Prix International des droits de l'homme Ludovic

Prix International des droits de l'homme Ludovic-Trarieux 2008

Ludovic-Trarieux International Human Rights Prize 2008 Premio Internacional de Derechos Humanos Ludovic Trarieux 2008

Internationalen Ludovic-Trarieux-Menschenrechtspreis 2008 Prêmio Internacional de Direitos Humanos Ludovic Trarieux 2008 Premio Internazionale per i Diritti Umani Ludovic Trarieux 2008

Ludovic Trarieux Internationale Mensenrechtenprijs 2008

Since 1984 "The international award given by Lawyers to a Lawyer"

ENG

www.ludovictrarieux.org


2

http://www.ludovictrarieux.org


3

Prix International des droits de l'homme Ludovic-Trarieux 2008

Ludovic-Trarieux International Human Rights Prize 2008 Premio Internacional de Derechos Humanos Ludovic Trarieux 2008

Internationalen Ludovic-Trarieux-Menschenrechtspreis 2008 Prêmio Internacional de Direitos Humanos Ludovic Trarieux 2008 Premio Internazionale per i Diritti Umani Ludovic Trarieux 2008

Ludovic Trarieux Internationale Mensenrechtenprijs 2008

REGULATIONS

INTERNATIONAL PRIZE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

“LUDOVIC TRARIEUX”

The regulations governing the award of the “LUDOVIC TRARIEUX” prize are provided for as follows:

Article 1

The LUDOVIC TRARIEUX PRIZE is awarded to a lawyer, regardless of nationality or Bar, who thoroughout his career has illustrated, by his activity or his suffering, the defence of human rights, the promotion of defence rights, the supremacy of law, and the struggle against racism and intolerance in any form.

Article 2

1°) The Prize is designated every year following the deliberation of a jury organized by the Institutes that have signed of the Convention.

2°) The deliberation of the Jury takes place in one of the cities where each member Institute exercises its activity.

3°) The Prize winning Ceremony takes place every year in a city that is home to one of the member Institutes or in the place judged most suitable by member institutes to the Convention.

4°) Exceptionally and on due decision of Institutes partners to the present Convention, the presentation will be able to take place in another city on occasion of a professional event susceptible to guarantee the highest solemnity to the Prize.

Article 3

1°) The Prize is awarded to a physical person.

2°) In exceptional cases, the Prize can be awarded post mortem to a lawyer who, in his dedication to the cause of human rights, paid with his life in the two years preceding the date of the award.



4

3°) The sum of the Prize is paid to those entitled or in default according to article 10°3.

Article 4

1°) The jury is composed of a minimum of nine members and a maximum of twenty one members, chosen for their experience and dedication in serving human rights.

2°) For the Prize winner designatation each Institute partner dispose de four votes when there are finve Institutes partners to the present Convention. This number is of only three when there are six Institutes partners eand of two when seven and more.

3°) Suffrage within the Jury is expressed oersinnally by the vote of members or qualified personalities nominated to attend the the deliberation. In exceptional situation, in case of justified undisponibility of a member of the jury the date for the deliberation, the Jury can allow the president of organism dotateur to vote on behalf od absent member.

4°) Moreover, it can be designated supplementary member chosen among qualified personalities, members of the Jury remaining limited to a maximum of twenty-one members.

5°) The Jury is chaired by the President of the Institute of Human Rights of the Bar of Bordeaux, founder of the Prize, or in default by the President of one of Institutes or moral persons participating in the endowment of the Prize or by his delegate.

Article 5

1°) For the preselection of candidates whose files will be submitted to the final voting of the Jury, the list and the relevant information concerning all candidates nominéses is addressed every year to every president of institutes partners one month before the deliberation.

Every recipient returns in the next fifteen days by closed folder the names of candidates in the maximum limit of three to be submitted to the deliberation of the Jury.

The list of candidates selected indicating the number of voice of each is sent before the final deliberation to every President of institutes partners.

2°) Quorum of two thirds of the members is required.

3°) The jury votes by secret ballot.

4°) Members of Jury must be physically present, excepted in case of authorization according to provisions of article 4-4°.

5°°) The prize winner must obtain an absolute majority of the votes to the three first ballots. In case of a tie, in the fourth ballot, the President will have the casting vote.

Article 6



5

1°) The files for the candidates that conform to the criteria of Article 1 are

determined by the Council of Administration of the Institute of Human Rights of the Bar of Bordeaux:

a) According to the nominations transmitted by the NGOs consulted whose answers arrived before the deadline;

b) According to the cases brought to the attention of member institutes during their annual activities and particularly urgent appeals.

2°) In addition, an appeal to candidates can be launched by press release, at least three weeks before the deliberation of the jury.

a°) Synthetic information on the candidates will be delivered to the members of the jury for the deliberation.

b) The complete files of the candidates will be deposited in the deliberation room where they could be consulted by members of the jury.

Article 7

The announcement of the result will be made, without any delay, after the deliberation of the jury and publicized by all practicable means.

Article 8

1°) The Prize is composed of a medallion effigy of LUDOVIC TRARIEUX with the name of the laureate and an amount of 7500 Euros (seven thousand five hundred Euros).

2°) The amount of the prize will be paid to equal parts by member institutes to the convention.

3°) expenses of organization and receipt will be supported every year by the institute exercising its activity in the city where the Prize winning ceremony takes place.

4°) In case of joint awards to more than one laureate, the sum of the Prize is divided in equal parts between the selected candidates.

5°) The laureate is invited to attend the award ceremony, with expenses for two persons for travel to and lodgement of three days including a night from Saturday to Sunday, paid by the Institute in charge with the Prize winning ceremony.

Article 9

The Prize is presented by the President of the Institute organizing the Prize winning ceremony or the president of one Member institute or by an invited personality, to the prize winner in person, or in default, to a member of his family, or in default to a designated person.



6

Representatives of other Member institutess or all other qualified personality are

invited to participate in the homage given back to the prize winner during the Prize winning Ceremony.

Article 10

1°) No one may claim to be laureate of the Prize until the presentation has been officially made.

2°) The medallion and the payment of the sum may not be claimed unless present at the official award ceremony according to the conditions provided for in Article 9.

3°) If for any reason, the Prize may not be awarded to the laureate in accordance with Article 9, the amount could be transferred on after decision of member institutes to a work or organisation whose objects are dedicated to the defence of human rights.

In due conformity, The President

Since 1984, the "International Human Rights Prize Ludovic -Trarieux is awarded annually to " a lawyer, regardless of nationality or Bar, who thoroughout his career has illustrated, by his activity or his suffering, the



7

defence of human rights, the promotion of defence rights, the supremacy of law, and the struggle against racism and intolerance in any form ".

The following is the list of prize winners:

1985: Nelson MANDELA (South Africa)

1992: Augusto ZÚÑIGA PAZ (Peru)

1994: Jadranka CIGELJ (Bosnia-Herzegovina)

1996: jointly Najib HOSNI (Tunisia) and Dalila MEZIANE (Algeria)

1998: ZHOU Guoqiang (China)

2000: Esber YAGMURDERELI (Turkey)

2002: Mehrangiz KAR (Iran)

2003: jointly Digna OCHOA and Bárbara ZAMORA (Mexico)

2004: Aktham NAISSE (Syria)

2005: Henri BURIN DES ROZIERS (Brazil)

2006 : Parvez IMROZ (India)

2007 : René GÓMEZ MANZANO (Cuba)

2008 :

AFRICA MIDDLE EAST

ASIA EUROPE SOUTH AMERICA



8



9

« LUDOVIC-TRARIEUX »

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS PRIZE

NOMINATIONS

2008

1. BIRMANIE – U AYE MYINT 2. CHINA – CHEN Guangcheng * 3. PAKISTAN : Parvez ASLAM CHOUDHRY ** 4. VIETNAM – : Nguyên Van Dài 5. PEROU Mónica FERIA-TINTA * 6. CHINA – GAO Zhisheng 7. ETHIOPIE – Birtukan MIDEKSA * 8. ZIMBABWE – Beatrice MTETWA 9. VIETNAM – Le Quoc QUAN 10. PALESTINE – Raji SOURANI * 11. RUSSIE – Mikhaïl TREPACHKINE * 12. CHINA – ZHENG Enchong **

Précédente nomination: * 2007

** 2006



10

LEGENDS (accompaniying nominations profiles)

Career, activities or sufferings endured for the defence of human rights:

D H I J M P T Detention : (aggregate duration of jail till today.)

Detention

Humanitarian (action)

I ndependance of Lawyers

J uridictionnal (action)

M Defender

Political (action)

Torture (action against)

Other awards in the field of human rights

Number of nominations for the Ludovic Trarieux Prize (including 2008)



11

MYANMAR(BURMA)

U Aye Myint

Lawyer U Aye Myint (alias Aye Myint Maung) and eight other persons were arrested on 17 July 2003 by members of the Military Intelligence and charged under section 122 of the Penal Code for High Treason for their antigovernment activities. On 28 November, a Yangoon Martial Court held inside Insein prison convicted and sentenced to death U Aye Myint (alias Aye Myint Maung) and eight other persons . They were convincted on 28 November 2003 by a under article 122/1 of the law for high treason for supposedly trying to murder the leaders of the SDPC. The nine were also accused of having contacts with political organizations in exile partly on the basis that he had communicated with the ILO. The others were Zaw Thet Htwe, Zaw Zaw, Zar Naing Htun (a student), Ne Win, Naing Yekkha (a political activist from New Mon State Party, also known as Shwe Mann), Than Htun, Myo Htway and Nai Min Kyi. Than Htun was released without explanation in December. His family said he was arrested by mistake. One of the group died in detention after also being sent to Insein prison.

After pressure by International Labour Organisation (ILO), the death sentence was commuted to three years’ imprisonment, for treason. U Aye Myint was released in January 2005. But two New Mon State Party members Naing Yakkha and Naing Kyin Kaung are today serving life sentences in Rangoon’s Insein prison after being arrested for allegedly reporting military abuse to the International Labour Organization and for planting a bomb.

In 2005, Aye Myint, a labour lawyer, had brought to the attention of the ILO the complaints of residents in Phanungdawthi village tract who claimed their land had been seized by the military. Authorities alleged that he provided incorrect and false information in the complaint and arrested him on 27 August 2005. He was charged with violating section 5 (e) of the catch-all Emergency Provisions Act

Lawyer U Aye Myint was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment allegedly for helping farmers report to the authorities and the ILO that local officials had confiscated their land. Because of his conviction, government authorities acted on 13 May 2006 to strip him of his licence to practice law and ensured his dismissal from the Bar Council, in contravention to Council regulations .The ILO made the release of Aye Myint an explicit condition of continued cooperation with Burma, and set a deadline for his release.

The ILO had given the authorities in Burma until the end of July to release Aye Myint, who had helped lodge a complaint to ILO staff, or face strong international legal action. Aye Myint has



12said that he will continue to take up rights-related cases, but it is unclear at this stage whether his licence to practice law will be returned to him or not. The SPDC finally released Aye Myint on 8 july 2006 from prison after serving 11 months of a seven year sentence after strenuous international pressure and attention. But at year’s end, his licence had still not been returned to him. Before being released Aye Myint was required to sign a document that if he commits any further offence in the remaining period of his sentence (six years and one month) then he will be returned to prison and required to serve out the full term.

Recently on May 10, 2007 U Aye Myint, provides legal aid to more than 100 Naypyidaw construction workers planning to file a complaint with the International Labour Organization, claiming the In Arr Htet company failed to pay them more than 3.6 million kyats-worth of wages. the In Arr Htet company hired engineer Ko Moe Kyaw Latt to head the construction of three buildings in Burma's new capital. After hiring more than 100 workers and starting construction, the company called off the project and refused to pay any wages to Ko Moe Kyaw Latt or the hired construction workers. U Aye Myint said the workers responded by occupying the former construction site in protest. "If grassroots people in Burma, such as the workers and farmers are insulted, they shouldn;t just feel dejected. They should report it . . . We won't just stand by," U Aye Myint said.

D J M Detention: juillet 2003 – janvier 2005 + 27 août 2005-8 juillet 2006 = (+/- 2 ans et 8 mois)



13

CHINA

Chen Guangcheng Chen Guangcheng, 34, is a blind activist in the People's Republic of China at the forefront of a growing civil rights movement who drew international attention to human rights issues in rural areas.

Having lost his sight at an early age, Chen does not have a law degree because the blind were denied college admission in China. Nonetheless, he managed to audit in law classes and learned enough to advise his fellow villagers when they sought his assistance.

In 2005, Chen exposed harsh illegal measures by local authorities when enforcing the one-child policy in Linyi, Shandong province, where family planning officials from Linyi municipal authorities forced thousands of people to undergo sterilization or to abort pregnancies. Chinese national regulations prohibit such brutal measures. The officials were also accused of detaining and torturing relatives of people who had escaped from the forced measures.

Chen filed a class-action lawsuit on the women's behalf against Linyi officials and drew attention to the plight of the villagers. He also traveled to Beijing in June 2005 to seek redress. Although the suit he filed was rejected, the incident was publicised on the Internet and by the Time magazine who interviewed Chen.[2] This prompted the National Family Planning and Population Commission to launch an investigation in August 2005. A month later, the Commission announced that several Linyi officials were detained.

However, Linyi authorities placed Chen under house arrest in September 2005. Radio Free Asia reported that Chen was beaten up during a clash between villagers and officials. Three lawyers who were attempting to meet Chen were also beaten by unidentified men. According to a report by the Washington Post, a campaign was launched by local officials to portray Chen as working for "foreign anti-China forces" and that he received foreign funding. Chinese authorities often use this rhetoric to sway public opinon in similar cases even though it is not often true. [1]

According to an article in Time by Hannah Beech, “Chen Guangcheng, A Blind Man with Legal Vision,” Chen met with Time reporters to discuss the forced abortion cases when he thought authorities would take action. "Yet three hours after meeting with TIME in Beijing to discuss the issue, Chen was shoved into an unmarked vehicle by public-security agents from his hometown. They bundled him back to his village, where he was held under house arrest for months. Despite the commission's vow, only one official has been detained.



14Meanwhile, thugs routinely showed up at Chen's home to rough him up." In April, Time named Chen one of the 100 people most influential in shaping our world. [7]

Chen was removed from his house in March 2006 and was formally detained in June 2006 by Yinan county official.[2] He was scheduled to stand trial on July 17, 2006 on charges of destruction of property and assembling a crowd to disrupt traffic. [1], but this was delayed at the request of the prosecution. [8] According to Radio Free Asia and Chinese Rights Defenders (CRD), a network of Chinese citizens who are committed to safeguarding rights and their international volunteer supporters, prosecution delayed the trial because a crowd of Chen supporters gathered outside the courthouse. With only a few days notice, authorities rescheduled Chen's trial for August 18, 2006.

On the eve of his trial, all three of his lawyers were detained by Yinan police. Two were released after being questioned and their phones confiscated. Xu Zhiyong, perhaps the lawyer with the most knowledge of the forced abortion cases Chen was working on, was detained after authorities accused him of stealing a man's wallet. He was not released until the trial concluded on the 18th. None of Chen's lawyers were allowed in the courtroom for the trial. Only Chen's brothers were allowed inside. Not even Chen's wife was allowed to hear proceedings. Instead, authorities appointed their own public defender for Chen just before the trial began. As a result, the defender had not even read the case report before he walked into the courtroom. The defender did little to help his new client's case and did not raise any objection to the proceedings or to any of the evidence presented, despite Chen's protest in the court. The trial lasted just two hours. On 24 August, 2006, Chen was sentenced to four years and three months for "damaging property and organising a mob to disturb traffic". [4]

On November 30, 2006, Yinan County court in Shandong province upheld its decision to sentence blind activist Chen Guangcheng to more than four years in prison after he documented claims of forced abortions, the activist's brother said.

The decision was issued in a 30-minute session, where no witnesses or evidence were presented, said Chen Guangfu, the only family member allowed to be present during the proceedings.

On January 12, 2007, the Linyi Intermediate Court in Shandong Province rejected Chen's final appeal. The same court had overturned his original conviction in December 2006 citing lack of evidence. However, Chen was convicted in a second trial on identical charges and given an identical sentence by the Yinan court

D J M

Détention : 12 mars 2006 - …= (mai 2007) +/- 14 mois )



15

PAKISTAN

Parvez Aslam Choudhry

Parvez Aslam Choudhry, is the chairman of a Lahore-based legal group : the NGO "Legal Aid for Destitute and Settlement" (LADS), which provides legal assistance to impoverished detainees and works against discriminatory laws in Pakistan, Parvez Aslam Choudhry is a Member High Court Bar Association and Member Lahore Bar Association in Pakistan, and former president Christian Lawyers Association Pakistan (CLAP).

Parvez Aslam Choudhry has defended many blasphemy accused in the High Court Pakistan, both Muslim and non-Muslim, and has been attacked on several occasions. He has been in danger before because of his work against the blasphemy laws. In 2003 he was assaulted while defending a blasphemy case. He filed a complaint with the police, but says they took no action.

He received frequent death threats while defending blasphemy case against one Younis Masih, a Christian who was allegedly charged with flinging a burning matchstick on November 12, 2005 in the Quran Mahal, a Islamic school situated in the Sangla Hill stadium which caught fire and is at risk of being sentenced to death.

Since the trial of Younis Masih began, he has been threatened outside the court and has also received anonymous telephone death threats, warning him that his life will be in danger if he continues to represent Younis Masih. Members of his family have also received threats during the trial of Younis Masih.

Younis Masih is alleged to have made derogatory remarks about the Prophet Mohammed at a religious service held at a house near his own on 9 September 2005, in the Chunngi Amar Sadu area of Lahore. He denies this, and a local newspaper quoted his wife as saying that he was attacked after he went to the house at around midnight and asked the people inside not to sing so loudly, as he was in mourning for his nephew, who had recently died. According to the local press, the next day local Muslims looted a number of Christian homes, and witnesses said that the police did not intervene.

The Muslim cleric who had led the service filed a complaint against Younis Masih on 10 September, accusing him of offences under Section 295C of the Pakistan penal code, which deals with blasphemy. According to his lawyer he is not facing any other charges. He was arrested on 11 September and taken to Kot Lakhpat jail, in Lahore, where he is still held. A first bail petition was rejected by the sessions court in Lahore in November and a second petition is now pending in the Lahore High Court.



16Masih always denied involvement in the desecration of the Quran, regarded by

Muslims as a holy book of Islam.

Both Younis Masih and Parvez Aslam Chaudhry have received regular death threats. Parvez Aslam Choudhry has received numerous anonymous telephone calls, and has been

physically assaulted outside the court. On 26 January on his way to the jail where he hoped to visit Younis Masih, a van drove into his car causing him minor injuries. Some of the men in the van got out and began to attack him as he sat in the car, but got back in the van and drove off when friends of Parvez Choudhry approached.

Younis Masih’s lawyer, Parvez Aslam Choudhry, has received threats, including death threats, during and since the trial. On 11 May 2006, unknown assailants deliberately rammed their car into Parvez Aslam Choudhry’s car, which then was pushed off the road and fell forty feet. One passenger, lawyer Rana Javed Rafiq, died instantly. Parvez Aslam Choudhry and his colleague Ijaz Victor were hospitalized for a number of days after the incident. On two occasions in February and July 2006, Parvez Aslam Choudhry was threatened at gun point by Muslim men who warned that his life was in danger if he continued to represent blasphemy cases. The judge in the case ordered the Punjab police to provide Choudhry with protection, but he has stated that this order has not been implemented.

In 2003, Parvez Aslam Choudhry has been awarded the Bishop John Joseph Award by Pakistan Minorities Front for his outstanding work in defending the rights of minorities at considerable personal risk .

On 17 April 2006, the Lahore Bar Asscociation (LBA) has nominated Parvez Aslam choudhry as "Chairman Jail Reforms Comittee of LBA for year 2006 to 2007. This is first time in the history of LBA that one Christian lawyer is being appointed as chairman of any any comittee of Bar.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Lawyers defending people accused of blasphemy in Pakistan are facing growing threats to their lives. Death threats and physical assault have become a regular occurrence for some lawyers, despite the widespread misuse of the blasphemy laws. Those accused of blasphemy also face similar threats.

Christians comprise less than 3 percent of Pakistan's over 162-million mainly Muslim people, experts say. (With BosNewsLife Research and reports from Pakistan).

A human rights organization has urged Pakistani government to ensure protection of lawyers defending people accused of blasphemy in the country. It has also called for measures to ensure that the blasphemy accused are treated as innocent until proven guilty.

The blasphemy laws of Pakistan, while purporting to protect Islam and the religious sensitivities of the Muslim majority, are vaguely formulated and arbitrarily enforced by the police and judiciary in a way which amounts to harassment and persecution of religious minorities. Many of those accused or suspected of blasphemy have been assaulted or tortured. People detained on blasphemy charges in prisons including Kot Lakhpat, where Younis Masih is held, have been killed by fellow detainees or prison wardens. Others suspected of blasphemy, but not under arrest, have been unlawfully killed without police taking any action to protect them.

D J I M



17

VIETNAM

Nguyên Van Dài Nguyên Van Dài, aged 38, is one of the leaders of the democracy movement ‘’Bloc 8406’’ and regularly posts pro-democracy essays on foreign websites. His activities as a lawyer include providing legal assistance to the majority of the country’s human rights and democracy activists. Nguyen van Dai, is also a member of Advocates International and Advocates Asia.

He started a web-log on the Reporters Sans Frontiers web-log platform shortly before his arrest (http://nguyenvandai.rsfblog.org). Dai also represented ethnic minorities who were members of Protestant faiths. Dai has gained some notoriety among the authorities for his human rights work. He defended Rev Nguyen Hong Quang and the so-called Mennonite Six in Ho Chi Minh City in 2004 and 2005.

Nguyen Van Dai was reportedly subjected to criticism by a ‘popular court’ on 8 February 2007, in which 200 residents from a district of Hanoi were mobilised by the authorities to insult and denounce him for being a ‘‘traitor’’. He and fellow lawyer Le Thi Cong Nhan aged 28, have been under heavy surveillance for some time for their dissident activities, and were briefly detained on 3 February 2007 and held for 48 hours.

Le Thi Cong Nhan is the spokesperson for the recently founded Vietnam Progression Party. She is also a member of the democracy movement 'Bloc 8406'.

Both have been under heavy surveillance for some time for their dissident activities, summonsing him frequently for interrogation, monitoring and even cutting his phone lines. On 3 February 2007, they were briefly detained and held for 48 hours.

Dai and Nhan provided human rights training to Vietnamese students. On 28 February, in response to police pressure, the Business Registration Office of Hanoi’s Planning and Investment Bureau cancelled the permit of TNHH Translation and Legal Consultation Firm of which Nguyen Van Dai is a co-founder and the executive director.

Nguyen Van Dai and Le Thi Cong Nhan were arrested at their homes on 6 March 2007, accused of 'hostile propaganda against the Socialist Republic of Vietnam' for their critical writings and dissident activities with the pro-democracy movement 'Bloc 8406', including the recent signing of a petition under their real names. More specifically, Dai was accused of using his law office "to draft, archive, and circulate documents biased against the Vietnamese state;" and of conducting courses in his office through which he "spread libellous and distorted news against the State and through which he recruited members for illegal organisations established by anti-Government elements, including groups so-called 21st Century Democracy Party, Viet Nam Progress Party and Bloc 8406."


http://nguyenvandai.rsfblog.org


18

Nguyen Van Dai and Le Thi Cong Nhan were brought before a Hanoi court and respectively sentenced to five years and four years respectively by the Hanoi People's Court on 11 May 2007; to be followed by four years probation for Dai and three years probation for Nhan .

Prosecutors accused Dai of criticising Vietnam’s human rights record in order to block one of the country’s highest goals, entrance into the World Trade Organisation, which the country joined in January.They also said Dai had urged people to boycott Vietnam’s upcoming legislative elections.They said Nhan had served as the spokeswoman for the outlawed Vietnam Progression Party, joined Bloc 8406 and advised an illegal trade union.The judge at his trial said Dai and Nhan had "seriously violated Vietnam's constitution and laws by denigrating the Communist Party's role" and "misrepresented the situation of democracy and human rights in Vietnam."

The official press reports say Dai and Nhan were represented by lawyers, but that the lawyers offered no convincing evidence on their behalf. Letters to the government signed by Dai's wife and Nhan's mother preceding the trial urged the postponement of the trial so the lawyers could have time to prepare a case; and also pointed out numerous violations of Vietnam's Criminal Procedure Code in their arrest, imprisonment and treatment while waiting for trial.

Their trial was preceded by a barrage of media denuciations against them. Vietnam News Agency claims their verdict met widespread public approval in Vietnam; it cited two lawyers with the Hanoi Bar Association, a war veteran, and a priest with the Catholic solidarity committee (of the Fatherland Front) in a diocese of the Central Highlands who said all his parishioners supported the verdict.

On appeal on 28 November 2007. Nguyen Van Dai and Le Thi Cong Nhan had their prison sentences of five and four years respectively reduced by one year in each case, but they were each ordered to serve a further period in 'administrative detention' (house arrest) of four and three years respectively.

D J M Détention : 6 mars 2007- … (condamnation à quatre ans de prison ferme)



19

PERU

Mónica Feria-Tinta

Mónica Feria Tinta, 39 years-old, made efforts on behalf of human rights and fundamental freedoms and against oppression and injustice in Peru representing international cases concerning crimes against humanity (prisoner's rights) and the rights of children of Peru. She had studied law at the Catholic University in Lima Peru. As a young lawyer, having just finished her 6 and half law degree in 1991 she was directly confronted with acts of great brutality inflicted on masses of people and with her own victimisation. In 1992, Monica Feria-Tinta Feria-Tinta was detained, tortured and imprisoned with no legal basis for her sole participation in the first ever documentary (commissioned by Television Channel 4 UK and WHGB Public-Television USA) about the internal conflict in Peru in 1992. Just a few days after finishing the filming, she was detained, disappeared for two days, held incommunicado by the Peruvian Police for 17 days and sent to a high security prison in Lima called Castro Castro prison in April 1992. A week after arrival to the prison where she was finally sent, she underwent a massacre which was perpetrated by the State security forces including the army, the navy and elite police units. There had been a moment during the massacre, a moment that always remained with her: she had been crawling on top of dead bodies for her life, the bodies were still warm, they were all black, and she says that there, at that moment she felt so strongly the “dehumanisation” she was inflicted. It was at that point that she told herself that if she survived that massacre, she would not let things in impunity. For over 5 months Monica was totally incommunicado. She was not allowed to change her clothes full of blood, she was not given basic toiletries such as toothbrush, comb, soap, toilet paper, she could not see her family or a lawyer. No books were allowed, no papers, no newspapers, no pen, no forms of work. All these events occurred during the dictatorship of Alberto Fujimori

She was 24 when she lived these events, but in the midst of these atrocities the spirit of Monica Feria-Tinta was not broken. And yet, her consciousness, lead her to become a champion of human rights against the impunity of that massacre and other atrocities in Peru once she obtained her liberty. Monica Feria-Tinta recovered her liberty in July 1993. She was judged by faceless tribunal (judges hiding behind a mirror), who acquitted her nevertheless of charges against the security of the State.

Then Monica Feria-Tinta came to the United Kingdom as a refugee in 1993. She wanted to specialize in International Law. She wanted to be able to bring justice to the atrocities she had witnessed. She was admitted to London School of Economics and Political Science, and was awarded a Master of Laws with merit in 1996. Soon later She filed a complaint before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights a human rights organ with jurisdiction to investigate the events she survived. She herself presented her claim on her own behalf and on behalf of almost 600 hundred other victims. She tried to seek representation from NGOs or more experienced lawyers to no avail But she decided to pursue her claim in the face of many rejections anyway.



20

Soon, she had gotten the case admitted. The admission of the case soon required further commitment from her; she left a career in law she had just started to commit selflessly to represent a case of crimes against humanity for which there were no other human or financial resources but those that her own strength could summon.

By 2003, however, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights acknowledged that the violations Monica Feria-Tinta and the other prisoners had lived in the Castro Castro prison case amounted to crimes against humanity. The case was then referred to the Inter-American Court of Human rights, organ that has the power to pass a judgment on the case and order reparations for all victims. She represents 300 victims who have signed powers of representation for her to represent them and their relatives before the Court.

In the midst of this litigation she was contacted by a family whose two children (14 and 17) had been tortured and killed in 1991, in Peru needing representation before the Inter-American Court on Human Rights. Due to her work of representation in that case the State of Peru, she was threatened with detention in Costa Rica (where the Inter-American Court of human rights sits) by the Peruvian authorities who were trying to intimidate her. Knowing that it was safer to remain in the UK and not going to Costa Rica, Monica Feria-Tinta decided to go and continue with her work of representation. The hearing was a total success . In the judgment on the case (Gomez Paquiyauri Brothers), the Court acknowledged that the representation of the victims had contributed to international law stating the law of State responsibility in a way that had escaped the very Commission on Human Rights. The case was the first international law case concerning the rights of the child in times of armed conflict where a human rights tribunal handed down a full judgment stating the law in that respect and ordering reparations.

The litigation of the Juarez Cruzatt et al case (Castro Castro prison case) in which she is currently working on, will be perhaps one of the most important cases on prisoner's rights litigated lately. One of the consequences of the final judgement of the Inter-American Court of Human rights will be that Peru open prosecution against Fujimori for the killing of around 60 prisoners, serious injury of over 175 and systematic torture of hundreds both women and men. This is the sole case against Peru concerning crimes against humanity ordered by Alberto Fujimori before the Inter-American Court, and indeed the sole case of crimes against humanity concerning Peru brought on behalf of hundreds of victims ever to have reach the jurisdiction of the Court. By then she had achieved a high command of knowledge of international law: she had done internships with the ICTY and the ICJ working on issues of genocide, but moreover she had been distinguished with the Diploma of the Hague Academy of International Law. She is the only Peruvian ever awarded the prestigious diploma. In the midst of adversity, paying her international law studies with cleaning jobs and translations she had managed to achieve academic scholarship of high level in law. Her aim however, was not to put this knowledge for her own personal good, but instead she devoted this knowledge to serve others, disadvantaged victims whom she did not know but whose victimisation she had also lived.

Background:

It has taken Peru 12 years to recognise that the massacre Monica Feria-Tinta always denounced took place. It has taken 12 years for the Peruvian society to recognise that Peru had been living a war throughout the 80's and 90's.

D J Detention : April 1992 – July1993 = +/- 15 months ).



21

CHINA

Gao Zhisheng Gao Zhisheng, age 41, army veteran, self taught lawyer, Christian; is director, founder and star litigator of the well known Beijing based Shengzhi Law Office. The office, because it is one few Chinese law firms involved with human rights issues, has been suspended by the Chinese authorities for one year. Mr. Gao and his family's ordeal started when his conscience led him to start investigating the persecusion of Falun Gong and wrote three open letters to the top Chinese officials. In 2000 he moved to Beijing and established the Shengzhi Law Office with a half dozen other lawyers. In 2001 he was voted as one of the 10 Best Lawyers in China, because of his professionalism and integrity, often helping poor people without fees suing local Chinese government branches and officials. Gao Zhisheng wrote one open letter to the National Peoples' Congress in 2004 and two open letters to Hu Jintao and Wen Jibao in 2005, before his open letter to the members of the U.S. Congress, requesting that they stop the persecution toward Falun Gong practitioners.

On November 4, 2005 Beijing Municipal Bureau of Justice's official notice closing the firm for failure to notify the authorities of its change of address and the “illegal” submission of legal documents to a lawyer who does not work for the firm, is received by Gao Zhisheng.

In December 2005, Gao wrote an open letter resigning from the CCP in which he revealed that his investigations into the persecution of Falun Gong had lead him to lose hope completely in the CCP. On January 17, 2006, according to an Epoch Times report, Mr. Gao escaped an assassination attempt allegedly ordered by the Chinese government. The attempted car crash plot came in the wake of the release of Mr. Gao's research reports on the prosecution of Falun Gong in mainland China, and his subsequent resignation of CCP membership.

In Feb. 2006 Gao called for a Hunger Strike Support Group to Support Human Rights, which organized relay hunger strikes by thousands of people in China in support of human rights. In December 2006, he was sentenced to three years in prison for "subversion of the state," with a five-year "suspended sentence," and denial of all of his constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech and free association, for one year. Gao and his family have been under strict surveillance by the authorities ever since, and they have been repeatedly harassed. Thugs have beaten his daughter, apparently under the direction of someone—or some faction of—the CCP.

While Gao was still free, he and his family were subjected to 260 days of daily harassment by the police, which included three attempts on Gao's life. On Aug. 15 2006, Gao was arrested on the charge of "inciting subversion." After Gao's arrest, his family continued to be subjected to intense harassment, which included attacks on his wife Geng He and his daughter Geng Ge.



22In April 2007, Gao Zhisheng reported other Chinese activists that he had been treated harshly by police during a four-month period in custody in 2006, including being handcuffed and forced to sit in an iron chair or cross-legged for extended periods, and having bright lights shone at him. He said he only agreed to confess to his ëcrimeí in order to protect his family.

Gao Zhisheng wad kidnapped on 22 September 2006 by members of the State Security Bureau, but the Chinese authorities have made no official announcement of his detention. According to Hu Jia, a close contact of Gao Zhisheng, he might have been taken away by officers from either the State Security Bureau or the National Security Unit of the Beijing Public Security Bureau.

The visit to Gao Zhisheng’s house by state security personnel was apparently linked to his issuing of an open letter to the US Congress on 13 September, drawing attention to the deterioration in the human rights situation and stating that, in light of this, he could not support the country’s staging of the 2008 Olympics.

Hu Jia, Beijing-based AIDS activist, received a phone call from Gao Zhisheng, on October 28. Hu reported their conversation, which lasted only one and a half minutes. Gao warned Hu Jia not to take risks to visit his family, otherwise, the authorities would seek revenge against him.

D J M

Detention : 15 August 2006-16 February 2007 et 22 September 2007 - …



23

ZIMBABWE

Beatrice Mtetwa

Béatrice Mtetwa a prominent media lawyer, born in 1959, in Swaziland. She was growing up in Swaziland, moved in n 1983 to Zimbabwe, married 1989 a local mathematics teacher and had two children. Beatrice Mtetwa is the current President of the Law Society of Zimbabwe and also one of Zimbabwe's foremost lawyers defending opponents of Robert Mugabe's brutal regime. As a consequence, she has been subjected to a savage beating by police. As a Zimbabwean lawyer, Ms Mtetwa has defended many of those who have been arrested by President Robert Mugabe's government. Beatrice Mtetwa has defended many journalists in Zimbabwe who have been detained and harassed, including the Guardian newspaper's former Harare correspondent Andrew Meldrum, an American journalist who was expelled from Zimbabwe in May 2003 after 23 years as a correspondent for British papers. Mtetwa won acquittals for Toby Harnden and Julian Simmonds, journalists with The Sunday

Telegraph of London, who were arrested outside a polling station in Zimbabwe during a parliamentary election.

In a country where the law is used as a weapon against independent journalists, Mtetwa has defended journalists and argued for press freedom, all at great personal risk. The illegal detention and torture of two journalists in 1999 marked the beginning of an unprecedented clampdown on the free press in Zimbabwe. This came as a new opposition party posed a strong challenge to the government, and a new independent newspaper, the Daily News, was reporting on critical issues.

After the government lost a constitutional referendum in 2000, it stepped up its war on the independent press. It introduced new laws under which it became a crime to practise journalism in Zimbabwe without government accreditation. Mtetwa has worked on behalf of the Daily News, Zimbabwe's sole independent daily newspaper until it was closed by the government in 2003.Ms. Mtetwa has also represented innumerable lesser-known journalists caught up in the Harare government's repressive apparatus, recently winning an acquittal for a Daily News reporter in a critical test case over alleged unlicensed reporting.

Those Mtetwa has defended include many black farmers evicted from their land by the government, the mayor of Harare, a leading member of the Movement for Democratic Change, and Zimbabwe's renowned independent newspaper, the Daily News. On October 12, 2003, in Harare, she was the victim of a car-jacking for the second time in eleven days. She contacted the police immediately following the incident but, instead of helping Ms. Mtetwa, the officers accused her of being drunk and took her into custody. Despite their accusation the officers failed to breathalise her ...instead they assaulted her both on route to the police station and then upon her



24arrival at the station During these assaults she sustained injuries to her head, face, arms, back and thighs of such severity that they required treatment at the Trauma Centre in Harare upon her release.

She was named Human Rights Lawyer of the Year by the campaign group Liberty. Ms. Mtetwa is recipient of one of the 2005 Press Freedom Awards by the New York-based campaign group the Committee to Protect Journalists. En 2005 recibió el Premio a la Libertad de Prensa que concede el Comité de Defensa de los Periodistas, con sede en Nueva York. La defensa del periodista Andrew Meldrum le valio el reconocimiento de las organizaciones internacionales de Periodistas por su defensa de la libertad de expresion. Defensa que le llevo, en octubre de 2004, a ser encarcelada y perseguida por el gobierno de Mugabe. En 2005 fue galardonada por Jueces para la Libertad por su trabajo en la defensa de los Derechos Humanos

These laws have been used to close several independent newspapers. Countless journalists have been left without jobs, while dozens have also fled the country under threat of arrest and prosecution. Today, Zimbabwe holds the dubious honor of having the highest number of journalists in exile.

Zimbabwe now has only two independent weeklies with limited circulation. But they have to work under the permanent threat of having their licenses withdrawn, and that inevitably leads to self-censorship.

The absence of an independent daily newspaper or independent radio means that people in the country are not informed properly about what is going on: human rights abuses, food shortages, petrol shortages, the collapse of the health and education systems, and the breakdown of the rule of law.

Beatrice Mtetwa is also the current President of the Law Society of Zimbabwe.In March 2007, while serving a court order on the police, she was violently manhandled, roughed up abused and dragged by police officers from out of the police station back into the police station where she had just served a court order on the reluctant officers.Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights reported that violent incidents against its members are on the rise in Zimbabwe following the recent crackdown by the police on opposition activities which resulted in the fatal shooting of an MDC activist, the arrest and assaulting of Morgan Tsvangirai and other pro-democracy leaders.

On May 8, 2007, Beatrice Mtetwa, and other lawyers were severely beaten by the police in Harare, for leading the legal profession in Zimbabwe to defend the rule of law and protest the frequent harassment of lawyers in Zimbabwe by the police and the now endemic defiance of court orders by the government. The four lawyers, dressed in professional robes, had been forced into a police truck and driven to an open area in Harare’s outskirts after officers broke up a protest of more than 60 lawyers outside Zimbabwe’s High Court.Beatrice Mtetwa, suffered bruises on her back, arms, and legs after police in Harare beat her and three colleagues with rubber clubs for several minutes. The four attorneys were forced to lie face down before being beaten, said Mtetwa, who was treated at a local hospital and released later that day. .

For many lawyers, taking cases of human rights abuses to the Supreme Court is no longer seen as a viable option because this court has demonstrated a disturbing averseness to upholding individual rights where this would conflict with Government policy.

J I M P



25

ETHIOPIA

Woizero Birtukan Mideksa

Woizero Birtukan Mideksa, is a lawyer coming from the Oromo community, developed as a distinct political and ethnic group some time in the 16th century in southern Ethiopia. Young, educated and charismatic, she came to national attention in 2002 when she served briefly as a Supreme Court judge made headlines over a crucial court case involving the prime minister as a plaintiff and his political opponent, former Defense Minister Siye Abraha, as a defendant. An example of her judicial integrity is the following. Judge Birtukan set Siye ( a former government official) free, ruling there was no evidence to keep the defendant in jail over alleged corruption charges. Meles dispatched his security men to the court, reversed the ruling, and sent the former TPLF official back to prison. Siye had accused Meles of treason as an Eritrean agent who foiled Ethiopia s counter-offensive against Eritrean invasion in the previous war.

She was elected as the first Vice president of the Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUD),ans was arrested among hundreds of people detained after demonstrations in the capital, Addis Ababa, on 1 and 2 November, in protest at the contested results of the parliamentary election which took place on 15 May. Large numbers of members and suspected members of the CUD, as well as journalists and human rights defenders, are reportedly being systematically taken from their homes by police. Among those detained is CUD President Hailu Shawel, who was reportedly beaten by the police who arrested him. Professor Mesfin Woldemariam, the 75-year-old former chair of the Ethiopian Human Rights Council (EHRCO), was detained on 1 November. He is a renowned author and human rights defender, who had recently resigned from his EHRCO position to support the CUD's election campaign. For the past three months, he has been confined to bed due to a spinal condition, for which he requires regular medical attention and physiotherapy.

The authorities have not confirmed where any of those detained are being held. Some reports indicate that many of them may be held at the headquarters of the Central Investigation Bureau (Maikelawi) in Addis Ababa. None of the detainees are reported to have appeared in court within the 48 hour limit prescribed by the law.

Riot police have reportedly used live ammunition against participants in the demonstrations, which took place in a number of districts of Addis Ababa. Over 30 people have been killed and 150 others are seriously wounded. The demonstrations reportedly began peacefully but violence erupted after police began shooting at protesters. Two police officers are reported to be among the dead.



26The arrests followed a series of non-violent protest actions on the 31 October called by the CUD who are boycotting the new parliament on account of alleged election fraud by the ruling party, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi's Ethiopian Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF). Some 30 taxi drivers were arrested for honking their horns in the previous day's protest action. Their place of detention is unknown. The authorities have repeatedly claimed that the CUD is planning "a violent conspiracy", and Prime Minister Meles Zenawi had recently accused Hailu Shawel of treason. The CUD has affirmed its commitment to non-violent opposition and protest.

The trial of 129 lawmakers, journalists and human rights activists on treason charges opened in February 2006 with all but three defendants defiantly refusing to enter a plea. Most were arrested on charges that include "conspiring against the Constitution," which is a capital crime under Ethiopian law. Birtukan Mideksahad barely spoken when the microphone was taken away. The charges relate to demonstrations after May 2005 elections, which the opposition says were stolen by Prime Minister Meles Zenawi. More than 80 people are thought to have died in the protests, mainly at the hands of police.

Prosecutors requested the death penalty for 38 of the defendants, who were among scores put on trial on charges of inciting the violence following the disputed polls which the ruling party won but the opposition claims were rigged. The opposition leaders had refused to recognize the court and did not enter a plea, saying the trial was political.

On Jul 16th, 2007, Ethiopia's high court sentenced Birtukan Mideksa and 34 other opposition leaders to life imprisonment for inciting rebellion. All were freed on July 20th after being granted a full pardon by Ethiopian President Girma Woldegiorgis.

On January 29th 2006, was commemorated as "Birtukan Mideksa Day" in Boston In recognition of her contribution to the democratic, peaceful struggle, January 29th was commemorated as "Birtukan Mideksa Day", for the sacrifices she continues to make in the Ethiopian people's struggle for Freedom and Democracy.

Background Information :

Political prisoners/prisoners of conscience in Ethiopia include opposition party members, human right activists, civic members, journalists, and others. These political prisoners/prisoners of conscience are jailed because they stand for democracy and demand that Ethiopians deserve a democratically elected government. All of them have been working towards this demand in a peaceful manner during and after the May 2005 election-the first real multi-party contested election. Their actions have always been taken with utmost regard to human lives. Every time they call on the Ethiopian people to protest the rigging of the election results by the ruling party, they have requested the public only to non-violent protests, inspired from the civil rights movement led by Dr. Martin Luther King and the peaceful movement of Ghandi in India. The current constitution of Ethiopia states that the government should charge a person within 48 hours or release the person immediately. As of now, the government is not following the constitution and has jailed without charge the leadership of the opposition party, journalists who dared to tell the truth, human right activists who pointed out the injustice in the nation, civic leaders who were working towards a peaceful resolution to the election crisis, elderly family members of wanted journalists and opposition members, and countless young men and women.

Detention : 2 November 2005 - 20 July 2007 (20 months et 18 days)



27

VIETNAM

Lê Qu c Quân Lê Qu c Quân, Mr. Lê Qu c Quân, a 36-year-old lawyer, has been vocal in his defense of religious freedom and political pluralism, both as a law student and legal advocate, and in his writings for the BBC and several Vietnamese newspapers. An active participant in Vietnam's struggle for democracy, residing in Nghe An, hr has worked for the past seven years as a local governance consultant to the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, UNDP, and the Swedish International Development Agency. He is founder of Vietnam Solutions, a firm that provides consulting services on local governance, poverty reduction, and grassroots democracy for development projects in Vietnam. During his fellowship, Mr. Quan is examined the role of civil society in countries that have made a successful democratic transition. He planned to write an article on how civil society can contribute to democracy in Vietnam.

From October 2006 to February 2007, lawyer Lê Qu c Quân held a Reagan-Fascell Fellowship under the International Forum for Democratic Studies at the National Endowment for Democracy, where he conducted independent research on civil society. Mr. Quan had been doing research on the role of civil society in emerging democracies. Earlier, he had worked as a consultant for the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the United Nations Development Program. On March 8, 2007 upon his return home to Vietnam, he was arrested and charged under Article 79 of the Criminal Code, which proscribes “activities aimed at overthrowing the Government.” Lê Qu c Quân is being held at detention camp B14 of the Ministry of Public Security in Hanoi.

Le Quoc Quan, was released to his family in the capital, Hanoi, on June 16, 2007.

Mr. Quan was one of several pro-democracy activists relaeased ahead of President Nguyen Minh Triet's historic trip to the United States. Vietnam's president is scheduled to meet President Bush at the White House on June 22. He will be the first Vietnamese leader to make a state visit to Washington. His release had been sought by the State Department, which has complained about an escalating crackdown against Vietnamese dissidents in recent months.

D J M Detention : (8 March 2007- 16 June 2007) = 3 months et 8 days.



28



29

ISRAEL/ PALESTINE

Raji Sourani

Raji Sourani, is the founder and director of the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) in Gaza. Raji Sourani has been dedicated to the promotion and protection of human rights throughout his professional career despite the personal and professional sacrifices he has been forced to make in adhering to the fundamental principles of human rights. He has been an active lawyer since his qualification in 1977 representing a wide variety of victims of human rights abuses. His profession, particularly his professional success and commitment, earned him early on the hostility of the Israeli military and State, a hostility that has continued and increased throughout his career. Raji Sourani studied law at Beirut and Alexandria Universities. He was the Director of the Gaza Centre for Rights and Law from 1991 to 1995. Prior to this, he established his own law firm in 1983 to defend Palestinians in Israeli Military Courts and in the course of his work was arrested both by the Israeli and Palestinian authorities numerous times.

In the 1980s, Sourani was widely recognized for his effective defense of Palestinians before the Israeli military courts. In connection with his defense work, Sourani was four times held in detention by the Israelis, beaten and subjected to mental and physical abuse. Sourani has represented Palestinians facing deportation and closely monitored detention and prison conditions. Reaching out to Israeli human rights organizations, he formed links regarded with suspicion by fellow Palestinians but which proved to be effective in the pursuit of human rights. In 1988 he was an Amnesty International Prisoner of Conscience. The task of monitoring Israeli violations is all-consuming, but the PCHR cannot afford to forget that its calling is to defend the rule of law with impartiality. In particular, the torture he suffered during periods of interrogation at the hands of the Israeli Shin Bet in Israeli prisons throughout the 1970s and 1980s, served to strengthen his commitment, his character and his determination to ensure that victims of human rights abuse world wide can seek justice for the abuses perpetrated against them and that those who perpetrate such acts cannot enjoy impunity. He was detained by the Palestinian Authority in 1995, following statements critical of their establishment of a state security court. Since the signing of the Declaration of Principles by the Government of Israel and the PLO, and the establishment of limited Palestinian self-rule, Sourani has advocated strict adherence to international standards for the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority. Sourani is struggling to find a difficult balance. A human rights monitor must always be impartial in defending the rule of law. But he or she can never afford to be neutral in the face of violations, because neutrality is tantamount to inaction. And despite the danger of repercussions, he is an outspoken critic of human rights violations committed by both sides. In his bold and principled stance, Raji Sourani has won wide respect, and has been recognized by numerous international organizations for his courageous work.



30Despite periods of political imprisonment in Israel and years of harassment and violence from the Israeli military, Raji has maintained an unwavering commitment to human rights and justice for both Palestinian victims in particular, and for all victims worldwide. His refusal to bend to political considerations, dogged determination in seeking justice for victims and his strength to speak out against perpetrators of human rights abuse in Israel, in the Palestinian Authority or elsewhere have earned him a reputation for integrity and commitment throughout the human rights world and beyond. Raji has been an advocate for basic human rights standards both at a domestic and international level and has refused to curtail his outspoken criticisms of failure to adhere to human rights standards by the Palestinian Authority, by political parties and by other states. This refusal to be silenced has resulted in further arrests, periods of detention, harassment by the Palestinian Authority and even death threats from Palestinian fundamentalist parties.

However, rather than weakening his desire to see justice done, these dark periods have actually served to strengthen Raji's resolve. In particular, the torture he suffered during periods of interrogation at the hands of the Israeli Shin Bet in Israeli prisons throughout the 1970s and 1980s, served to strengthen his commitment, his character and his determination to ensure that victims of human rights abuse world wide can seek justice for the abuses perpetrated against them and that those who perpetrate such acts cannot enjoy impunity.

Despite the cumulative impact on his health of these long years of physical and mental abuse, Raji continues to strive for these goals through the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights which he founded in 1995 with a group of fellow lawyers and human rights activists in the Gaza Strip. Raji has spearheaded the award-winning centre since its establishment and continues to ensure that the centre provides the legal and other services to victims of human rights abuses in the Gaza Strip that enable them to seek justice and reparation.

In September 2007 Raji Sourani was prevented to travel outside the Gaza Strip to attend the “UN Conference of Civil Society in Support of Israeli-Palestinian Peace” organized by UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and was held in the European Parliament Building in Brussels on August 30-31 2007. Sourani was slated to chair one of the conference sessions and present a paper. ” In addition, Sourani sent his paper entitled, Enforcement of International Law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory: The Only Real Roadmap for Peace” for presentation at the conference. It described the human rights situation in Palestine, including Israeli violations perpetrated since the outbreak of Al-Aqsa Intifada and the violations stemming from the unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip plan. Outlining the failures of the peace process vis-à-vis respect for human rights, Sourani called for enforcing international law in the OPT to all outstanding issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including the issues of statehood, borders, & refugees.

Raji Sourani is an International Board Member of the International Federation of Human Rights and an Expert Member of the International Council of the International Human Rights Law Group. He was elected to the Commission in April 2003. However, his involvement with the ICJ dates back to 1996, when he became the Director of the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, an ICJ affiliated organisation.

Raji Sourani has received numerous awards for his work including the Bruno Kreisky Prize for Human Rights in 2002, a Human Rights Prize awarded by the Republic of France in 1996 and a joint laureate of the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial for Human Rights Award in 1991.

D H J M

Detention : 6 years .



31

RUSSIA

Mikhaïl Trepachkine

Mikhail Ivanovich Trepashkin, (Russian: ), born 7 April 1957, began military service in the Navy’s submarine fleet. After discharge from the Navy he entered the Higher School of the KGB. In 1976 he started his career in the KGB. In the early 90-s he was transferred to the FSB and became a Colonel of the FSB.

In the Summer of 2002 Trepashkin met Duma Deputy Sergey Yushenkov and offered assistance in the investigation into the apartment house bombings, conducted by the Public Committee of Sergei Kovalev, of which Yushenkov was a co-chair. The authorities had blamed the explosions on Chechen separatists, but there are allegations that the FSB had been complicit in the explosions, which the Russian government had used as a pretext for military action in Chechnya.

In the Summer of 2003 the Morozov sisters, who reside in the USA, hired Trepashkin to represent them in the bombings investigation as victims – their mother was killed in one of the apartment houses (by Russian law crime victims may participate in criminal trials as a side). Tatiana Morozova visited Moscow in August 2003. Together, Trepashkin and Tatiana tried to gain access to the documents in the bombings case.

While preparing for the trial Trepashkin uncovered a trail of a mysterious suspect whose description had disappeared from the files. To his amazement, the man turned out to be one of his former FSB colleagues. He also found a witness who testified that evidence was doctored to lead the investigation away from incriminating the FSB

On October 22, 2003, just a week before the hearings, a gun was allegedly planted into his car, and he ended up behind bars. However, before his arrest he told his story to a Moscow journalist. The gun charge was thrown out by a Moscow appeals court but Trepashkin was convicted by a closed military court in May 2005 to four years’ imprisonment in an open prison colony for "divulging state secrets" and "illegal possession of ammunition".

After serving two years of his sentence, imprisoned at IK 13, an open prison colony located in Sverdlovsk Region, Trepashkin was released on parole, on 30 August 2005. On his arrival at his home in Moscow on 31 August Mikhail Trepashkin announced he would continue his research relating to the apartment bombings and on 2 September at a press conference he announced that he was forming a committee of lawyers. Two weeks later he was re-arrested and on 21 September he was transferred to the IK-13 prison.after the State appealed the parole decision



32In detention, Mikhail Trepashkin is being denied access to adequate medical treatment

for chronic, life-threatening asthma. In May and October 2006 Mikhail Trepashkin was reportedly preliminarily diagnosed with a level of asthma which, under Russian law, allows him to be transferred to an hospital for treatment and to be considered for early release.

On 29 May 2006, the district court in Nizhnii Tagil, Sverdlovsk region, was to decide on Mikhail Trepashkin's appeal for access to adequate medical treatment. However, during the hearing he suffered a severe asthma attack, and the judge ordered that Mikhail Trepashkin be taken to hospital immediately. At the hospital, in Nizhnii Tagil, it was found that he had developed a severe form of bronchial asthma and needed urgent treatment, so he was given oxygen and put on a drip. But the same day; at about 10 pm that day, the deputy head of the prison colony apparently came to the hospital with five warders, and took Mikhail Trepashkin back to the prison colony where he was serving his sentence.

According to Mikhail Trepashkin’s lawyers, the head of the health department of the prison has stated repeatedly that Mikhail Trepashkin needs to be transferred to a hospital since the prison is unable to provide adequate treatment. However, the head of the prison reportedly continues to object to such a transfer.Mikhail Trepashkin has asthma attacks nearly every day In October 2006, an ambulance had to be called from outside the prison because medical staff in the prison colony were unable to provide adequate treatment during an especially serious attack, during which he lost consciousness and stopped breathing.

During his imprisonment, he has on several occasions been ordered to spend days in a punishment cell for alleged violations of the prison rules, apparently for demanding to be treated according to the law. He reportedly developed further health problems due to the harsh conditions. According to his lawyers, hygienic conditions are bad even in normal cells. Prisoners are not allowed to sit down during the day and the cells are not heated or ventilated, even when temperatures are below zero or above 30 degrees Celsius.Some of the cells he was placed in were reportedly infested with lice and bugs.

In the aftermath of Alexander Litvinenko’s death in November 2006, Trepashkin succeeded in dispatching a letter from prison in Nizhny Tagil, in which he claimed that the FSB had established a hit squad with orders to eliminate Litvinenko. On 9 March, a court in Nizhny Tagil ruled that Trepashkin should be transferred to a higher security “general colony.” On 9 March, a district court in Nizhnii Tagil in the Sverdlovsk Region of the Russian Federation decided that Mikhail Trepashkin should be transferred to a standard prison colony, which has a stricter regime than the open prison colony he used to be in. After his transfer, Mikhail Trepashkin has restricted access to his family, friends, lawyers and supporters. In addition, he may be at risk of further violations of his human rights including the continuing denial of adequate medical treatment which may lead to a further decline of his health.

Mikhail Trepashkin complained before European Court of Human Rights of terrible prison conditions during his time in two detention centres, those of the towns of Dmitrov and Volokolamsk. He complained that he suffered living in an unheated room, infested with insects, including lice, and with no natural sunlight. At one point, his only water supply was from the lavatory, and he had no bed or chair. He was not allowed opportunity for exercise for 19 days. He suffered with asthma and sight deterioration. In July 2007, the European Court of Human Rights partially satisfied Trepashkin’s application, ruling that the conditions of his detention were “inhuman”. In November 30, 2007 Mikhail Trepashkin was freed with the expiration of his four-year prison term.

D J

Detention: October 22, 2003– November 30, 2007 = (+ 4 years and 1 month [less 18 days in

September 2005])



33

CHINA

Zheng Enchong

Zheng Enchong, (born September 2, 1950), a lawyer in Shanghai, had advised more than 500 families displaced by Shanghai’s urban redevelopment projects on their rights to fair compensation. In particular, Zheng, despite the revocation of his licence as a lawyer in 2001, had been advising families involved in a lawsuit alleging corrupt collusion between officials and a wealthy property developer.

Zheng Enchong had been arrested on June 6, 2003 and taken to the Shanghai Public Security Bureau Detention Centre, on charges of “illegally providing state secrets to entities outside of China” (article 111 of the Criminal Law for sending two communications to HRIC).

At the court hearing on August 28, 2003, Zheng’s wife, Jiang Meili, and other observers had been barred from the courtroom on the grounds that the case involved state secrets. Zheng Enchong was sentenced, on October 28, 2003, to three years in prison and deprivation of his political rights for one year by the Shanghai Second Intermediate People’s Court. The Shanghai appeal court upheld the sentence on December 18, 2003.

Jiang Meili, the wife of Zheng Enchong, has been detained for three days illegally until March 1, 2004. On February 28, 2004 Mrs. Jiang went to Beijing to petition the National People's Congress on behalf of her husband. In the same day, five women and two men burst into her hotel room, bound and gagged her. She was forced into a vehicle and taken to another hotel in Hubei's Canzhou City. The next day, five person took her back to Shanghai, where she was held in the Guangdi Hotel in Hutai Road. Jiang Meili was finally released on March 1.

During Jiang Meili’s next visit to her husband on November 10, 2004, along with other family members,, Zheng said he had been visited a number of times by the director of the Shanghai’s Judicial Bureau and Prisons Bureau, Miao Xiaobao, who had told him that if he admitted wrongdoing, his three-year sentence would be reduced by one year. However, Zheng Enchong refused to do so.

According to information from HRIC, since the beginning of his imprisonment, Zheng has not been allowed to see his lawyer, as a result of which he has not been able to file an appeal application against his sentence before the Shanghai Supreme People’s Court. His wife has filed an application on his behalf but the Court has not acknowledged it.

Moreover, Zheng reportedly also told his visitors that in spite of his relatively light sentence, he has been housed in the prison’s high security section, where he is obliged to share his 3.5 square meter cell with two other prisoners. In addition, Zheng said also that he has been denied several times his right to call his family.



34According to the information received, during the visit of Zheng’s wife to the prison he asked her to urge displaced residents to persevere in their legal action against Zhou Zhengyi, a wealthy property developer, and others involved in a redevelopment project. When he began speaking about this subject, prison guards immediately ended the visit, and five or six guards grabbed Zheng and carried him out of the visiting room. After the visit, Zheng’s wife and other family members have written an open letter to the Chinese President, Hu Jintao, and Prime Minister, Wen Jiabao, calling for their intervention to grant him an appeal through the Supreme People’s Court.

Zheng Enchong was released on June 5, 2006 after serving a three-year prison term for “illegally providing state secrets overseas”. Since his release, Mr. Zheng and his family have been under effective house arrest and constant surveillance by police . On July 24, 2007, when Zheng Enchong Jiang Meili, went with his wife to the Shangai Municipal Higher People’s Court, he was knocked to the ground, beaten and dragged him nearly 200 metres in an hour-long assault that was witnessed by hundreds of neighboring residents. As a result, Mr. Zheng sustained serious abrasions to his left hand during the struggle.

On February 16 and 17, 2008, Mr. Zheng Enchong was reportedly beaten by police officers who were following him and his wife Jiang Meili. Later on February 17, 2008, he was summoned to the police station and was kept in detention. The police asked him about the recent legal aid he provided to petitioners and victims of land grabs, as well as the interviews he gave to the Epoch Times on February 12, 2008, in which he talked about the corruption case of Shanghai tycoon Zhou Zhengyi and the possible involvement of former Chinese Communist Party leader Huang Ju. While in detention, he was beaten by unidentified men.

On February 19, 2008, the interview to the Epoch Times went to press and on February 20, 2008, Mr. Zheng was again arrested, before being released in the evening. He was once more beaten by an unidentified person while in detention. As a consequence, he was wounded and bleeding. He would allegedly plan to sue the authorities.

On 9 December 2005 Zheng Enchong was awarded a Human Rights Award by the German Judges' Association. Zheng Enchong’s wife Jiang Meili, who had planned to represent her husband at the awards ceremony, was refused permission to leave China due to an alleged property dispute that she was suddenly informed about shortly before her planned departure.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The situation of the Human Rights in China, according to many officials has been improved, and stands in accordance with the Constitution that declares that “The State respects and safeguard human rights”.But the Constitution is far away from the reality. The existed laws like “C&R”( measures for the custody and repatriation) or the RTL (administrative punishment without involvement of the Court) are used incontrollable by the Authorities in whichever case they desire, due to their vague form et fond. Because of their form, the people arrested and detained are deprived of their right of a trial and a lawyer, because of the absence of a formal criminal detention order.

But neither are the lawyers in better conditions. China’s practices seems to ignore the New Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers and the articles 5(c), 6(b), 9.3(c) of the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders about informing, communicating or advicing on the human rights. Many of them have been arrested and accused of “accepting support from overseas hostile forces” or “illegally providing state secrets to entities outside China”.

D J

Detention : 6 June 2003- 5 June 2006 = 3 years.



35



36

Created in 1984, the "International Human Rights Prize Ludovic Trarieux” is awarded to " a lawyer, regardless of nationality or Bar,

who thoroughout his career has illustrated, by his activity or his suffering, the defence of human rights, the promotion of defence rights, the supremacy of law, and the struggle against racism and intolerance in any form ".

It is the oldest and most prestigious award given to a lawyer in the world, commemorating the memory of the French lawyer, Ludovic Trarieux (1840-1904), who in the midst of the Dreyfus Affair, in France, in 1898, founded the " League for the Defence of Human Rights and the Citizen ", because, he said: " It was not only the single cause of a man which was to be defended, but behind this cause, law, justice, humanity ".

The first Prize was awarded on March 29th, 1985 to Nelson Mandela then in jail. It was officially presented to his daughter, Zenani Mandela Dlamini, on April 27th 1985, in front of forty presidents of Bars and Law Societies from Europe and Africa. It was the first award given to Mandela in France and the first around the world given by lawyers. On February 11th 1990, Nelson Mandela was released. Since then, it was decided that the Prize would be awarded again.

Since 2003, the Prize is awarded every year in partnership by the Human Rights Institute of The Bar of Bordeaux, the Human Rights Institute of the Bar of Paris, the Human Rights Institute of The Bar of Brussels, l'Unione forense per la tutela dei diritti dell'uomo (Roma) and the European Bar Human Rights Institute (IDHAE) whose members are the biggest european law societies fighting for human rights such as The Law Society of England and Wales, Rechtsanwaltskamme Berlin, Ordre français des Avocats du barreau de Bruxelles, barreau de Luxembourg or Polish National Council of the Bar (Warsaw). It is presented every year in a city that is home to one of the member Institutes.

1985: Nelson MANDELA (South Africa) 1992: Augusto ZÚÑIGA PAZ (Peru)

1994: Jadranka CIGELJ (Bosnia-Herzegovina) 1996 Nejib HOSNI (Tunisia) and Dalila MEZIANE (Algeria).

1998 ZHOU Guoqiang (China) 2000 Esber YAGMURDERELI (Turkey)

2002 Mehrangiz KAR (Iran) 2003 Digna OCHOA and Bárbara ZAMORA (Mexico)

2004: Akhtam NAISSE (Syria) 2005: Henri BURIN DES ROZIERS (Brazil)

2006: Parvez IMROZ (India) 2007 : René GÓMEZ MANZANO (Cuba)


Prix International des droits de l'homme Ludovic

Documents

Transcript of Prix International des droits de l'homme Ludovic