banded together to educate about the risks and advocate for the defeat of the PIPA/SOPA bills in the US Congress (to read about our concerns with the bills, read this post).

The principles in the Declaration are simply stated:

Expression: Don’t censor the Internet.

Access: Promote universal access to fast and affordable networks.

Openness: Keep the Internet an open network where everyone is free to connect, communicate, write, read, watch, speak, listen, learn, create and innovate.

Innovation: Protect the freedom to innovate and create without permission. Don’t block new technologies, and don’t punish innovators for their users’ actions.

Privacy: Protect privacy and defend everyone’s ability to control how their data and devices are used.

The simplicity of these principles as stated do not betray the scale of the challenges before us. Behind each principle are structural impediments, powerful countervailing forces from government and industry, and above all else, a lack of awareness in many places as to the power, necessity, and interdependence of internet freedom to the full realization of so many human rights.

Over the next few months, join us on this blog as we unpack each principle in a human rights context, and what realization of each principle means for the most vulnerable, and the least free, among us.

Earlier this year, I responded to a NYT op-ed by Vint Cerf who—as one of the “grandfathers of the internet,” offered that internet access was not a human right. I concluded my post with reference to CEDAW, and CERD—international legal instruments that prohibit discrimination against women and based on race, respectively. These were interesting instruments for that argument, because although the rights enshrined in them were guaranteed by the two core human rights covenants, they were nonetheless necessary to reaffirm rights in the new global contexts at the time of their writing.

Let me end this post with references again to CEDAW. Some 12 years before the international legal instrument that is CEDAW came to be, there was the Declaration of Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. In fact, this is a common path for legal conventions that underpin the human rights regime.

Before there are legally binding conventions and treaties, there are declarations of principles that inform the process to follow. It is with a long view that I am happy to be a part of Amnesty International and its support for the above principles, and the inherent promises they represent.

A South Sudanese girl awaits deportation to South Sudan from Israel on June 17, 2012. (Oren Ziv/AFP/GettyImages)

Earlier this month, an Israeli court paved the way for Israeli authorities to deport over 1,500 South Sudanese migrants back to South Sudan, where they face an uncertain future, and may face threats to physical security depending where they end up.

One might get the sense that Sudanese are unwelcome in Israel.

“The Sudanese are a cancer in our body,” said Miri Regev, member of the Knesset during a public demonstration in Tel Aviv, which saw African passersby attacked.

Today is World Refugee Day—a day marked to remind the world of the tens of millions who face uncertainty, threats to physical security, and persecution by repressive governments.

The Knesset recently passed the onerous amendment to the “Prevention of Infiltration” law, which—in contravention of international law and the Refugee conventions—criminalizes asylum seekers who enter or reside in Israel “irregularly” (who enter or are present in a country without documents). This reprehensible law imposes prison time of 5 to 7 years on asylum seekers who enter Israel irregularly.

“Regularity” for people fleeing from persecution is surely a luxury.

A child looks at burning remnants after an Antonov dropped two bombs in Kauda, Southern Kordofan, Sudan, on 29 April 2012.

What is more, Israeli authorities’ denial of determination for asylum seekers, and the amended Infiltration law itself, flies in the face of 60 years of refugee and asylum law and practice. Under the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol, states are not permitted to impose penalties on refugees for simply entering a country or being present illegally.

Additionally, any discrimination against asylum seekers based on their country of origin or religion is a clear violation of one of the key tenants of the refugee regime—non-discrimination. Simply put, an asylum seeker, regardless of where they are from, whatever their religion, and whatever their race, must have access to asylum, and a clear and non-discriminatory process for refugee determination.

The passage of the Infiltration amendment and the recent explosion of violently xenophobic rhetoric such as ‘Sudanese being a cancer’ seem difficult to decouple, in my mind.

World Refugee Day also commemorates the passage of the 1951 Refugee Convention setting out the rights of and responsibility toward refugees. The convention itself was borne from challenge of dealing with the millions of refugees displaced by Nazi aggression and persecution, and the devastating displacement caused by the war in Europe.

The Israeli parliament must immediately repeal the “Infiltration” bill, which is wholly incompatible with international law, and must grant clear and non-discriminatory determination access to the tens of thousands of asylum seekers in Israel.

The failure to grant due process and the criminalization of asylum seekers in Israeli is not in keeping with decades of global efforts to protect the persecuted and displaced. And it is a blemish on today’s anniversary.

Google's new transparency report documents an alarming rise in censorship by governments, from the US to China.

If you are not familiar with Google’s transparency reporting, you should be.

By monitoring access to Google services and publishing that data in real time, Google’s transparency tool “visualizes disruption in the free flow of information, whether it’s a government blocking information or a cable being cut,” which has great potential to augment early warning efforts for mass repression.

At any time, you can see requests for url removal from search results for copyright claims, and see who those purported owners are. As we know from discussion on this blog around PIPA and SOPA, Google’s efforts to combat infringement of intellectual property rights—at least narrowly defined—are in keeping with human rights law, and important for staving off really bad policies.

Yesterday, Google released a snapshot of data from the last 6 months of 2011. The topline: “Google reports ‘alarming’ rise in censorship by governments”.  In an accompanying blog post, Google told of a request by the Spanish government to remove 270 search results linked to blogs and news related to public figures as an example of the types of increasing requests it receives.

The reports provide country-level data on government requests for removal of content, with differentiation between “court orders” and “other requests” such as from police or executive agents. And while not comprehensive—Google does not provide data from countries where there are fewer than 10 content removals—both the data itself, and the decision to publish the information are public goods.

The Good and Bad of the Public goods

There are two very important pieces of information in these transparency reports on government requests. The first is the frequency of request for user data or (non-copyright related) content removal. The second is Google’s compliance frequency.

The first could tell us quite a bit about the strategies of repression used by certain governments, especially when matched against other indicators of such repression.

But the second—Google’s compliance—tells us little, save for the smallest insight into Google’s compliance policies.  Despite the wealth of information in the data, we are stuck with an inferential problem.

Take, for example, the case of Brazil. In the 6 month period ending Dec 31 2011, Google fully or partially complied with 90% of government data requests, compared to 64% of data requests from the UK government. According to Google, the volume of requests in Brazil is a function of their use of the orkut social networking site.

But what accounts for the difference in Google’s response rates? One could infer that the UK government makes more flimsy requests than does the Brazilian government; and that may or may not be true. But another explanation is that the criteria used by Google are different. And they are. Different jurisdictions have different laws relating to defamation, hate speech, and pornography, among others.

That is a human rights compliance problem. Whether the requests are made by court order or via executive agents, some countries simply do not have the necessary legal safeguards or rule of law to guarantee freedom of expression. In some places, political or religious speech is highly regulated in clear violation of human rights law. What does Google do in these cases?

Google states in the report that “we hope these steps toward greater transparency will help inform ongoing discussions about the appropriate scope and authority of content regulation online.” I read this as an unambiguous cry for help.

As I’ve offered with regard to Twitter on this blog, Google as a multinational corporation in the business of information exchange will be faced with a steady barrage of government requests to censor information, and provide user data.

Google is being confronted with removal or user requests that comport with a country’s domestic law, but is wholly incompatible with human rights law. Should Google grant that request, human rights watchdogs must call it out, as we would with any corporation that facilitates human rights abuses.

To that end, I’d like to offer that Google’s compliance with 70% of Thai requests to remove monarch-insulting content is troubling (and thanks to Google for the data). Given our reliance on Google’s self-reporting, a classic moral hazard is upon us.

To be absolutely clear, we should be very pleased to see Google’s transparency reports, and the broader initiative, as we should to see that Google is fighting back against censorship and government monitoring in China.

But at least as it relates to basic guarantees of speech and expression, the dramatic expansion of the internet and networked communities is forcing us to identify a common denominator. I wager that Google doesn’t want to set it, and despite the promising moves by the corporation so far, I wager we don’t want them to either.

As an aside, the US government made–by far–the greatest number of user information requests (for over 12,200 user accounts). Google complied with 93% of requests. Again, a sincere thanks to google for providing the data.

If you’re reading this from the US, take action to pressure passage of the Global Online Freedom Act.

The rainy season in Sudan has begun, and for UN and aid agencies operating just across the Sudan border in the dozens of refugee camps housing those who’ve fled from the indiscriminate bombing of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), a logistic and operational nightmare is very present.

For the hundreds of thousands displaced by the bombing campaign, food and (paradoxically) water shortages have reached crisis proportions.

Last night, Amnesty released its newest research findings in ‘We Can Run Away From Bombs, But Not From Hunger,’ documenting the illegal and indiscriminate bombing campaign of the SAF in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states, in Sudan.

Across the border in South Sudan, over 150,000 refugees from Khartoum’s campaign have found strained resources, inadequate shelter, and countless informal encampments of other men, women, and children fleeing what are clearly war crimes, and what may constitute crimes against humanity by the Sudanese government.

Humanitarian organizations have been blocked from entering Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile, with few outsiders gaining access (such as Nick Kristof). The result of this denial of humanitarian aid is and will continue to be the death of civilians on a scale that should violate any conscience.

Last night in a pointed (and somewhat unexpected) question, I was asked on air during the Al Jazeera News Hour if the international community was suffering from “Sudan fatigue.” The seemingly endless flow of the displaced, accounts of horrific events, and obituaries of the dead has been met with weak Security Council statements, over one hundred un-executed indictments for grave crimes, and an endless barrage of obstruction by Khartoum.

If the international community is suffering from Sudan fatigue, it is of our own making. While the people of the Sudans suffer, the international community has constructed a tiring treadmill of half measures and anemic statements. As China or Russia lament an “aid crisis,” they arm the Sudanese government with the tools to create the crisis.

The international community—and the UN Security Council in particular—is not lacking a path forward, but rather has lacked the will. The need for action is urgent. Steps must be taken now.

As strongly as I can convey in words, the cost to humanity for delayed or weak action at this very moment will directly lead to a catastrophe that should not only stain humanity itself, but threaten the credibility of the international institutions designed to safeguard it.

What needs to happen Immediately:

• ALL arms transfers to Sudan must be suspended. States—such as Russia, China, Belarus, the Ukraine, and others—who arm the Sudanese government can no longer plausibly deny complicity in the crimes documented in “We Can Run…”

• The Security Council must condemn and demand an end to the indiscriminate bombing by Khartoum, and establish and independent inquiry into the crimes committed over the last year in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile.

• The Security Council must demand humanitarian access to Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states in Sudan. There must be consequences for failure to allow aid to civilians in these two states, and the council must make them clear.

• The Security Council must extend the arms embargo on Darfur—which is being violated and continues to fuel conflict in Darfur—to the whole of Sudan, and UN member states must develop an effective global Arms Trade Treaty this month.

Many of those likely responsible in Sudan for these crimes and the creation of a humanitarian crisis are wanted by the International Criminal Court for their roles in Darfur, including Ahmed Haroun—the current governor of Southern Kordofan (on 42 counts of war crimes and Crimes Against Humanity), the Sudanese Defense Minister Abdel Raheem Muhammad Hussein, and indeed, the head of the Sudanese state Omar al-Bashir on additional charges of Genocide.

The impunity these men have enjoyed, and the lack of a strong international condemnation of continued crimes is inseparable from the suffering that has followed forth. The Security Council and the international community must take some ownership for what has followed. Tell them to do so here. And it will own quite the travesty should it fail to act now.