The slow death of Item 9

Losing legitimacy: UK & the war on terror

 - Kofi Annan, address to General Assembly in New York, 21 September 2004.

In its legal measures in response to the atrocities of 9/11 the UK government has been accused of discrimination, political grandstanding  and a steady erosion of the civil liberties historically enjoyed in the UK.  At the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) the UK government has stated that it is "firmly committed" to international human rights.   But this is not so clear at home.  

In 2004 the English courts showed that they were not afraid to scrutinise and criticise government anti-terrorism measures - although their application of international human rights principles has like that of the government been inconsistent and sometimes contradictory.  The House of Lords judgment in A (FC) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Court of Appeal judgment in A & others v. the Home Secretary show the tension between the English courts’ attempts to apply international human rights standards, but at the same time show the traditional judicial deference to the executive and legislature in its chosen responses to matters of international security.   

The primary focus for criticism against the UK government is the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 (ATCSA).  The ATSCA is Britain's primary legislative response to the attacks of 9/11.  It introduced a number of exceptional emergency powers. The most controversial being part 4, in particular section 23, which empowers the Home Secretary to certify that he reasonably believes a foreign national to be a "suspected international terrorist" and to either deport or detain such a person indefinitely without charge or trial.  

ATCSA allows for appeals against the Home Secretary's decision to detain to the Special Immigration Appeal Commission (SIAC). The detainee is provided with a "special advocate" who is given access to all the evidence but is not allowed to discuss this evidence with the detainee; thus depriving the detainee of the right to know and challenge the evidence brought against him, a right provided for under article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. SIAC's procedures have quite rightly been described by a leading judge as "the stuff of nightmares". Two of SIAC's special advocates have resigned in protest.  

In A (FC) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department  nine of the ATCSA detainees challenged the lawfulness of their detention.  The House of Lords by an eight to one majority quashed the UK government's Derogation Order 2001.  It declared under the Human Rights Act 1998, section 4, that section 23 of ATSCA was incompatible with articles 5 and 14 of the European Convention, as it was disproportionate and discriminatory, because it only provided for the detention of foreign nationals. As Lord Hoffman put it: "Nothing could be more antithetical to the instincts and traditions of the people of the United Kingdom." In the leading judgment, Lord Bingham quoted both the UN Security Council and the UN Commission on Human Rights, which jointly require that measures taken to combat terrorism must be in accordance with international human rights law, as well as proportionate and non-discriminatory. 

The English Court of Appeal has taken a less robust stance to the government's approach to the war on terror.  

In A & others v. the Home Secretary, the Court of Appeal had to consider the consequences if evidence submitted by the government in support of detention under the ATCSA was derived from torture or ill treatment of a third party. The question arose from the brutal interrogation techniques used by the US military at Abu Ghraib and alleged elsewhere, which was being used as evidence in hearings before SIAC. 

The UK has ratified the UN Convention against Torture and torture is criminalized in the UK by the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The Court of Appeal was therefore clear that the UK should not commit or connive at torture. However, surprisingly the Court of Appeal, accepting the submissions on behalf of the government, held that allegations of torture affect only the weight to be given to evidence and not its admissibility. Thus, the courts can hear evidence from a third party that has been extracted by torture committed by another state. 

Bill Rammell, the UK Foreign Office Minister, speaking at the High-Level Segment of this year's CHR, said: "The UK is firmly committed to the absolute prohibition on torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment". The statement was no doubt a response to the abuses committed by British troops in Iraq at Camp Breadbasket near Basra in May 2003.  

Mr Rammell fairly pointed out that the allegations of abuse were duly investigated before a military commission, where three British soldiers were dismissed from the army and sent to military prison. However, the fear is that the events may not be a one-off, but are indicative of a pattern of falling human rights standards in the name of the fight against international terrorism. Indeed, the government invites such fears by its ambivalent approach to the use of evidence extracted under torture by other states. 

It is difficult to understand why the UK government and the English courts accept that it is unlawful to deport foreign nationals to countries where they may be subject to torture, whilst it is apparently acceptable to use evidence in English courts that may have been extracted by way of torture, provided it is carried out by another country.  

This is a bizarre and shameful anomaly, which is out of step with the absolute prohibition in international law of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.  On 26 November 2004 the UN Committee against Torture recommended that the UK government should make a formal undertaking that it will not rely on or present evidence obtained through torture in any proceedings.  

At a recent lecture, leading UK human rights lawyer Professor Geoffrey Bindman said that: "in the guise of protecting the public [both Britain and the USA] are ready to abandon principles which are the hallmark of our democracies. These are the values that we seek to defend and to export to those countries that we see as less fortunate. We are entitled to expect our government to respect the rule of law and to understand the lessons of our history."   

The UK government should be under no illusions that its human rights credentials are at stake. Its approach in part 4 of ATCSA, and now the PTA, and to the use of evidence obtained by torture, is clearly inconsistent with international human rights law.  Moreover, are UK citizens now to live in an Orwellian "near-permanent emergency"   where fair trial rights are compromised and torture justified - provided someone else does it?  

If the UK is "firmly committed" to international human rights standards, as it says it is, then it must start by demonstrating a consistent commitment to these standards at home.  It could start by charging suspected international terrorists with recognised criminal offences and trying them according to internationally recognised standards.  It could also make a firm undertaking that it will not use any evidence in legal proceedings that is either known, or suspected to have been, extracted by way of torture. 

These are not big steps: they are the most basic steps to preserve rights that have existed in the UK for several centuries.  If the UK government does not act it will be faced with further scrutiny by the courts at home.   

And at the CHR, its claim to be firmly committed to human rights will be seriously undermined, as will its legitimacy to influence other States.

BANGLADESH

Ahmadiyyas at the receiving end

BELARUS

An illustrious new partnership

How Belarus is so suited to the LMG and well qualified to carry out the group’s pernicious agenda

The floor of the CHR was heated this past Wednesday following the presentation of the Special Rapporteur on the situation on human rights in Belarus' report. Further, rejecting both last year's CHR resolution and the mandate of the Special Rapporteur once more, the distinguished Ambassador of Belarus reaffirmed his country's commitment to international human rights and the rule of law.  

Heeding the call, the LMG rallied in support of Europe's most dictatorial regime. Russia chimed in first, followed by China, Cuba and Kenya shortly thereafter. All four parties protested against the Special Rapporteur's "politically motivated" report, which Cuba claimed too closely resembled the US State Department's 2004 human rights report on Belarus. Predictably, the United States, Canada and the European Union further condemned the actions of the Lukashenko regime whilst they threw stones from the opposite side of the fence.

Since 1994, through two constitutional referendums, Belarus' President, Mr. Aleksandr Lukashenko has, according to the US State Department, "systematically undermined the country's democratic institutions", enabling him to further consolidate his control over key aspects of both the legislative and judicial process. Lukashenko's first referendum, held in 1996, effectively replaced Belarus' single parliamentary system (the Supreme Soviet) with a bicameral Parliament, despite the fact that Belarus' own Constitutional Court ruled that "the proposed amendments to the Constitution could not be introduced through the referendum" and was therefore only consultative in nature. Soon thereafter six judges of the Constitutional Court submitted their resignations in protest. During the most recent referendum the citizen's of Belarus allegedly "voted" to remove term limits for the Office of the President. 

As early as 1992 the Committee against Torture remained concerned over the continual deterioration of human rights protection within Belarus. In 1997, the Council of Europe suspended its Special Guest status to the Parliament of Belarus and over the past eight years the Council of Europe has further affirmed this decision through successive resolutions in 2000, 2002 and 2004. In its resolution in 2002, the Council of Europe, believed that the "democratization process in Belarus appeared to be stagnant." On 4 October 2004, the United States House of Representatives unanimously passed the Belarus Democracy Act of 2004 to further promote human rights and Belarus' democratic development.

Unfortunately, for close to a decade the people of Belarus have had to face the brunt of Lukashenko's abusive policies. Indeed, overwhelming evidence indicates that since Lukashenko took office the deterioration of human rights within Belarus has continued unabated.  

Lukashenko's crackdown on media freedom and freedom of assembly should raise serious questions about Belarus' so called adherence to international human rights standards. Although, the registration of NGOs is typically an important regulatory process, the Government's requirements placed on the registration of NGOs only seeks to further obstruct and restrict the work of civil society in general. Those NGOs who fail to abide by even the most trivial of regulations, such as changing the design of their letterhead, risk state harassment and possible de-registration. It is clear that these requirements only further promote government oppression. 

Furthermore, the government has systematically failed to address numerous cases of enforced or involuntary disappearances: specifically, the disappearances of Yuryiy Zakharenko, Viktor Gonchar, Dmitri Zavadski and Anatoliy Krasovski. The State's use of torture and other forms of harassment against demonstrators and members of Belarus' political opposition are also reportedly widespread. 

On one level - at least when compared to a country like Turkmenistan - it cannot be denied that the government of Belarus has taken important steps to cooperate with UN human rights machinery. As the government of Belarus suggests, the visits of two UN Special Rapporteurs and the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention attest to this. But, and although the government of Belarus claims to indeed be cooperating with international human rights mechanisms, in particular thematic UN human rights bodies, there is also significant evidence to the contrary. The obvious example is the Government's rejection of both the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus and last year's CHR resolution.

Moreover, an analytical review of Belarus' cooperation with UN human rights treaty bodies and the government's application of the subsequent concerns and recommendations of various treaty monitoring bodies will help to reveal wherein lies the truth. Although in this case it might be more obvious, the devil is also often in the details.

In 1997, the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) remained concerned "that the human rights situation in Belarus has deteriorated significantly since the Committee's consideration of the State party's third periodic report in 1992." More specifically, the Committee remained particularly concerned about "the lack of legislative limits on the powers of the executive, and the growing concentration of powers, including legislative powers, in the hands of the executive, without judicial control", which have only increased. 

Importantly, Belarus' October 2004 elections were reportedly marred by fraud and were largely recognized as neither free nor fair. On 28 April 2004, the Council of Europe also passed an additional resolution on Belarus, which formally rejected Belarus' request to regain its Special Guest status with the Council.  

A review of the Council's reasoning reveals that the Council remained concerned about Belarus' "systematic harassment and intimidation" of journalists and members of the media. Furthermore, according to the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus at least 160 registered print media institutions were closed down over the year. Additional sources illustrate a similar pattern throughout the year. 

Since at least 1997, the HRC has expressed concerns over the length of pretrial detention, which may last up to 18 months, and that the decision to extend or lessen one's pretrial detention lies exclusively with the Procurator and not with a judge. In 2004, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention conducted an investigative visit to the country, and although the government should be commended for cooperating with the Working Group the Working Group remained concerned about the same problems as those discussed by the HRC.  

According to the Working Group, the "[p]resumption of innocence in the Constitution is seriously undermined." Due to the fact that "[f]rom the very moment of arrest and the beginning of detention, detainees are often put under strong psychological pressure to incriminate themselves in crime they are accused of." Furthermore, the Working Group remained concerned about the restrictions placed on lawyers through their subordination to the Ministry of Justice. Again, these concerns are only the reiteration of specific concerns outlined by another treaty body, the Convention Against Torture (CAT), four years ago. 

In 2002, the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) remained concerned that a "comprehensive system [to adequately address juvenile justice needs] has not yet been established…that detention is not used as a last resort and that alternative measures to detention are seldom applied." Two years later, and despite their claims to UN cooperation, the government of Belarus has failed to establish "a specialized system for juvenile offenders", in contravention of various and pertinent recommendations outlined by the CRC, which was further recognized by the Working Group. 

Of fundamental concern, as suggested by the Special Rapporteur on the situation in Belarus, Adrian Severin, is the pattern and duration of President Lukashenko's abuse of the judiciary in Belarus. Once again, as far back as 1997, the HRC remained concerned "that the judges of the Constitutional Court and Supreme Court can be dismissed by the President of the Republic without any safeguards."  

Further, under article 84(10) of the new Constitution the President is directly responsible for the appointment of six out of the 12 judges of the Constitutional Court. The other six positions in the Constitutional Court are nominated to the Council of the Republic by the Chairperson of the Constitutional Court; both the Chairperson of the Constitutional Court and the members of the Council of the Republic are appointed by the President. 

In 2001, after his investigative visit to the country, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers remained concerned about the perpetuation of these problems and specifically recommended that the government of Belarus repeal article 84(11), which provides the President with the direct authority to dismiss judges. Moreover, the Special Rapporteur also recommended that the executive powers of the President be removed as his ability to meddle in the affairs of the judiciary seriously undermined the judiciary's independence. Unfortunately, even four years later, this only reaffirms the concerns of the HRC that the President of Belarus has failed "to respect the decisions of the Constitutional Court and to observe the rule of law." 

Problematically, all judges in Belarus are entitled to monthly bonuses, and according to the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers "[t]he Presidential Administration decides on the bonuses for the higher courts." One judge interviewed by the Special Rapporteur was also of the belief that torture was often used to extract confessions. 

As the preceding paragraphs illustrate, Belarus is far from "[b]eing a responsible State party to all core international human rights instruments [and even farther from fulfilling] its international obligations in good faith", despite the protestations of Belarus' Ambassador, His Excellency Mr. Sergei Aleinik. 

Yes. Belarus has invited various thematic UN rapporteurs to visit the country, but what the distinguished Ambassador fails to recognize or admit is that importance is not only placed on their invitation and subsequent visit, but also on Belarus' adherence to their recommendations. Herein, lies the problem.  

Furthermore, the Ambassador points to Belarus' commitment to engage in "constructive dialogue with the UN treaty bodies and specific thematic procedures of the CHR". Perhaps, he could start by engaging similarly with the Rapporteur on Belarus, who reports specifically on the country and would be as clued into the relevant issues as the other Rapporteurs. 

Moreover, if the Ambassador is going to quote from Mr. Severin's report the least he could do, for the sake of - diplomacy, is actually quote it accurately.  

Nevertheless, it must be said, it is at least important to know how the Ambassador, and not the Special Rapporteur, genuinely feels about NGOs.  

Indeed, the Ambassador's statement about "militant" NGOs actually works well, as it is emblematic of how the Belarusian government treats NGOs in general. Hopefully next year the Ambassador will also realize that the Commission is referred to as the UN CHR and not that other UN body that deals with refugees.  What an embarrassment!  

You'd figure this time, when Belarus is really under the gun, they might actually get it right.  

But, if Belarus was genuinely interested in cooperating with UN human rights mechanisms and further facilitating human rights protection they need not look far for advice.  

Latvia is right across the border.

SLOVAKIA

Coercive sterilization of Romani women

New legislation by the Slovak Government is unlikely to eliminate the practice

The coerced sterilization of Romani women in the Slovak Republic has received international condemnation. When the practice was revealed, the Slovak authorities did little to combat the problems illuminated, embarking instead on sham investigations that invoked further international criticism. Due to the inherently racist attitudes of the medical authorities and their reported ineptitude in adhering to legislative provisions concerning sterilization, it is unlikely that new legislation will have the desired effect of eliminating the practice. 

International controversy arose in 2003 upon the release of a report entitled "Body and Soul: Forced Sterilization and other assaults on Roma Reproductive Freedom in Slovakia". It was the result of a fact-finding mission undertaken by the New York Centre for Reproductive Rights and Poradna pre obcianske a ludské práva (Centre for Civil and Human Rights, Slovakia). The report made allegations of coerced sterilization by the Slovakian medical authorities on Romani women of Eastern Slovakia. The team interviewed 230 women from Eastern Slovakian Roma settlements, 140 of whom indicated they were "coercively or forcibly sterilized or who have strong indications that they were forcibly sterilized." (see box) 

Article 3(2) of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union states that "[i]n the fields of medicine and biology, the following must be respected in particular: the free and informed consent of the person concerned, according to the procedures laid down by law." Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects women from "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." The practice of coerced sterilization of women arguably falls within this description. Article II of the Genocide Convention outlaws "acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, such as … [i]mposing measures intended to prevent births within the group."  

Various international parties have also directly condemned the practice of coerced sterilization. It was found by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women that the practice "adversely affects women's physical and mental health, and infringes the right of women to decide on the number and spacing of their children."

Slovakian authorities have traditionally discriminated against Romani women. The European Roma Information Office alleges that "[a]nti-Gypsyism is an aggressive, widespread and still acceptable form of racism in Europe." A report published by the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe states that the "Roma birth rate is higher than that of other ethnic groups in Slovakia" and it is believed by many that Romani women only have children so that they can claim social benefits.  

A 2001 report submitted to the Open Society Justice Initiative alleges that there is unequal access for Roma to emergency medical services and segregation in maternity wards. The 1995 Health Minister Lubomir Javorsky "stated at a party rally in Kosice, that 'the government will do everything to ensure that more white children than Romani children are born.'" 

Subsequent to the release of the report, the Slovak government's response was to immediately visit one of the Romani settlements mentioned in the report and question the local women. They threatened some women that a term of imprisonment may result on a conviction of "false charges" if the women were to file lawsuits against health care professionals.  

The Government also threatened the authors of the Body and Soul report with criminal charges. In a press release, the authorities stated that if the "information in the report is found to be true, authors will be prosecuted for failure to inform law enforcement of criminal activities, and [if] the information is found to be false, authors will be prosecuted under section 199 of the Criminal Code for "spreading false rumors and creating panic in society." Barbara Bukovská, one of the authors of the report, told the Open Society Justice Initiative that there "have been constant threats from the government since the publication of the report." 

After mounting international pressure the Slovak government launched a civil and criminal investigation into the report. The Government alleges that guidelines were issued on 28 January 2003 "regarding measures to be taken in order to unify sterilization procedures". These were sent to directors of hospitals under their governance, as well as regional self-governing bodies. 

The Ministry for Health formed an internal expert committee to investigate the allegations raised in the report. The Ministry found that no evidence existed to confirm the allegations of coerced sterilization occurring among Romani women. After visiting a single hospital listed in the report the Government disclosed its findings in a report on 19 March 2003. It claimed that "all patients who underwent sterilization, signed the application for sterilization permission and all applications had been reviewed and approved by the sterilization commission [in conformity with the Regulation on Sterilization]". 

On 31 January 2003, the Slovak Government's Office of Human Rights and Minorities filed a criminal complaint with the General Prosecutor's Office alleging the commission of "bodily harm" (which was later re-qualified to "genocide" pursuant to Section 259(1)(b) Criminal Code) against an "unknown perpetrator".  

It is alleged that this police investigation was fundamentally flawed in several ways. In two cases it was found that minors were sterilized without adequate parental consent - the police qualified these cases as a "violation[] of administrative procedure rather than criminal offences." 

Pursuant to international standards, the presence of a signature is not in itself evidence of consent in the absence of proof of how the signature was obtained, and the police failed to investigate the circumstances under which the consent forms were signed. Amnesty International alleged that the investigation "appear[ed] to have reached hasty conclusions before investigating all relevant crimes in connection with sterilization." 

Many international groups questioned the findings of the Slovakian government. The Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights concluded that the "intimidating atmosphere" created by the investigators would render it "'unlikely' that the Government's investigation 'would shed full light on the sterilization practices.'"  

The American Helsinki Committee wrote a letter to Prime Minister Mikuláš Dzurinda requesting further investigation. In August 2003 a UN committee stated that they "remain[ed] concerned at reports of forced or coerced sterilization of Roma women" particularly regarding the failure of the Slovakian government to "clearly deny or admit breaches of the principle of full and informed consent".  

The matter has also been addressed by other thematic Rapporteurs who sent a joint communication to the Slovak government. While Ms. Yakin Ertürk, Special Rapporteur on violence against women, and Mr. Paul Hunt, Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, according to their own reports expressed satisfaction with the reply of the Slovak government, Mr. Doudou Diène, the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance urged the Slovak government to "further develop strict and enforced policies concerning sterilization of women". 

In order to harmonise Slovak health care laws with European Union legislation and the Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, a Health Care Law was passed in October 2004 and came into effect on 1 January 2005. The legislation governs a wide range of issues relevant to the prevention of the practice of coerced sterilization.  

It remains to be seen whether the medical authorities will treat this new legislation with the same disregard as the previous regulations, or adhere to its provisions and eliminate the abhorrent practice from the Slovak Republic forever.

TRAFFICKING

The trafficking of women and children for sexual exploitation, a practice for the most part ignored by governments in Sub-Saharan Africa, has for some time been a serious problem in the Republic of Malawi.  Despite the concerns expressed by the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the body responsible for monitoring implementation of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, the government of Malawi has yet to pass legislation explicitly prohibiting the practice.   

The most recent report of the US State Department on human trafficking confirms the continued practice of trafficking of persons in Malawi and refers to child prostitution as a "growing problem" in the state.  It also highlights the existence of an industry of sex tourism involving the prostitution of children.  The problem has been exacerbated in recent years by the chronic poverty and acute food insecurity facing most Malawians.   

There are three distinct flows of human trafficking that occur in Malawi.  First, there is the trafficking of women and children out of the country to other states.  According to the 2005  US State Department report on human rights in Malawi, “[t]he country is a source for women and children trafficked for sexual purposes locally and to brothels abroad, particularly in South Africa. Victims trafficked to South Africa were typically between 14 and 24 years old, and were recruited with offers of marriage, study, or employment in South Africa. According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM), sex tourists, primarily from Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, lured children into sexual relationships with them while in the country.” 

IRIN, the United Nations news service, has reported Malawian women being targeted for trafficking because they do not require a visa to enter the United Kingdom.  Recruited with an offer of employment, the victim would only discover the real purpose of the arrangement upon arrival.   

Further evidence of the transnational flow of human traffic from Malawi is provided by the International Organisation for Migration (IOM).  A study commissioned by the IOM states that Malawi has served as a source for the trafficking of persons into other states of the European Union. The findings of the study report the following trend of sexual exploitation: “Upon arrival in the Netherlands, the victim is sold to a Nigerian madam for US$10 000, and told that she must work as a sex-worker to pay off a debt of US$40 000. The Nigerian madam will ask for her panties, hair, and nail clippings in a ritual that threatens death by magic if she is not cooperative. The victim is then sold to other Nigerian agents from Belgium, Germany, and Italy, or rented to local brothels. One brothel in the Netherlands brands with an identifying mark the sex slaves who work there. If a victim does not perform sexually to the satisfaction of the brothel owner, she is beaten, and given sex lessons, or resold.”

This form of forced prostitution contravenes not only the national laws of each State in the European Union, but also their treaty obligations under international human rights law.   

The second type of trafficking occurs with the movement of women and children from neighbouring states to Malawi.  Zambia, Tanzania and Mozambique serve as the most common source countries for this practice. While trafficking is not explicitly prohibited under national law, the constitution of Malawi does outlaw cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (article 19(3)), as well as slave-like practices (article 27).  Neither provision permits any derogation, restriction or limitation of its enforcement.  Nevertheless, the reality as evidenced by the reports of the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the US State Department, and the national media, is that the protection provided by the constitution is currently far from being enforced.   

The third kind of trafficking which features in Malawi involves the internal movement of women and children within the country.  Due in part to the HIV/AIDs epidemic, the demand for child prostitutes has increased in recent years.  Paedophiles of European origin travel to Malawi for the sexual exploitation of children.  According to the International Organization for Migration: “Both girls and boys may be recruited in the holiday resorts along Lake Malawi by European sex tourists who pay money to the child's parents with promises of educational opportunities for the child in Europe. The victims are featured in pornographic videos that are transmitted over the Internet with victims' names and contact details included. In Europe, the children are sexually exploited in private homes, and are sold to paedophile rings.” 

The paedophiles visiting Malawi are also primarily from Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.  Victims usually live in tourist spots along the shore of Lake Malawi in the districts of Nkhata Bay, Nkhotakota, Salima, Monkey Bay and Mongochi.  In addition to this problem of foreign paedophiles, the US State Department has reported that in the past year, there were “societal patterns of abuse of children. Kupimbira, a societal practice that allows a poor family to take out a loan for cattle or money in exchange for their daughter, regardless of age, has re-emerged over the last few years, according to press reports. The media also reported on the sexual abuse of children, especially in relation to traditional practices of initiation . . . While rites to initiate girls into their future adult roles still were secret, information suggested that abusive practices were widespread and very damaging.” 

The practice of trafficking children is explicitly prohibited under article 35 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child: “States Parties shall take all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent the abduction of, the sale of or traffic in children for any purpose or in any form”. Malawi, a state party to the Convention since 1 February 1991, obviously has yet to enforce this provision.  Expressing concern at the situation in Malawi, the Committee on the Rights of the Child made the following recommendations to the government of Malawi:

- Take measures such as a comprehensive programme to prevent and combat the sale and trafficking of children, and conduct an awareness raising campaign and educational programmes, particularly for parents;

- Facilitate, inter alia, the reunification of child victims with their families and provide adequate care and reintegration for them;

- Ratify the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction adopted in 1980 at The Hague. 

These recommendations, made on 2 April 2002, have so far not been acted upon by the government of Malawi.    

In addition to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the practice of trafficking is also explicitly prohibited under Article 6 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women which states that 'States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women.' There is currently no law in Malawi that specifically prohibits the trafficking of persons.  The 2005 US State Department report notes that there were no arrests or prosecutions for human trafficking in the year preceding its publication.  Acceded to by the government of Malawi on 11 April 1987, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women is another instrument of international law yet to be implemented by the state authorities. 

In view of the lack of action taken on the matter by the Malawian government, there is an obligation on the international community to act to ensure that the problem is eradicated.  Donors such as the United Kingdom, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Canada, Japan, the United States, and the European Union, have a special responsibility in this regard due to the nature of their relations with the government of Malawi.   

While the power and responsibility to eradicate trafficking rests with the Malawian government, it is essential that civil society continues to press for action on the issue using every available means.  The inertia of the state authorities needs to be broken if the sexual exploitation of women and children is to be effectively tackled.  

As the trafficking of women and children continues, the government of Malawi continues to ignore its obligations under international human rights law.  Given the state's record of inaction, and the transnational nature of the problem, it is now imperative that the international community focuses on the eradication of trafficking and provides some measure of justice for the victims of sexual slavery.

Quote UNQUOTE 

“Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has indicated that he might be prepared to follow a softer line in tackling the restive south.

Mr Thaksin, addressing a parliamentary session which is debating the southern violence, said he would provide more education and development in the area.

He said he had had time to reconsider his approach to the bloodshed during a recent family holiday.      

He was responding to criticism that Bangkok had alienated the south.

"I had a lot of free time to contemplate what was right or what was wrong in what I've done," said Mr Thaksin.

"Violence cannot be solved with violence."

At: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/4392657.stm

 *************

Thailand has ordered the relocation of about 3,000 Burmese political refugees to the Thai-Burma border.

 If they do not comply, they face being arrested and deported back to Burma.

An estimated one million Burmese are thought to live and work in Thailand, but of these only a tiny number are considered to be political dissidents.

No mobile phones or other electronic devices will be allowed into the camps, making it difficult for political activists to continue their work.

Thailand insists that the relocation is necessary on the grounds of national security.

- BBC News, 31 March 2005.

At: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4396051.stm