Bøger udgivet af Human Rights First

In March 2003, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security took over responsibility for asylum and immigration matters when the former INS was abolished. With this transfer, DHS was entrusted with the duty to ensure that the United States lives up to its commitments to those who seek asylum from persecution. These commitments stem from both U.S. law and international treaties with which the United States has pledged to abide. Yet, those who seek asylum - a form of protection extended to victims of political, religious and other forms of persecution - have been swept up in a wave of increased immigration detention, which has left many asylum seekers in jails and jail-like facilities for months or even years.

As the United States strives for a vigorous and effective response to radical Islamist terrorism around the globe, our country remains embroiled in an important and difficult national debate over when and how to detain and prosecute suspected terrorists. As part of this debate, some have argued for the creation of new, untested legal regimes to preventively detain and/or prosecute persons suspected of complicity in terrorism. However, often missing from the discussion is the fact that the federal courts are continuing to build on their proven track record of serving as an effective and fair tool for incapacitating terrorists. We have updated our May 2008 report, In Pursuit of Justice, to include cases and developments from the past year. Our research shows a conviction rate of more than 91% since September 11, 2001 and many notable successes in a wide variety of terrorism prosecutions.

En un sistema de justicia penal destacado por sus niveles de impunidad, la tenacidad de los fiscales Colombianos que persiguen casos en contra de los defensores de derechos humanos es impresionante. Si bien hay problemas sistemáticos de corrupción y acciones arbitrarias en el sistema judicial, se están abriendo casos en contra de los que defienden los derechos humanos de una manera particular; se les intimida con investigaciones y procesos penales sin fundamento. Además, se hacen muy públicos los cargos sin fundamento, lo que mina la credibilidad de los defensores y los señala como blancos de ataques, frecuentemente por parte de grupos paramilitares. Por lo general son acusados de rebelión y pertenencia a las organizaciones guerrilleras. El informe contiene un análisis de 32 casos de investigaciones infundadas. Los casos presentes permiten la identificación de los temas comunes y un análisis de ellos para revelar las raíces del problema y posibles políticas para resolverlo.

In a criminal justice system plagued by impunity, the tenacity with which Colombian prosecutors pursue human rights defenders for supposed crimes is striking. While corruption and arbitrary actions are a systemic problem throughout the judicial system, those who peacefully promote human rights are singled out for particular intimidation through baseless investigations and prosecutions. Unfounded charges are often widely publicized, undermining the credibility of defenders and marking them as targets for physical attack, usually by paramilitary groups. The spurious charges usually allege that the defenders are terrorists. The report identifies patterns and trends and provides recommendations to the Colombian authorities and United States government in order to address this serious problem. It also contains a table summarizing original research from over 32 cases of unfounded prosecutions against defenders. TAMBIÉN EN INGLÉS. For more information please visit www.humanrightsfirst.org

The 2008 Hate Crime Survey examines the reality of violent hate crimes motivated by racism and xenophobia, antisemitism, anti-Muslim bias, religious intolerance, anti-Roma bias, and homophobia: Violent hate crimes motivated by racism and xenophobia rose significantly in at least 12 countries; In 2007, overall levels of violent antisemitic attacks increased in at least five countries; Violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity bias is a significant portion of violent hate crimes overall and is characterized by levels of physical violence that in some cases exceeds those present in other hate crimes; Although there is ample evidence of violence targeting Muslims across Europe and North America, only five governments publicly report on violent incidents motivated by this form of bias. This Survey also examines critical elements of an effective government response: official monitoring and public reporting as well as adequate legislation and its implementation.

In recent years, there has been much controversy about the proper forum in which to prosecute and punish suspected terrorists. Some have endorsed aggressive use of military commissions; others have proposed an entirely new "national security court." However, as the nation strives for a vigorous and effective response to terrorism, we should not lose sight of the important tools that are already at our disposal, nor should we forget the costs and risks of seeking to break new ground by departing from established institutions and practices. As this White Paper shows, the existing criminal justice system has proved successful at handling a large number of important and challenging terrorism prosecutions over the past fifteen years-without sacrificing national security interests, rigorous standards of fairness and due process, or just punishment for those guilty of terrorism-related crimes.

Arbitrary Justice documents how detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and Bagram Airbase, Afghanistan are being tried in Afghan courts based on allegations provided by the United States, with little or no evidence. At printing, more than 250 persons had been transferred to the Afghan National Detention Facility, 160 have been referred for prosecutions, but over 60 have been convicted in trials that violate fair trial standards. The report, based on trial observations, examination of court documents, and interviews, outlines the problems in these proceedings such as the lack of prosecution witnesses and out-of-court prosecution witnesses to support the charges.It makes specific policy recommendations to both the Afghan and U.S. governments, and provides insights on how to improve the process of transferring detainees from U.S. custody to their home countries for criminal prosecutions, but that any such trials must be in accordance with international fair trial standards.

Tortured Justice finds the Bush Administration has undercut its own intended use of the military commission system at Guantanamo Bay by allowing the admission of coerced evidence. The administration sanctioned the use of harsh interrogation methods, claiming that the need to protect the nation against another terrorist attack took precedence over any future complications in prosecuting terrorist suspects. For the first time in American history Congress and the administration authorized the admission of coerced confessions during criminal trials by including provisions in the Military Commissions Act of 2006. The report focuses on six Guantanamo prisoners who have alleged abuse while in custody and also includes a chart identifying 62 other prisoners who allege abuse, alongside the names of those they may have implicated. The chart offers a stark visualization of the cross-contamination of coerced evidence. For more information please visit www.humanrightsfirst.org.

As the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing approach, the government of China is promoting itself as a harmonious and peaceful rising world power. But behind this façade is another China, one that places its economic development and energy needs over its human rights responsibilities. Investing in Tragedy makes the case that through its money, arms and politics, China has helped to sustain the violence in the war torn region of Darfur, Sudan. More than five years into the conflict, China continues to strengthen its relationship with the government of Sudan despite the government's record of mass atrocities in Darfur. The report recommends that for China to be accepted as the responsible world power it claims to be, it should begin by immediately stopping all weapons sales to Sudan.This is a Human Rights First report. For more information please visit www.humanrightsfirst.org.

Two years ago, in announcements made in August and October of 2009, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) committed to transform the U.S. immigration detention system by shifting it away from its longtime reliance on jails and jail-like facilities, to facilities with conditions more appropriate for the detention of civil immigration law detainees. In this report, Human Rights First reveals that despite these commitments, the United States continues to hold the overwhelming majority of detained asylum seekers and other civil immigration law detainees - nearly 400,000 each year - in jails and jail-like facilities across the country. The facilities are expected to cost American taxpayers more than $2 billion in 2012. In the course of its assessment, Human Rights First visited 17 ICE-authorized detention facilities that together held more than 10,000 of the 33,400 total ICE beds, interviewed government officials, legal service providers, and former immigration detainees, as well as a range of former prison wardens, corrections officials, and other experts on correctional systems. The report also notes that former prison officials and other corrections experts have found that less penal conditions in detention can actually help improve safety inside a facility, a finding echoed in multiple studies. It outlines steps that the administration should take to end its reliance on facilities with conditions that are inappropriate for asylum seekers and other civil immigration law detainees, and to bring U.S. detention practices into compliance with international human rights standards.

Detained and Denied in Afghanistan: How to Make U.S. Detention Comply with the Law examines the situation of more than 1700 detainees held at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan - more than triple the number held by the Bush administration and around 10 times the number at Guantanamo Bay. It is based on observation of hearings given to detainees by the U.S. military in Sept. 2010 and Feb. 2011; an Afghan trial supported by the U.S. military; and interviews with former detainees, all of whom had been released from U.S. custody within the previous year. This report follows up on Human Rights First's earlier report, issued two years ago, on US and Afghan detention practices in Afghanistan. The report finds that although improvements have been made, the current detention system is still plagued by failures to comply with international law. HRF's recommendations for improvement include providing detainees with legal representation, and reducing the reliance on secret evidence at their hearings. Human Rights First also recommends that as the U.S. withdraws troops from Afghanistan, it maintain its commitment to civilian assistance for development of the rule of law.

As "Living in Limbo" attests, thousands of Iraqi refugees - including Iraqi Christians and other religious and sexual minorities, as well as U.S.-affilitated Iraqis - are living in limbo in the Middle East region, struggling to survive outside of Iraq without the right to work, put their children in school, or get heath care. As violence and instability persist in Iraq, resettlement to other countries - including the United States - remains the only effective path for many of these refugees, including those who have faced persecution in Iraq because of their work with the United States. While the United States has stepped up its response to Iraqi displacement over the last few years serious reforms are needed in the U.S. resettlement program to remove unnecessary processing delays which now leave many Iraqi refugees and U.S.-affiliated Iraqis vulnerable and stranded in difficult and sometimes dangerous situations.

This report calls on Congress to eliminate a technical asylum filing deadline in U.S. law that has barred thousands of legitimate refugees with well-founded fears of persecution from receiving asylum in the United States. The report finds that in the 12 years since the provision took effect, more than 53,400 asylum applications have been rejected, denied or delayed based on the deadline and many of these cases have been pushed unnecessarily into the already overstretched immigration court system. The report uses real case examples and Human Rights First's own refugee representation experience to demonstrate the harmful effects of the provision. That provision has consistently denied asylum to persecuted individuals in ways that are inconsistent with the nation's leadership in protecting victims of political, religious and other forms of persecution and has caused inefficiencies and delays in the asylum system and diverted significant governmental resources.

This report co-released by the Constitution Project and Human Rights First, and endorsed by sixteen former federal judges concludes that Congress does not need to pass new legislation to guide federal courts in their review of habeas cases in which individuals at the Guantánamo Bay detention facility challenge the lawfulness of their detention. The former federal judges conclude that attacks on the judiciary's ability to review such cases are unfounded, as are calls for Congressional intervention. It was the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Boumediene v. Bush which laid the ground for District Court judges to review habeas cases of the Guantánamo detainees and develop the constitutional framework for reviewing cases. It examines how the courts have moved deliberately and thoughtfully in developing an effective jurisprudence in these cases that addresses the government's interest in national security, while protecting the right of prisoners to fairly challenge their detention.

Over the past eight years, thousands of legitimate refugees who pose no threat to the United States have had their applications for asylum, permanent residence, and family reunification denied or delayed due to overly broad provisions of U.S. immigration law that were intended to protect the United States against terrorism. Changes to the immigration laws enacted as part of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 and the REAL ID Act of 2005 greatly expanded the immigration law's provisions relating to "terrorism." At the same time, the federal agencies charged with enforcing these laws began to interpret both the old and the new provisions in increasingly expansive ways. This report documents how these changes in law and in legal interpretation are affecting refugees ranging from peaceful advocates for democracy to former child soldiers. The report offers recommendations to Congress and to the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and State.

This publication contains two reports. The first one Undue Process: An Examination of Detention and Trials of Bagram Detainees in April 2009 provides personal accounts of former detainees held by the U.S. military in the Bagram Theater Internment Facility in Afghanistan. The report describes how they were captured, treated in U.S. custody, what they know about the grounds for their detention, and whether they were able to challenge their detention. The report also provides background on U.S. detention operations and makes policy recommendations to the United States government. In September 2009, the Pentagon announced new detainee review procedures for detainees held by the United States. The policy paper Fixing Bagram: Strengthening Detention Reforms to Align with U.S. Strategic Priorities assesses the new review procedures and makes recommendations to further improve U.S. detention practices in Afghanistan.