Document - Amnesty International Report 2002

Amnesty International Report 2002

<tr>

</tr>

</table>

The year 2001

will be remembered by many for the events of 11 September, which

dominated the international political agenda and posed new challenges

to the human rights community. Yet, as this Amnesty International

Report shows, there were countless other human tragedies during

the year.

Amnesty International

responded to the 11 September attacks in the USA by condemning

them unreservedly and by calling for those responsible to be brought

to justice in accordance with international law. Its members worked

steadfastly to counter a racist backlash against people identified

as Muslim or Middle Eastern. When governments introduced draconian

security and immigration legislation, Amnesty International campaigned

to ensure respect for fundamental human rights. The movement also

called for strict adherence to the rules of war during the US-led

military campaign in Afghanistan. Amnesty International's message

throughout was "Justice not revenge".

Human rights

abuses in 152 countries and territories around the world are documented

in this report, which describes the repression and violence which

blighted the lives of millions of people throughout 2001. Some

faced new threats from those seeking to gain military advantage

or maintain political power. Others were still suffering the effects

of genocide and other atrocities committed in the past. Many were

denied protection from abuses based on discrimination on grounds

of race, gender or sexual orientation. Millions were forced to

seek safety in other countries, but faced growing obstacles and

hostility.

This report

shows not only the failures of human rights protection but also

the indomitable courage and determination of human rights activists

whatever the challenges they face  and the vital role they

play in a world beset by poverty, war and repression.

Read the <a href="http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf">complete annual report</a>

PREFACE

Amnesty International (AI) is a worldwide movement of people campaigning for internationally recognized human rights.

AI is independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion. It does not support or oppose any government or political system, nor does it support or oppose the views of the victims whose rights it seeks to protect. It is concerned solely with the impartial protection of human rights.

AI mobilizes volunteer activists in more than 140 countries and territories in every part of the world. There are more than 1,000,000 AI members and subscribers from many different backgrounds, with widely different political and religious beliefs, united by a determination to work for a world where everyone enjoys human rights.

AI's mission is to undertake research and action focused on preventing and ending grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination. In this context:

it seeks the release of all prisoners of conscience. These are people detained for their political, religious or other conscientiously held beliefs or because of their ethnic origin, sex, colour, language, national or social origin, economic status, birth or other status - who have not used or advocated violence;
it works for fair and prompt trials for all political prisoners;
it opposes without reservation the death penalty, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
it campaigns for an end to political killings and ''disappearances'';
it calls on governments to refrain from unlawful killings in armed conflict;
it calls on armed political groups to end abuses such as the detention of prisoners of conscience, hostage-taking, torture and unlawful killings;
it opposes abuses by non-state actors where the state has failed to fulfil its obligations to provide effective protection;
it campaigns for perpetrators of human rights abuses to be brought to justice;
it seeks to assist asylum-seekers who are at risk of being returned to a country where they might suffer serious abuses of their human rights;
it opposes certain grave abuses of economic, social and cultural rights.

AI also seeks to support the protection of human rights by:

cooperating with other non-governmental organizations, the UN and regional inter-governmental organizations;
ensuring control of international military, security and police relations to prevent human rights abuses;
organizing human rights education and awareness-raising programs.

AI is a democratic, self-governing movement. Major policy decisions are taken by an International Council made up of representatives from all national sections.

AI's national sections and local volunteer groups are primarily responsible for funding the movement. No funds are sought or accepted from governments for AI's work investigating and campaigning against human rights violations.

Amnesty International Report 2002

This report documents human rights issues of concern to AI during the year 2001. It also reflects the activities AI has undertaken during the year to promote human rights and to campaign against specific human rights abuses.

The core of this report is made up of entries on individual countries and territories, listed alphabetically. Each of these entries gives a summary of the human rights situation in the country or territory and describes AI's specific human rights concerns there. The absence of an entry on a particular country or territory does not imply that no human rights abuses of concern to AI took place there during the year. Nor is the length of individual entries any basis for a comparison of the extent and depth of AI's concerns.

A world map has been included in this report to indicate the location of countries and territories, and each individual country entry begins with some basic information about the country during 2001. Neither the map nor the country information or its absence may be interpreted as AI's view on questions such as the status of disputed territory, capital, population size or language. AI takes no position on issues other than human rights.

The later sections of the report contain some information about AI and its work during the year. The final section focuses on AI's work with intergovernmental organizations and includes information about which states are signatories or state parties to key international and regional human rights treaties and international humanitarian law.

Internet addresses

Reports published during the year are listed at the end of country entries. These are available on the AI website. The AI Index given in this report can be used to locate a document as follows: AI Index: ABC 63/004/2001

http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/index/ABC630042001

Abbreviations for treaties

The following abbreviations have been used:

UN Convention against Torture refers to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
UN Women's Convention refers to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
UN Children's Convention refers to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
UN Convention against Racism refers to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
UN Refugee Convention refers to the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.
European Convention on Human Rights refers to the (European) Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

AI'S APPEALS FOR ACTION

The country entries in this report include numerous examples of human rights abuses that AI is dedicated to oppose. In response to these human rights abuses, AI urges those in authority in all countries where abuses occur to take the steps recommended below. More detailed additional recommendations relevant to particular situations are included where necessary in the specific country entry.

Recommendations to governments

Prisoners of conscience

AI calls for the immediate and unconditional release of all prisoners of conscience. Prisoners of conscience are people detained anywhere for their political, religious or other conscientiously held beliefs or because of their ethnic origin, sex, colour, language, national or social origin, economic status, birth or other status - who have not used or advocated violence.

Political prisoners

AI calls for all prisoners whose cases have a political aspect to be given a prompt and fair trial on recognizably criminal charges, or released.

AI calls for trials to meet minimum international standards of fairness. These include, for example, the right to a fair hearing before a competent, independent and impartial tribunal, the right to have adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence, and the right to appeal to a higher tribunal.

Torture and ill-treatment

AI calls on governments to take steps to prevent torture and ill-treatment. Such steps include initiating impartial, prompt and effective investigations into all allegations of torture and bringing to justice those responsible for torture.

Further safeguards against torture and ill-treatment which AI promotes include:

clear policies that torture and ill-treatment will not be tolerated;
an end to incommunicado detention, including giving detainees access to independent medical examination and legal counsel;
outlawing the use of confessions extracted under torture as evidence in courts of law;
independent inspection of places of detention;i
informing detainees of their rights;
human rights training for law enforcement personnel;
compensation for the victims of torture;
medical treatment and rehabilitation for the victims of torture.

Prison conditions

AI calls on governments to ensure that prison conditions do not amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in line with international human rights standards for the treatment of prisoners.

Death penalty

AI calls on governments to abolish the death penalty in law and practice.

Pending abolition, AI calls on governments to commute death sentences, to introduce a moratorium on executions, to respect international standards restricting the scope of the death penalty and to ensure the most rigorous standards for fair trial in capital cases.

Political killings and 'disappearances'

AI calls on governments to end extrajudicial executions and ''disappearances''. It calls for prompt, independent and effective investigations into such violations and for those responsible to be brought to justice.

AI calls on governments to:

demonstrate their total opposition to extrajudicial executions and ''disappearances'' and make clear to security forces that these abuses will not be tolerated in any circumstances;
end secret or incommunicado detention and introduce measures to locate and protect prisoners;
provide effective protection to anyone in danger of extrajudicial execution or ''disappearance'', including those who have received threats;
ensure that law enforcement officials use force only when strictly required and to the minimum extent necessary - lethal force should be used only when unavoidable to protect life;
ensure strict chain-of-command control of all security forces;
ban ''death squads'', private armies and paramilitary forces acting outside the official chain of command.

Unlawful killings in armed conflict

AI calls on governments engaged in armed conflict to adhere to provisions of international humanitarian law, including the prohibition of direct attacks on civilians and of indiscriminate attacks.

Asylum-seekers

AI calls on governments to ensure that no asylum-seekers are returned to a country where they might suffer violations of their fundamental human rights.

AI calls on governments to ensure that all asylum-seekers have access to a fair and impartial individual asylum determination, and to ensure that they are not arbitrarily detained or otherwise put under undue pressure.

Promote and respect human rights

AI calls on states to ratify international and regional human rights instruments without reservations, and calls on all governments to respect and promote the provisions of these instruments.

Recommendations to armed political groups

AI calls on armed political groups to respect fundamental standards of human rights and international humanitarian law, and to halt abuses such as the detention of prisoners of conscience, hostage-taking, torture and unlawful killings.

FOREWORD

by Irene Khan, Secretary General

Countering the backlash

''Your role collapsed with the collapse of the Twin Towers in New York''. This blunt statement to AI delegates by a senior government official captured the challenge faced by the human rights movement following the events of 11 September 2001. Did the attacks on the USA and the reaction of governments and public opinion indeed make human rights and their advocates irrelevant? Has the ''war against terrorism'' meant a significant shift in states' obligations and interests to respect human rights and international humanitarian law?

Undoubtedly, the environment for human rights activism changed sharply after 11 September in some parts of the world, setting back the gains of many years. In some places, however, there was a sickening familiarity about the repression and abuse. Millions of people faced continuing human rights abuses throughout the year. Millions more were still suffering the effects of genocide and other atrocities committed in the past. Whether in the context of new threats or long-standing violations, the universality and indivisibility of international human rights were repeatedly challenged. The obligation to pursue justice, end impunity and instil accountability was frequently flouted.

As the ''war against terrorism'' dominated world news, governments increasingly portrayed human rights as an obstacle to security, and human rights activists as romantic idealists at best,''defenders of terrorists'' at worst. But precisely because of these pressures, the role of human rights activists, far from diminishing, gained new urgency and importance.

Security and human rights

The shock, outrage and grief following the attacks of 11 September gave rise to strong public demand for the punishment of the perpetrators and the prevention of similar attacks. The fact that the tragedy unfolded on television screens across the world intensified the sense that no one was safe.

Governments, shaken by their vulnerability to unexpected violent attacks, responded with a wide range of legislative and other measures. Many rushed through laws formulating new crimes, banning organizations and freezing their assets, curbing civil liberties and reducing the safeguards against human rights violations. Regrettably, a number of these laws used definitions of ''terrorism'' which were dangerously broad and vague. For example, in some the proscribed conduct was not defined clearly, allowing the criminalization of peaceful activities. In South Korea, the government introduced an ''anti-terror'' bill criticized by human rights groups for limiting rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. In Jordan, the authorities changed the Penal Code, expanding the definition of ''terrorism'', introducing loosely defined offences, restricting freedom of expression and expanding the scope of offences punishable by death. In India, a new Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance gave the police wide powers of arrest and provided for up to six months' detention without charge or trial for political suspects. It also provided for immunity from prosecution for government and army officials, as well as other paramilitary forces, for any action taken ''in good faith'' when combating ''terrorism''.

In some parts of the world, including countries where military forces have in the past been responsible for widespread repression and human rights violations, the aftermath of 11 September saw a resurgence in the powers of the military. More and more civilians were detained by the military and tried by military courts. Military forces, as well as unaccountable security and intelligence services, were increasingly involved in public security functions and in intelligence operations targeted at the civilian population. At the UN, the Security Council adopted resolution 1373, setting out a range of legislative and other measures for states to adopt to prevent and suppress ''terrorism''. The Security Council established a Counter-Terrorism Committee to assess states' progress, to which states are required to report. Neither the Security Council nor the Counter-Terrorism Committee reminded states of their UN Charter obligations to comply with international human rights or advised them how to do so. The call from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, AI and others to issue such guidance went unheeded, threatening a dangerous schism in the UN's dual obligation to maintain international security as well as promote international human rights.

The readiness of governments to trade human rights in the interest of security is nothing new. The doctrine of national security has been used frequently in the past to deny human rights. The difference this time lay in the uneasy realisation that it was not autocratic regimes but established democracies that took the lead in introducing draconian laws to restrict civil liberties in the name of public security. In the United Kingdom (UK), the government passed ''emergency'' legislation which provided for detention of foreign nationals without charge or trial, thereby creating a shadow criminal justice system without the essential safeguards of the formal system. Legislation was passed in the USA allowing for indefinite detention on national security grounds of non-US nationals facing deportation.

AI recognizes the right - indeed the duty - of states to protect their citizens, but we do not believe that human rights need to be sacrificed in order to achieve security. The dichotomy between security and human rights is false. International human rights standards oblige states to protect the public from harm. The rights enshrined in human rights treaties, such as the right to life and not to be subjected to torture, are another way of describing the idea of security that people expect their governments to ensure. They are not discrete rights, to be pursued without regard to other rights. In the key human rights treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, they are part of an integrated package of rights that states are obliged to respect. While some rights may be restricted in narrowly prescribed circumstances, other rights are absolute, even in times of public emergency.

We must turn the debate about security and human rights on its head - human rights are not an obstacle to security and prosperity, they are the key to achieving these goals. Human security comes only with human rights and the rule of law. Human rights are the basis for creating strong and accountable states, without which there can be no political stability or economic and social progress. The past year has shown more clearly than ever that if human rights are sacrificed in the search for peace and security, there will be no peace and no security. The challenge to states therefore is not security versus human rights, but rather to ensure respect for the full range of human rights.

Universality of human rights

The rights to life, physical and mental integrity, freedom from arbitrary detention, freedom of expression and freedom from fear and want are the inalienable rights of all human beings. One person's human rights cannot be founded on another person's loss of rights. But during 2001 a number of governments restricted the rights of foreigners or foreign-born nationals in the name of protecting the rights of citizens. In particular, governments around the world clamped down on irregular migration and further tightened asylum policies, undermining the rights of refugees and asylum-seekers and increasing the likelihood of abuse and exploitation of migrants.

European Union countries raised further obstacles to people fleeing in search of safety, for example by extending visa restrictions and returning more people to ''safe'' third countries. Australia, already subject to widespread criticism because of its treatment of asylum-seekers arriving by boat, used the 11 September attacks to justify its continuing policy of detaining asylum-seekers, including hundreds from Afghanistan. In late September it amended its laws to exclude certain off-shore Australian territories from the application of its refugee law in order to prevent boat people arriving there from lodging asylum claims under Australian law. It also removed some procedural safeguards and increased the indefinite detention of asylum-seekers. Such action by developed states undercut any moral authority they might have had to persuade developing countries such as Pakistan to receive refugees. When the bombing of Afghanistan began, many of those forced to flee found the borders of neighbouring countries closed.

In the ''war against terrorism'', the tendency has been to portray foreigners, particularly refugees and asylum-seekers, as ''terrorists''. In the year when the UN held its World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, it was particularly disturbing to see a refuelling of the fires of racism. Legislation and administrative decrees discriminating against foreigners fed people's fear of threats from abroad. The climate of suspicion fostered in the public's mind encouraged racism, xenophobia, intolerance and violence, intensifying the sense of isolation and injustice felt by many migrant or foreign communities. People were attacked in the USA, Canada, western Europe, parts of Asia and Africa, not for what they did but for who they were, simply for being a Muslim or Arab or Asian, or even for looking like a Muslim, Arab or Asian.

The application of double standards by powerful governments lent weight to those seeking to challenge the universality of human rights. The hypocrisy and selectivity of governments are not a new phenomenon in the human rights discourse, but they became even clearer in the drive to build an alliance in the ''war against terrorism''. Governments remained silent on abuses committed by those they counted or sought as allies. The same governments that denounced the human rights abuse of women by the Taleban government of Afghanistan remained silent about the plight of women in Saudi Arabia. Those who condemned human rights violations in Iraq did not protest against human rights violations by Russian troops in Chechnya, or by the authorities in Uzbekistan against Muslims who peacefully practise their faith outside state controls.

A number of governments jumped on the ''anti-terrorism'' bandwagon to stifle political dissent. The Chinese authorities intensified their crackdown on Uighur opponents of Chinese rule in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, claiming that they were linked to international ''terrorism''. The Egyptian authorities clamped down on public gatherings and demonstrations, and sent an increasing number of civilians for trial by military courts. In Zimbabwe, where the government was increasingly suppressing the freedom of the press, the authorities labelled international journalists reporting on political opponents as supporters of ''terrorists''.

With the media spotlight on ''anti-terrorism'' measures in the west and the bombing campaign in Afghanistan, human rights violations and increased repression in other parts of the world went largely unnoticed and unaddressed. This exacerbated the unbalanced approach of the international community to human rights abuses.

If human rights priorities can be changed according to the interests of powerful states or the attention span of the international news media, the universality of human rights is undermined. This paves the way for cynicism, disbelief and ultimately wider disrespect for human rights. Today, more than ever before, human rights activists must resist the shifting agenda of powerful states. We must reject the subjective yardstick of ''terrorism'', by which states condemn the violence of their opponents and condone that of their allies. We must insist on applying only the objective standards of human rights and international law. No cause can justify the abuse of human rights, regardless of whether the abuses are committed by a government, an armed political group, international criminals or people acting in the name of religion.

Human rights activists will continue to insist that the universality and indivisibility of human rights must be upheld. At its most simple, all human beings deserve to enjoy all human rights. We take all human rights abuses seriously, whether they occur in a country in the headlines, or one remote from international attention. AI's members and supporters campaigned vigorously throughout 2001 against human rights abuses in countries such as Algeria, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Indonesia, Israel and the Occupied Territories, Myanmar and Turkey. Guided by principles of impartiality, independence and international solidarity, we base our work on the values enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and apply the same standards to all countries.

Justice for all

The inconsistency and hypocrisy of governments in the aftermath of the attacks of 11 September were particularly striking when it came to the question of bringing the suspected perpetrators to justice. AI called for justice for those who planned, committed and aided the attacks in the USA; those who might have violated international humanitarian law in the course of the war in Afghanistan; and those who abused human rights and international law throughout the 23 years of armed conflict in the country.

The attacks of 11 September were clearly gross abuses of human rights, which AI believes should be considered crimes against humanity. AI believes that the international dimensions of the attacks, and their seriousness, mean that the international community as a whole has an interest in seeing those responsible brought to justice in a process that upholds international fair trial standards, without the imposition of the death penalty. Our basic call has always been for justice, not revenge.

The US authorities announced that ''military commissions'' would be set up to try non-nationals suspected of involvement in ''international terrorism'', although US citizens and some others would continue to be tried in the criminal justice system. While the US government had not by the end of the year announced the rules under which these commissions would operate, information indicated that it was considering allowing secret evidence and anonymous witnesses. Furthermore, the commissions would be able to impose the death penalty, with no right of appeal. Such commissions would violate international standards of fair trial, including those in the Geneva Conventions. They would be discriminatory, applying only to foreign nationals.

However strongly we may feel about those who brutally destroyed thousands of lives on 11 September, we must be vigilant about the methods used to bring them to justice. In condemning those who blatantly disregard the most fundamental principles of human rights and humanity, governments must not debase those same values.

Within weeks of 11 September, the USA and its allies launched a sustained military campaign in Afghanistan. The campaign was an unprecedented response to acts believed to have been committed by an armed political group. Previously, the USA had used sanctions, diplomacy, negotiations and one-off reprisal attacks after ''acts of terrorism''.

As AI activists, our role is to scrutinize the conduct of war in order to protect human rights. The US-led bombing campaign against the Taleban in Afghanistan raised serious concerns about possible breaches of international humanitarian law. In particular, as civilian casualties mounted, doubts were raised about the proportionality of the force used. AI called on the US military to strengthen measures to minimize the risk to civilians and to investigate thoroughly reports of all incidents that appeared to breach the rules on the conduct of hostilities.

The rules of war are designed to protect not only civilians, but also imprisoned combatants. AI pressed for investigations into possible violations of international humanitarian law, including the deaths of hundreds of Taleban and al-Qa'ida prisoners in a fort near Mazar-e Sharif in November 2001. The circumstances of the incident, which reportedly involved United Front (Northern Alliance), UK and US forces, were unclear. The call by AI and other human rights groups for an urgent investigation by the parties to the conflict or by an international body was rejected.

In the plethora of calls for new methods to deal with new threats, it was striking how old were the methods used in Afghanistan. The pictures of B-52 planes and carpet bombing could have been taken from the Viet Nam war. Gross human rights abuses by forces armed, trained and supplied by other powers has been going on for decades. For many years too, AI has urged arms exporting countries not to supply weapons to those with appalling human rights records. In this crisis, we called for a halt to unconditional transfers of arms and expertise to all the warring parties in Afghanistan and for a moratorium on the use of cluster bombs, which leave numerous unexploded bomblets over a wide area.

When an interim political settlement in Afghanistan was under discussion, the issue of accountability for past violations was raised, with Afghan groups and others pressing for an end to impunity. This was hotly debated, but the issue of impunity was sacrificed in the pragmatic - and short-sighted - interests of reaching agreement. In countries such as Angola, Argentina, Cambodia and Sierra Leone, experience has shown that in the long run ignoring human rights abuses for reasons of political expediency does not pay off.

Condoning impunity as part of a political settlement today will not lead to stability or respect for human rights tomorrow. AI believes that the truth about past abuses must be established. There should be no amnesties or pardons for alleged perpetrators if such measures prevent the emergence of the truth, a judicial determination of guilt or innocence and full reparation to victims and their families. Human rights activists must renew their efforts to ensure that an effective permanent independent International Criminal Court is established as soon as possible and that all states agree to its jurisdiction. A situation where the powerful determine how justice will be done and to whom is wrong and cannot be sustained. For human rights activists, there can be no compromise between justice and impunity, no selective approach to accountability.

Indivisibility of human rights

The tragic events of 11 September have been a catalyst for discussions about grievances deeply felt by communities from which the alleged perpetrators came. The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is the most obvious example. But beyond political conflicts, there are social and economic inequities arising from gross abuses of human rights, economic, social and cultural as well as civil and political. Respect for human rights must encompass not only the universality, but also the indivisibility of those rights.

Many of the world's poor have been bypassed by the benefits of globalization. The free market has not necessarily brought about a more socially conscious market. On the contrary, large pockets of poverty in the midst of prosperity heighten the sense of economic deprivation and social exclusion, creating a breeding ground for unrest and violence. Many people feel a deep sense of social injustice. Millions of Africans are denied affordable treatment for HIV/AIDS, and will die early deaths, although the drugs they need exist and are available to inhabitants of richer countries. Millions of people around the world are denied equal access to education, jobs and positions of influence because of their race or ethnic origin, gender or sexual orientation.

As globalization spreads, bringing greater wealth to some and destitution and despair to others, human rights activists must promote not just legal justice, but also social justice. An ethical approach to globalization can mean nothing less than a rights-based approach to development. We must struggle not only against torture, arbitrary detention and unfair trials, but also against hunger, illiteracy and discrimination if human rights are to be meaningful in developing countries.

When AI talks of a world of freedom and justice, we mean a world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards. Our agenda has expanded in the face of human rights issues that demand our attention. In the future we will not only work on those civil and political rights that have formed the heart of our campaigning for decades, we will also mobilize to ensure that economic, social and cultural rights are respected.

Looking ahead

I began by underlining the urgency and importance of the challenges facing human rights activists in these difficult times. Let me end by highlighting the increased vulnerability of our front-line activists and those with whom we work. In 2001 human rights defenders, including AI members, suffered threats or attacks in many countries, including in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Zimbabwe, Tunisia, Mexico, Colombia and Bangladesh. We must protect human rights defenders from attack or intimidation through mobilizing support around the world, taking practical measures to help individuals in danger and their families, and forming networks ready and able to respond at short notice.

We must not let fear win. We must not allow fundamental freedoms to be eroded or prejudice and intolerance to prevail. Universality and indivisibility of human rights are non-negotiable. There can be no trade-off between human rights and security, between justice and impunity. A human rights approach - an approach which puts the security of people, rather than states, first - may seem more difficult at first glance, but in these troubled times it is the only one that offers any real hope for the way forward.

INTRODUCTION

Justice not revenge

Images of the 11 September attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania reverberated around a shocked and disbelieving world. At least 3,000 people from more than 60 countries were killed. Amnesty International (AI) joined with countless others in offering condolences to the victims and condemning the attacks.

As people sought to make sense of what had happened, questions began to be asked about who was responsible for the attacks and why. And what should be the response?

US President George W. Bush and his administration soon pointed the finger at Osama bin Laden and the al-Qa'ida network as key players in the planning of the attacks, and attention turned to Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden was believed to have his base.

AI called on governments to bring to justice those responsible for the 11 September attacks and to ensure that they were tried in accordance with international human rights standards and were not at risk of being sentenced to death. It also called on states to ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and to promote international judicial mechanisms.

On 7 October the USA, in collaboration with its coalition allies, began a sustained bombing campaign in Afghanistan as part of President Bush's declared ''war on terrorism''. By the end of the year, an as yet unknown number of Afghan civilians had been killed or injured or had their homes or property destroyed, in circumstances that led AI to call for investigations by competent authorities to determine whether violations of international humanitarian law had been committed.

AI urged governments to ensure that the use of force did not add to the human rights violations visited upon the Afghan population and that any military intervention was conducted with the highest regard for international humanitarian law. AI continued to call on Afghan groups to respect human rights and on other governments to use their influence to this end. It also continued to stress that governments should not send arms into Afghanistan which could be used to commit human rights abuses and called for a moratorium on the use of cluster bombs. AI expressed concern that specific US attacks may have breached international humanitarian law and called for an inquiry into the killings of more than 200 Taleban prisoners and others during incidents in a fort controlled by the United Front (commonly known as the Northern Alliance) in Mazar-e Sharif. US and United Kingdom (UK) forces were also present during these incidents. No inquiry had taken place by the end of the year.

In November, AI launched a forward-looking campaign to promote an agenda for human rights in Afghanistan. By December, US bombing, combined with renewed assaults by the United Front, had driven the Taleban from power and a new interim administration for Afghanistan was brokered by the UN in Bad Godesberg, Bonn, Germany. AI called on the international community to ensure that human rights were integrated into all discussions about the future of Afghanistan. The organization emphasized the vital importance of ensuring that those entrusted with leadership are committed to the protection of human rights and that women and ethnic and religious minorities are not discriminated against in the creation of government and institutions.

AI has documented grave human rights abuses by combatants of all the various warring parties involved in the decades-long conflicts which have ravaged Afghanistan. While AI appreciates the need for national reconciliation after years of war and repression, it stressed that any future political agreement must ensure accountability for these abuses. Specific protection should be sought against retaliation and discrimination against ethnic and religious groups, and measures should be taken to combat discrimination against women. AI called for the demobilization of child soldiers, international protection for refugees, and a vigorous program of human rights institution-building. AI called for restrictions on arms supplies and for programs of disarmament and de-mining, adequately resourced and supported by the international community, to be included as important components of a political settlement.

Around the world, the 11 September attacks were followed by a wave of racist attacks directed at people because of their appearance. In North America, Europe and elsewhere, Muslims, Arabs and Sikhs were shot, stabbed and beaten. Mosques were sprayed with racist graffiti, attacked and burned down. Human rights defenders around the world called on their governments to ensure that a clear message was sent out that a backlash against people of Middle Eastern or Asian origin or against Muslims or other communities was totally unacceptable and would not be tolerated.

There was also growing concern towards the end of the year that governments were introducing draconian measures curtailing human rights and civil liberties. For example, the US authorities introduced legislation which enables the government to detain indefinitely foreign nationals facing deportation orders and to establish ''military commissions'', which lack fundamental guarantees for fair trial, to try foreign nationals. In the UK, the government derogated from Article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and introduced legislation to detain foreign nationals indefinitely without charge or trial. In Zimbabwe, political opponents of the government and those who published articles critical of the government's human rights record were accused of supporting ''terrorism''. At the end of 2001 the Zimbabwean government was in the process of introducing legislation to create a new crime of ''terrorism'', punishable by death; to punish with terms of imprisonment non-violent civil disobedience, criticism of the President and disturbing the peace; and to criminalize all journalism by those not licensed by the state. In India, a new ordinance was promulgated which gave the police wide powers of arrest and provided for up to six months' detention without charge or trial for political suspects. AI warned that these and similar measures taken by a number of governments would deny basic human rights to some of the most vulnerable people.

Governments have a responsibility to take steps to protect their citizens and to prevent future attacks. However, AI and other human rights organizations continued to stress that in addressing security concerns governments must ensure that internationally recognized safeguards to protect human rights are not infringed in any way. Governments must ensure that members of ethnic, religious or other minorities are not victimized. The principle of non-discrimination on grounds such as race, colour, ethnic origin, sex, language, religion and social status, which is repeated in virtually every major international human rights treaty, is the very bedrock of international law.

There were also fears that intergovernmental discussions on migration and asylum would focus on restrictive measures relating to countering ''terrorism'' rather than on refugee protection. AI stressed that all asylum-seekers should be allowed entry in order to have their claims assessed according to a fair and satisfactory procedure and on an individual basis, as stated in international refugee law. No one should be denied this right because the group they belong to is perceived as a possible security threat.

(For discussion of the challenges faced by human rights defenders in the wake of the 11 September attacks and AI's response, please see the Foreword by Irene Khan.)

Refugees

Shortly before the 11 September attacks, media attention highlighted the plight of a group of more than 430 mainly Afghan asylum-seekers stranded at sea off the coast of Australia. The asylum-seekers had been saved from drowning by the crew of a Norwegian freighter, the Tampa, when the ferry on which they were travelling sank on 26 August. The Australian and Indonesian governments refused to allow them to disembark and the passengers, who included 43 children, remained captive at sea for more than three weeks, first aboard the Tampa and then on an Australian troopship. The asylum-seekers remained on the Tampa, which was licensed for a crew of up to 50, for more than eight days, sheltering beneath tarpaulins on deck and in empty freight containers. The Australian authorities ordered the ship to leave Australian territorial waters.

While legal proceedings aimed at ensuring that the asylum-seekers would be released from their detention at sea and brought to Australia were continuing, the asylum-seekers were transferred onto the Australian troopship Manoora. Most were taken to the tiny impoverished island of Nauru to have their claims assessed; the rest were transferred to New Zealand. On Nauru, the asylum-seekers were held in sweltering conditions in a derelict sports ground in corrugated iron and wooden shelters, speedily constructed by the Australian military. There they remained at the end of the year surrounded by pinnacles of limestone and phosphate mine shafts and guarded by a private security firm. The asylum-seekers had survived a harrowing journey and now faced an uncertain future. As the survivors waited to hear the outcome of their applications for refugee status, their plight posed the question, had the world changed for them in the wake of the 11 September attacks and the increased global awareness of the plight of Afghanistan?

According to reports, 20 of those who found themselves stranded on the Tampa were from the village of Ejan in the Salang gorge in the northeast of Afghanistan, where living conditions were said to be so wretched that only 50 families remained in a village that once housed 500. Millions of people had sought refuge from a country which offers its people a life expectancy of 45, where every other child is malnourished, and where one in four children die before they reach the age of five. About 150,000 Afghans had applied for asylum in Western Europe during the past 10 years. The overwhelming majority of Afghan refugees, more than three million people, were living in Pakistan and Iran.

On 22 October, another boat sank while headed for Australia carrying some 400 asylum-seekers. More than 350 of the mainly Iraqi passengers were reported to have been drowned.

The rights of asylum-seekers and refugees were the subject of major international debate in 2001. AI was deeply concerned that asylum policy was increasingly focusing on how to keep people out rather than on how to effectively protect people fleeing war, civil upheaval and grave human rights abuses.

All too often the debate descended into populist diatribes which demonized and dehumanized some of the most vulnerable people in the world. In many industrialized countries, asylum-seekers were dubbed ''bogus'', ''queue-jumpers'' and ''scroungers''. Their plight was hidden behind headlines which screamed of ''waves'' and ''floods'' of immigrants. Rather than focus on what lay behind the movement of peoples across the world, governments and politicians resorted to tough talk of ''crack-downs''. The authorities colluded with sections of the press in manipulating misleading facts to stoke fears and attack political opponents who were accused of being ''soft'' on refugees.

Yet the desperate plight of the Tampa passengers must provoke questions about what it is that makes the risks inherent in such a journey seem less daunting than remaining at home.

2001 marked the 50th anniversary of the UN Refugee Convention. Since 1951, 141 states have become parties either to the Convention or its 1967 Protocol. Yet for many governments the pledge to honour the rights and protections set out in the Convention has remained mere rhetoric. AI urged all states to renew their commitment to the spirit and the letter of the 1951 Convention and called on those states that have not already done so to accede to the Convention and its Protocol.

One of the key principles spelled out in the Convention - the cornerstone of international refugee protection - is that no one should be forcibly returned to a country where they would be at risk of grave human rights violations. Yet governments continued to send people back to face imprisonment, torture, even execution.

In recent years governments have introduced policies which have effectively prevented people fleeing persecution from reaching safety and obtaining the protection to which they are entitled. Governments have sought to limit access to their territory, they have applied extremely harsh criteria for asylum and they have sought to fine transport companies for allowing people to travel without proper documentation. In short, protecting refugees has come a long way down their list of priorities, way behind keeping refugees away from their borders.

At the beginning of 2001 there were believed to be some 17 million refugees and asylum-seekers worldwide. The overwhelming majority of these - more than 70 per cent - live in the South, many in the world's poorest countries, and far from the scrutiny of the world's media.

In the Middle East no durable solution was found to the plight of more than 3,700,000 Palestinian and 100,000 Sahrawi refugees. Iran continued to host one of the largest populations of refugees, including more than 1,482,000 Afghan and 386,000 Iraqi refugees.

The scale of the refugee crisis in Africa is staggering. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where some 2.5 million people were believed to have died as a result of the fighting since 1998, deliberate reprisals against the civilian population remained a common reaction by all sides to military setbacks. By the end of 2001 as many as two million civilians were internally displaced, unable to support themselves and out of reach of humanitarian organizations. Many were facing starvation. Thousands of others had fled to neighbouring states. War continued to ravage Burundi, costing the lives of hundreds of unarmed civilians. All parties to the conflict continued to show a complete disregard for human rights. Hundreds of thousands of people remained internally displaced and people continued to flee the country in their thousands. In Sudan, the civil war, which has claimed some two million lives since 1983, has been characterized by mass human rights abuses, including abduction, rape and arbitrary killings. By 2001 some 4.5 million people were believed to be internally displaced within Sudan and some 500,000 were thought to have sought refuge abroad.

Sierra Leonean refugees fleeing vicious fighting marked by widespread killings, abduction, rape and amputation at home had sought safety in Guinea. By mid-2000 some 500,000 Sierra Leonean and Liberian refugees remained in Guinea; many had lived there for several years. Although Guinea is one of the world's least developed countries, the Guinean government agreed to host the refugees. While there had been some violence and tension over the previous decade, until September 2000 Guinea was a relatively safe and accommodating country of refuge. On 6 September 2000, the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), a Sierra Leonean armed group responsible for massive human rights abuses at home, reportedly attacked a village inside Guinea in the border area near Conakry. Following the attack, Guinea's President Lansana Conté made a speech, which was broadcast on radio, calling on Guineans to defend the country and repel the invaders. He accused refugees of assisting and supporting the attacks and said that refugees should be confined to camps and should return home. The speech was widely seen as a decisive turning point in national policy as regards refugees, implicitly encouraging the military and the Guinean public to go on the offensive against refugees in Guinea. In the aftermath, refugees were rounded up and detained, repeatedly harassed and attacked. Refugees and Guinean villagers were forced to flee from camp to camp and from village to village in a desperate attempt to avoid the fighting. Countless refugees were killed or abducted by rebels; others ''disappeared'' after being picked up by Guinean soldiers. Guinean men, women and children were abducted, raped and killed during incursions into Guinea by members of the RUF. During 2001, some 300,000 Guineans were forced to flee their homes.

In April AI called on the international community to protect hundreds of thousands of Sierra Leonean and Liberian refugees and Guinean civilians caught in the vicious fighting in Guinea. AI sought to draw the world's attention to the pressing need for adequate protection and assistance for refugees and displaced Guineans. The international community must ensure that UN agencies, aid organizations and the Guinean government have adequate resources to provide the assistance that is required.

The link between the flight of refugees and the failure to protect human rights could not be clearer. While government statements on refugee issues in much of the industrialized world focused on building ever greater barriers against refugees, AI sought to highlight the importance of tackling the causes of the fear and misery which force people to flee and how the failure to do so condemns millions of people to ever greater abuse and desperation.

The intifada

September 2001 saw the first anniversary of the al-Aqsa intifada (uprising) and an intensification of the human rights tragedy in Israel and the Occupied Territories.

In the 15 months to December 2001, more than 750 Palestinians were killed by Israeli security forces, the vast majority of them unlawfully when no lives were in danger. More than 220 Israelis, including 166 civilians, were killed by Palestinian armed groups and individuals. Many children were among the victims: more than 160 Palestinian and 36 Israeli children were killed. More than 18,000 other people were wounded, many maimed for life.

The Israeli authorities continued to respond to the intifada and the killing of Israeli civilians by firing upon and thereby wounding and killing Palestinians at demonstrations, checkpoints and borders, and by shelling residential areas and police stations. The Israel Defence Force openly carried out a policy of deliberately targeting and extrajudicially executing Palestinians said to be planning or to have carried out attacks; more than 40 Palestinians were assassinated in attacks in which more than 20 bystanders, including children, were killed. No killing in the Occupied Territories was properly investigated and the claims and counter-claims continued to reverberate.

In response to attacks on Israeli settlements, Israeli forces shelled Palestinian towns and cut off almost every Palestinian town and village from the outside world by army checkpoints or physical barriers of earth, concrete blocks or metal walls. Villages and districts of Palestinian towns and villages were put under curfew so that the residents could not leave home or go to work for days, weeks or even months. In the name of security, hundreds of Palestinian homes were demolished and Palestinians were barred from travelling along certain roads in the Occupied Territories.

The level of abuses committed by armed groups escalated. Palestinian armed groups shot deliberately at cars with Israeli number-plates travelling along the roads of the Occupied Territories and set off bombs in public places such as malls and restaurants, deliberately targeting civilians. Israeli settlers killed and attacked Palestinians with almost complete impunity.

Since the signing in 1993 of the Oslo Agreement, which began the current peace process, AI has underlined the need to base peace negotiations on the human rights enshrined in international standards. It has reiterated its view that a major flaw in the process was that it was not founded on ensuring respect for and protection of human rights. Events in 2001 showed more clearly than ever that if human rights are sacrificed in the search for peace and security there will be no peace and security. Failure to uphold people's basic rights feeds hatred and perpetuates abuses. AI called for human rights to be put at the heart of the agenda for peace and for international observers, with a strong, transparent and public mandate to monitor respect for international human rights and humanitarian law, to be sent to the Occupied Territories.

Campaign against torture

At the same time as AI was striving to respond to the crises which dominated much of 2001, it also sought to remain true to its commitment to address long-term, persistent and chronic abuses of human rights in countries far from the glare of international scrutiny. The organization's worldwide membership continued to devote much of its energy to AI's global campaign against torture which was launched in October 2000 and continued throughout 2001.

A key focus for the campaign was the link between identity-based discrimination and torture and ill-treatment. In March, AI marked international women's day with the publication of a report, Broken bodies, shattered minds: Torture and ill-treatment of women. As the report shows, violence against women is sometimes carried out by agents of the state, such as police officers and prison guards or soldiers. Sometimes the perpetrators are members of armed groups fighting against the government. However, much of the physical, mental and sexual abuse faced by women is committed by people they know.

Violence against women is rooted in and reinforces discrimination. The failure by a state to ensure that women have equal opportunities for education, shelter, food, employment and access to formal state power is another facet of the state's responsibility for abuses against women. Making women's voices heard at all levels of government is essential to enable women to contribute to policies that counter abuses and combat discrimination.

Poor and socially marginalized women are particularly at risk of torture and ill-treatment. In many cases, racist and sexist policies and practices compound the violence they experience and increase their vulnerability to further violence. Social and cultural norms which deny women equal rights with men also render women more vulnerable to physical, sexual and mental abuse. The common thread is discrimination against women, the denial of basic human rights to individuals simply because they are women.

States have a duty to ensure that no one is subjected to torture or ill-treatment, whether by agents of the state or private individuals. Yet all around the world the authorities allow beatings, rape and other acts of torture to continue unchecked. AI's report set out a plan of action to combat the torture of women. This plan is based on an understanding that the patterns, methods, causes and consequences of the torture of women are decisively influenced by the victim's gender. It is also based on the framework of international human rights law which prohibits such abuses.

Lesbians, gay men and bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people all over the world face persecution and violence simply for being who they are. As part of its campaign against torture, AI sought to highlight the abuses suffered by members of the LGBT community at the hands of agents of the state and in the society at large. While the perpetrators and the settings of the abuses may vary, at the heart of all forms of homophobic violence are ignorance and prejudice within society, official discrimination and repression, and the impunity enjoyed by those responsible for such abuses.

slmult1

However, human rights defenders have emerged in countries around the world, campaigning for an end to homophobic violence and to ensure equal dignity and rights for all. In June, AI launched a report, Crimes of hate, conspiracy of silence: Torture and ill-treatment based on sexual identity, as part of its contribution to growing international efforts to end these abuses. The report was launched in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in collaboration with members of the local LGBT community. At the time of the launch, AI reiterated its appeal to the Romanian authorities to repeal legislation which was discriminatory on the grounds of sexual orientation, and under which prisoners of conscience had been imprisoned. In June, the Romanian government adopted an emergency ordinance which abolished Article 200 of the Penal Code. In addition to prohibiting homosexual relations between consenting adults ''if the act was committed in public or produced public scandal'', Article 200 had made it an offence punishable by between one and five years' imprisonment ''to entice or seduce a person to practise same-sex acts, as well as to form propaganda associations, or to engage in other forms of proselytizing with the same aim''.

One of the main goals of AI's campaign against torture was the adoption in Europe of guidelines to prevent torture. In April 2001, the European Union (EU) adopted the Guidelines on the Prevention and Eradication of Torture in Third Countries. These guidelines marked a significant advance for human rights policy in the EU and provide the EU with practical tools to enable it to show its opposition to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

AI members also campaigned to encourage governments to ratify the UN Convention against Torture, without reservations. During 2001, Lesotho, Nigeria, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Sierra Leone became states parties to the Convention.

Military, security and police transfers

One of the issues highlighted in AI's campaign against torture was the need to prevent ''security'' equipment and training which can easily be used to facilitate torture from reaching abusers around the world. In many countries, torturers rely on foreign governments and companies to provide them with security equipment and training. Some governments directly sanction this torture trade; others prefer to turn a blind eye. Few have shown the political will to put an end to a trade whose profits are built on the suffering of countless victims of torture. In February AI published a report, Stopping the torture trade, which included new research showing that the number of companies worldwide known to be producing or supplying electro-shock equipment had risen from 30 in the 1980s to more than 130 by 2000. Since 1990, electro-shock devices have been used to torture or ill-treat people in prisons, detention centres or police stations in at least 76 countries in every region of the world. Modern high-voltage electro-shock weapons can be used to inflict great pain without leaving permanent marks on the victim's body. For this reason they have become the tools of choice for many torturers. AI called on governments to take steps to eradicate torture, such as suspending the use and export of electro-shock security equipment and introducing strict guidelines on the transfers of equipment which could be used to inflict torture or ill-treatment.

In July, the first ever UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons was held in New York, USA. An estimated 500,000 people, mostly unarmed civilians, are killed on average each year with small arms; many more are injured and left destitute. Despite this devastating toll, the number of factories making such arms continued to increase in countries which lack basic controls on the manufacture and transfer of small arms. AI joined with other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in calling for a plan of action that would bring about real improvements in the lives of those suffering repression in war-torn countries. Campaigners called for, among other things, a legally binding international convention to control arms exports and a convention to regulate the shady world of arms brokers and traffickers. However, under pressure, especially from the USA, China and Russia, the UN Conference agreed a weaker Program of Action which focused on measures such as the marking and tracing of weapons - provisions which, by themselves, can have little effect. AI continued to argue that under existing international law, no government should authorize any transfer of small arms or light weapons to any country where there was a clear risk that they would be used by the likely recipients to commit gross human rights abuses, war crimes or crimes against humanity.

Racism -- a global issue

AI has documented and campaigned against race-based violations of human rights throughout the world. In July, AI published a report, Racism and the administration of justice, which surveys some of the organization's work in this area over the past few years and includes recommendations to help states honour their international obligations to implement measures necessary to eradicate racial discrimination.

Unchecked racism can lead to tragedy on a massive scale. The world looked on in horror when in just 13 weeks up to one million people, most of them from the Tutsi ethnic group, were massacred in Rwanda in 1994. But the abuses which happen every day as a result in whole or in part of racism in the administration of justice rarely catch the headlines, even though the effects of such abuses continue to devastate millions of lives around the world every year. In India, some 160 million Dalits (formerly known as ''untouchables'') are vulnerable to a whole range of human rights abuses in the community and by officials because of their caste. A large number of these abuses are never investigated. Around the world an estimated 300 million indigenous people still face discrimination in almost every aspect of their lives and many are targeted for human rights abuses. Their vulnerability is enhanced by a lack of state protection.

Racism, to varying degrees and in various forms, infects virtually every country. Around the world, foreigners, including migrant workers and asylum-seekers, live in xenophobic environments, sometimes stirred up by the authorities and almost always reflected in the administration of justice. Increasingly, asylum-seekers are being detained for months or years while their claims for protection are examined.

The law and its administration, which should uphold the values of justice and equality, are among the primary forces in opposing the effects of racism. Yet justice systems all too often fail in this purpose and instead mirror the prejudices of the society they serve. Racial discrimination in the administration of justice systematically denies certain people their human rights because of their colour, race, ethnicity, descent or national origin. AI's research in recent years has shown that members of ethnic or national minorities often suffer torture, ill-treatment and harassment at the hands of the police in disproportionately large numbers. In many parts of the world they face unfair trials and discriminatory sentencing which put them at increased risk of harsh punishments, including the death penalty.

''[I]n the context of the 11th of September [this Declaration and Programme of Action from Durban] has become even more significant, even more relevant to exactly what we need to be doing. It requires that we address the evils of Islamophobia, anti-Arab sentiment, anti-Semitism, that we have concern for minorities, be they Roma, Sinti, travellers in Europe, be they African descendants in the Americas, the indigenous peoples, migrants, economic migrants, undocumented migrants, refugees, asylum seekers.''

Mary Robinson, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, briefing to the press, Geneva 25 September 2001

AI's report was published to coincide with the third conference on racism organized by the UN - the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance - which was held in August and September in Durban, South Africa. A Declaration and Programme of Action, formulated on the basis of input from various preparatory meetings, was adopted at the Conference, although the placement of a number of paragraphs remained a matter of dispute at the end of the year.

Despite difficulties, the Conference succeeded in highlighting the extent of racism around the world. It also put the plight of groups such as Dalits, Palestinians, Roma, Tibetans, indigenous peoples and those facing multiple forms of discrimination - such as refugees, women and members of the LGBT community - forcefully on the world's human rights agenda. AI and other NGOs pledged that they would continue to campaign to ensure that governments do not forget their obligations to combat racism. All those committed to anti-racism must now work to ensure that this increased awareness is translated into concrete action that will make a real difference to people's lives.

Impunity

AI has campaigned for many years, alongside other NGOs, for an end to impunity for the perpetrators of human rights violations and abuses.

AI's campaign against torture, for example, highlighted impunity - the failure to bring to justice those who commit serious abuses of human rights - as one of the key factors in perpetuating torture and made recommendations about how it could be overcome. Victims of torture have a right to see justice done, to have the truth about what happened to them acknowledged and to receive reparation. Yet, as AI's report, End impunity: Justice for the victims of torture, published in November, showed, the shameful fact is that justice is the exception not the rule. Most torturers commit their crimes safe in the knowledge that they will never face arrest, prosecution or punishment.

However, the tide seems to be turning, albeit slowly. More and more governments are recognizing the importance of bringing alleged perpetrators to justice, if not at home, then abroad.

The prosecution of offences which are serious crimes under international law within the jurisdiction where they occurred is, in an ideal world, the form of prosecution to be preferred. It is one of the best ways to demonstrate to civil society that justice is being done. It is often the most efficient way to collect evidence and testimonies. It is generally the most economical way for victims and witnesses to participate in criminal proceedings. Finally, it allows suspects to be tried in a legal system and in a language they and their lawyers know best.

Where justice at the place of the crime is not possible, other means to ensure justice need to be found. The last century saw the first modern use of ad hoc international criminal tribunals to supplement national courts. Such tribunals were established after the Second World War at Nuremberg and Tokyo and later for the prosecution of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the former Yugoslavia since 1991 and in Rwanda in 1994.

In June 2001, former President Slobodan Milosevic was transferred to the custody of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). This marked the first step towards ending the impunity enjoyed by senior political figures suspected of responsibility for massive violations of international law in the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. Slobodan Milosevic had been in custody in Serbia since his arrest on 1 April 2001, under investigation for crimes including corruption and abuse of power. The former President had been indicted by the ICTY, along with four other former government officials, on 24 May 1999 on charges of crimes against humanity and violations of the law and customs of war committed in Kosovo by forces acting under their command, with their encouragement and with their support. Slobodan Milosevic was also indicted on charges of crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and violations of the laws and customs of war in both Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina; the Bosnia indictment also includes the charge of genocide.

In November 2000, a variation on this theme of establishing ad hoc international tribunals was repeated when the UN Secretary-General proposed that the UN Security Council establish an ad hoc Special Court in Sierra Leone which would be of mixed national and international jurisdiction and composition. Its applicable law would include international, as well as Sierra Leonean, law. Its judges, prosecutors and staff would be composed of Sierra Leonean nationals and people of other nationalities.

This ''mixed tribunal'' approach, with UN and national involvement, was also the format being suggested in Cambodia and analogous to the international components in East Timor. In August 2001, the King of Cambodia signed a law, passed by parliament, allowing for the prosecution before a panel of both national and international judges of some former leaders of the Government of Democratic Kampuchea (Khmer Rouge). The Khmer Rouge ruled Cambodia between April 1975 and January 1979, years in which millions of Cambodians were victims of crimes against humanity, including torture and political killings. However, serious concerns remained because the law falls short of international law and standards.

The principle of universal jurisdiction allows states to investigate and try people suspected of crimes, including serious crimes under international law, irrespective of the nationality of the perpetrator, the nationality of the victim or the place where the crime was committed. There have been a number of cases of the exercise of universal jurisdiction in recent years. For example, in Belgium, four Rwandese nationals were convicted in 2001 of war crimes committed in the context of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. Other criminal proceedings in the exercise of universal jurisdiction have been initiated against former heads of state such as Augusto Pinochet of Chile and Hissein Habré of Chad, as well as against officials still in power, such as Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel.

The arrest of Augusto Pinochet in October 1998 in the UK transformed public awareness of the possibilities for overcoming impunity, both within Chile and internationally. Although he was returned to Chile in March 2000, efforts to prosecute him for human rights violations continued. The Santiago Appeals Court ruled that his parliamentary immunity should be lifted and in early 2001 he was taken into custody to stand trial on charges connected with a military operation in October 1973, known as the ''Caravan of Death'', in which 19 people ''disappeared''. By 2001 Augusto Pinochet was named as a suspect in 241 lawsuits. Although the Santiago Court of Appeals decided in July 2001 to suspend all charges as he was deemed unfit to stand trial - a decision which has been appealed - the Pinochet case continues to inspire all those fighting against impunity.

Another method for prosecuting people suspected of serious crimes under international law in the near future will be the permanent International Criminal Court. Seated in The Hague, in the Netherlands, this court will be a treaty-based body which will be established after 60 states have ratified the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. By December 2001, 48 states had already ratified and 139 states had signed the Statute and it was generally expected that the Court would be established in 2002. The Court will exercise jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

The death penalty

''The state should not assume the right which only the Almighty has... to take a human life. That is why I can say firmly I am against Russia reinstating the death penalty.''

Russian President Vladimir Putin, July 2001

There were some important steps forward in 2001 in the worldwide trend towards abolition of the death penalty. In April the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal ruled that the mandatory death penalty was unconstitutional. In the words of Justice J. Saunders: ''The mandatory death penalty robs those upon whom sentence is passed of any opportunity whatsoever to have the court consider mitigating circumstances even as an irrevocable punishment is meted out to them. The dignity of human life is reduced by a law that compels a court to impose death by hanging upon all convicted of murder, granting none an opportunity to have the individual circumstances of his case considered by the court that is to pronounce sentence.'' In May, Chile abolished the death penalty for ordinary crimes and replaced it with life imprisonment, and in June the Irish electorate voted to remove all references to the death penalty from the country's Constitution. Also in June, the first World Congress against the Death Penalty was held in Strasbourg, France. The Congress - which was organized by the NGO Ensemble contre la peine de mort, Together Against the Death Penalty, and hosted by the Council of Europe - was attended by former death-row prisoners from the USA and Japan, as well as by members of the European Parliament, the French National Assembly and numerous NGOs, including AI. The appeal for a worldwide moratorium on the death penalty with the goal of universal abolition was signed by the presidents of 15 national and international parliaments.

In the USA, five states - Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Missouri and North Carolina - joined the 13 other states and the federal government which had enacted legislation prohibiting the use of the death penalty on defendants with mental retardation. However, in Texas, which has accounted for one third of executions in the USA since 1977, a bill prohibiting the execution of prisoners with mental retardation was vetoed by Governor Rick Perry. In 2001, one child offender was executed in the USA. Since the beginning of 1998, nine of the 14 known executions worldwide of child offenders - people who were under 18 at the time of the crime - have taken place in the USA. Two other executions of child offenders were recorded in 2001, one in Iran and one in Pakistan. In December, President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan announced that the death sentences on around 100 young offenders would be commuted to terms of imprisonment.

China continued to defy the worldwide trend towards abolition and intensified its use of the death penalty in 2001. The number of executions increased dramatically after the Chinese government launched a national ''strike hard'' campaign against crime. Between April and July 2001 at least 1,781 people were executed - more than the total number of people executed in the rest of the world in the previous three years. More than 4,015 people were sentenced to death during the year for crimes including embezzlement, fraud and bribery, as well as violent crimes. Many of those condemned to death were likely to have been tortured to extract confessions. Many executions took place after mass sentencing rallies in front of huge crowds in public squares and sports stadiums. Condemned prisoners were often shackled and humiliated by being paraded in public.

The future for AI

''This dream of justice has brought together human rights activists from all cultural backgrounds, origins and walks of life. Our cultural diversity is the source of our strength, inspiration and determination... We need to find new ways of building international solidarity, to continue to transform despair into hope and compassion into action.''

Irene Khan, Secretary General of AI

AI's 25th International Council Meeting (ICM) took place at a time when the movement found itself at a crossroads. In August delegates from 72 countries came together in Dakar, Senegal, to discuss the changes that had taken place in the international political, economic and social landscape, including the human rights environment, in recent years. Uppermost in the delegates' minds was the need for a careful critical assessment of AI's strengths and weaknesses in order to ensure that the organization continues to be able to act effectively in defence of human rights. In particular, delegates debated ways to better embody within AI the principles of universality and indivisibility of all human rights. In an effort to underline the equal importance of civil and political rights and economic rights, delegates explored ways for AI to better integrate both sets of rights in its work, which until now has been largely confined to the sphere of civil and political rights. The revised definition of AI's mission encapsulates all AI's work to date, while providing a framework reflecting a view of human rights advocacy which encompasses a broader range of rights including economic, social and cultural rights, and greater flexibility:

''AI's mission is to undertake research and action focused on preventing and ending grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination, within the context of its work to promote all human rights.''

The nature of the human rights community itself has undergone enormous changes. The number of NGOs has increased dramatically in the past 10 years or so from around 6,000 to approximately 26,000. The development of global NGO networks comprising local, regional and international NGOs is one of the main human rights trends of the past decade. AI, which remains the largest international human rights organization with a membership base in every corner of the world, has sought to respond by greater participation in local and regional human rights networking and collective campaigning.

ICM delegates discussed how to ensure that the high quality of information for which AI is renowned is matched by greater strategic focus for its campaigns. They decided that AI should in future organize its campaigning work around a set of major thematic campaigns on key issues. Such thematic campaigns will, it is hoped, make it easier for AI members to link AI concerns with local issues, to promote strategic work on an issue spanning the movement, and to make the most of AI's expertise.

''Forty years on, Amnesty International has secured many victories. Its files are full of letters from former prisoners of conscience or torture victims thanking the organization for making a difference. Torture is now banned by international agreement. Every year more countries reject the death penalty. The world will soon have an International Criminal Court that will be able to ensure that those accused of the worst crimes in the world will face justice. The Court's very existence will deter some crimes.

But the challenges are still great. Torture is banned but in two-thirds of the world's countries it is still being committed in secret. Too many governments still allow wrongful imprisonment, murder or 'disappearance' to be carried out by their officials with impunity.

Those who today still feel a sense of impotence can do something: they can support Amnesty International. They can help it to stand up for freedom and justice.''

Peter Benenson, founder of AI, May 2001

What is AI?

Amnesty International (AI) is a worldwide voluntary activist movement working for human rights. It is independent of any government, political persuasion or religious creed. It does not support or oppose any government or political system, nor does it support or oppose the views of the victims whose rights it seeks to protect. It is concerned solely with the impartial protection of human rights.

AI mobilizes volunteer activists - people who give freely of their time and energy in solidarity with the victims of human rights abuses. There are more than 1,000,000 AI members and subscribers in over 140 countries and territories. AI members come from many different backgrounds, with widely different political and religious beliefs, united by a determination to work for a world where everyone enjoys human rights.

Many AI members are organized into groups: there are more than 7,800 local groups, youth and student groups and other specialist groups in more than 100 countries and territories. Thousands of other members are involved in networks working on particular countries or themes. In 56 countries and territories, the work of AI members is coordinated by sections, whose addresses are given below. In another 24 countries and territories, AI has pre-section coordinating structures, which are also listed below.

What does AI do?

AI forms a global community of human rights defenders with the principles of international solidarity, effective action for the individual victim, global coverage, the universality and indivisibility of human rights, impartiality and independence, and democracy and mutual respect.

AI's vision is of a world in which every person enjoys all the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards.

It seeks the release of prisoners of conscience. These are people detained for their political, religious or other conscientiously held beliefs or because of their ethnic origin, sex, colour, language, national or social origin, economic status, birth or other status — who have not used or advocated violence.
It works for fair and prompt trials for political prisoners.
It opposes without reservation the death penalty, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
It campaigns for an end to political killings and ''disappearances''.
It calls on governments to refrain from unlawful killings in armed conflict.
It calls on armed political groups to end abuses such as the detention of prisoners of conscience, hostage-taking, torture and unlawful killings.
It opposes abuses by non-state actors where the state has failed to fulfil its obligations to provide effective protection.
It campaigns for perpetrators of human rights abuses to be brought to justice.
It seeks to assist asylum-seekers who are at risk of being returned to a country where they might suffer serious abuses of their human rights.
It opposes certain grave abuses of economic, social and cultural rights.

AI also seeks to:

cooperate with other non-governmental organizations, the UN and regional intergovernmental organizations;
ensure control of international military, security and police relations, to prevent human rights abuses;
organize human rights education and awareness raising programs.

AI: a democratic movement

AI is a democratic, self-governing movement. Major policy decisions are taken by an International Council made up of representatives from all national sections. The Council meets every two years, and has the power to amend the Statute which governs AI's work and methods. Copies of the Statute are available from the International Secretariat.

The Council elects an International Executive Committee of volunteers which carries out its

decisions and appoints the movement's Secretary General, who also heads up the International Secretariat.

The movement's Secretary General is Irene Khan (Bangladesh), and the members of its International Executive Committee are Samuel Zan Akologo (Ghana), Margaret Bedggood (New Zealand), Paul Hoffman (USA), Hans Landolt (Peru), Colm Ó Cuanacháin (Ireland), Claire Paponneau (France), Marian Pink (Austria), Jaap Rosen Jacobson (Netherlands) and Rafael Barca (International Secretariat).

Finances

AI's national sections and local volunteer groups and networks are primarily responsible for funding the movement. No funds are sought or accepted from governments for AI's work investigating and campaigning against human rights violations. The donations that sustain this work come from the organization's members and the public. The international budget adopted by AI for the financial year April 2001 to March 2002 was £20,940,000. This sum represents approximately one quarter of the estimated income likely to be raised during the year by the movement's national sections to finance their campaigning and other activities.

AI's ultimate goal is to end human rights violations, but so long as they continue AI tries to provide practical help to the victims. Relief (financial assistance) is an important aspect of this work. Sometimes AI provides financial assistance directly to individuals. At other times, it works through local bodies such as local and national human rights organizations so as to ensure that resources are used as effectively as possible for those in most need.

During the financial year April 2001 to March 2002, the International Secretariat of AI distributed an estimated £110,000 in relief to victims of human rights violations such as prisoners of conscience and recently released prisoners of conscience and their dependants, and for the medical treatment of torture victims. In addition, the organization's sections and groups distributed a further substantial amount, much of it in the form of modest payments by local groups to their adopted prisoners of conscience and dependent families.

Information about AI is available from national section offices and from: International Secretariat, Peter Benenson House, 1 Easton Street, London WC1X 0DW, United Kingdom.

AI online -- http://www.amnesty.org

AI online is dedicated to providing AI's human rights resources on the Internet. It contains more than 20,000 files and is visited by over 10,000 people daily from all over the world. During 2001, AI documents were visited on the site approximately 22 million times.

It holds most AI reports published since 1996 detailing AI's concerns about human rights issues around the world. Additionally, there is information on the latest campaigns and appeals for action to help protect human rights.

During 2001, the site featured more than 100 appeals on behalf of individual prisoners of conscience, victims of torture and prisoners facing the death penalty, as well as campaigns on issues such as torture, the arms trade, gender, human rights-related legislation, and action following the attacks in the USA on 11 September (http://www.amnesty.org/actnow/).

In the run-up to Human Rights Day on 10 December, an online petition urging governments around the world to ''act now'' for human rights was signed by more than 10,000 people. Throughout the year, more than 120,000 e-mails were sent to various governments as part of AI's ''stoptorture'' campaign.

The site also contains contact details for AI's offices worldwide (http://www.amnesty.org/aisect/) and links to thousands of human rights-related websites. There are also AI international sites in:

French (http://www.efai.org),

Spanish (http://www.edai.org), and

Arabic (http://www.amnesty-arabic.org).

AI sections

AlgeriaAmnesty International, BP 377, Alger,

RP 16004

e-mail: amnestyalgeria@hotmail.com

Argentina Amnistía Internacional,

Av. Rivadavia 2206 - P4A, C1032ACO Ciudad de

Buenos Aires

e-mail: info@amnesty.org.ar

http://www.amnesty.org.ar

Australia Amnesty International, Private Bag 23, Broadway, New South Wales 2007

e-mail: adminaia@amnesty.org.au

cf0 http://www.amnesty.org.au

Austria amnesty international austria,

Moeringgasse 10, A-1150 Wien

e-mail: info@amnesty.at

http://www.amnesty.at

BangladeshAmnesty International, 28 Kabi Jasimuddin Road, 1st Floor, North Kamalapur,

Dhaka - 1217

e-mail: aibd@bangla.net

Belgium Amnesty International (AI Vlaanderen), Kerkstraat 156, 2060 Antwerpen

e-mail: amnesty@aivl.be

http://www.aivl.be

Belgium Amnesty International (francophone),

rue Berckmans 9, 1060 Bruxelles

e-mail: aibf@aibf.be

http://www.aibf.be

BeninAmnesty International, 01 BP 3536, Cotonou

e-mail: aibenin@nakayo.leland.bj

Bermuda Amnesty International, PO Box HM 2136, Hamilton HM JX

e-mail: aibda@ibl.bm

BrazilAnistia Internacional, Caixa Postal 5013,

CEP 90041-970 Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul

e-mail: aibrasil@conex.com.br

Canada Amnesty International, 214 Montreal Road,

4th Floor, Vanier, Ontario, K1L 1A4

e-mail: info@amnesty.ca

http://www.amnesty.ca

CanadaAmnistie Internationale (francophone),

6250 boulevard Monk, Montréal, Québec H4E 3H7

e-mail: info@amnistie.qc.ca

http://www.amnistie.qc.ca

ChileSeñores, Casilla 4062, Santiago

e-mail: admin-cl@amnesty.org

Costa RicaAmnistía Internacional, 75 metros al

norte de la Iglesia de Fatima, los Yoses, San Pedro,

San José

Côte d'Ivoire Amnesty International, 04 BP 895, Abidjan 04

e-mail: aicotedivoire@globeaccess.net

DenmarkAmnesty International, Dyrkoeb 3,

1166 Copenhagen K

e-mail: amnesty@amnesty.dk

Ecuador Amnistía Internacional, Casilla 17-15-240-C, Quito

e-mail: ai_ecuador@hotmail.com

Faroe Islands Amnesty International, PO Box 1075,

FR-110, Tórshavn

e-mail: amnesty@amnesty.fo

http://www.amnesty.fo

Finland Amnesty International, Ruoholahdenkatu 24,

D 00180 Helsinki

e-mail: amnesty@amnesty.fi

http://www.amnesty.fi

FranceAmnesty International, 76 blvd. de La Villette, 75940 Paris cedex 19

e-mail: admin-fr@amnesty.asso.fr

http://www.amnesty.asso.fr

GermanyAmnesty International, 53108 Bonn

e-mail: info@amnesty.de

http://www.amnesty.de

GhanaAmnesty International, Private Mail Bag, Kokomlemle, Accra - North

e-mail: aghana@sections.amnesty.org

Greece Amnesty International, 30 Sina Street,

106 72 Athens

e-mail: info@amnesty.gr

http://www.amnesty.gr

GuyanaAmnesty International, PO Box 101679, Palm Court Building, 35 Main Street, Georgetown

Hong Kong Amnesty International, Unit B, 3/F,

Best-O-Best Commercial Centre, 32-36 Ferry Street, Kowloon

e-mail: admin-hk@amnesty.org

http://www.amnesty.org.hk

Iceland Amnesty International, PO Box 618,

121 Reykjavík

e-mail: amnesty@rhi.hi.is

http://www.amnesty.is

Ireland Amnesty International, Sean MacBride House, 48 Fleet Street, Dublin 2

e-mail: info@amnesty.iol.ie

http://www.amnesty.ie

IsraelAmnesty International, PO Box 14179,Tel Aviv 61141

e-mail: amnesty@netvision.net.il

http://www.amnesty.org.il

ItalyAmnesty International, Via Giovanni Battista De Rossi 10, 00161 Roma

e-mail: info@amnesty.it

http://www.amnesty.it

JapanAmnesty International, Sky Esta 2F, 2-18-23 Nishi Waseda, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 169

e-mail: amnesty@mri.biglobe.ne.jp

http://www.amnesty.or.jp

Korea (Republic of) Amnesty International, Kyeong Buk RCO Box 36, Daegu 706-600

e-mail: admin-ko@amnesty.org

http://www.amnesty.or.kr

Luxembourg Amnesty International, Boîte

Postale 1914, 1019 Luxembourg

e-mail: e-mail@amnesty.lu

http://www.amnesty.lu

Mauritius Amnesty International, BP 69,

Rose-Hill

e-mail: amnesty@intnet.mu

MexicoAmnistía Internacional,

Calle Patricio Sanz 1104, Departamento 14,

Colonia del Valle, Mexico D.F. - CP 03100

e-mail: adm-mx@amnesty.org

Morocco Amnesty International, Place d'Angleterre, Rue Souissra, Immeuble No. 11, Appt No. 1,

Rabat - l'Océan

e-mail: admin-ma@amnesty.org

Nepal Amnesty International, PO Box 135, Bagbazar, Kathmandu

e-mail: ain@ccsl.com.np

Netherlands Amnesty International, PO Box 1968,

1000 BZ, Amsterdam

e-mail: amnesty@amnesty.nl

http://www.amnesty.nl

New Zealand Amnesty International, PO Box 793, Wellington

e-mail: campaign@amnesty.org.nz

http://www.amnesty.org.nz

Nigeria Amnesty International, PMB 3061, Suru Lere, Lagos

e-mail: ainigeria@yahoo.co.uk

NorwayAmnesty International, PO Box 702 Sentrum, 0106 Oslo

e-mail: info@amnesty.no

http://www.amnesty.no

PeruSeñores, Casilla 659, Lima 18

e-mail: admin-pe@amnesty.org

PhilippinesAmnesty International, Room 305

CRM Building II, 116 Kamia Road, 1101 Quezon City

e-mail: amnestypilipinas@meridiantelekoms.net

PortugalAmnistia Internacional, Rua Fialho de Almeida 13-1, PT-1070-128 Lisboa

e-mail: aisp@ip.pt

http://www.amnistia-internacional.pt

Puerto RicoAmnistía Internacional, Calle El

Roble No.º 54-Altos, Oficina 11, Río Piedras,

Puerto Rico 00925

0 e-mail: amnistiaPR@yahoo.com

Senegal Amnesty International, BP 21910,

Dakar

e-mail: aisenegal@sentoo.sn

Sierra LeoneAmnesty International, PMB 1021, Freetown

e-mail: aislf@sierratel.sl

SloveniaAmnesty International, Komenskega 7,

1000 Ljubljana

e-mail: amnesty.slo@guest.arnes.si

http://www.ljudmila.org/ai-slo

Spain Amnistía Internacional, Apdo 50318,

28080 Madrid

e-mail: amnistia.internacional@a-i.es

http://www.a-i.es

SwedenAmnesty International, PO Box 4719,

SE-116 92 Stockholm

e-mail: info@amnesty.se

http://www.amnesty.se

SwitzerlandAmnesty International, Postfach CH-3001, Bern

e-mail: info@amnesty.ch

http://www.amnesty.ch

Taiwan Amnesty International, No. 89, 7th floor #1, Chung Cheng Two Road, Kaohsiung

e-mail: aitaiwan@seed.net.tw

http://www.aitaiwan.org.tw

TanzaniaAmnesty International, Luther House,

3rd Floor, PO Box 4331, Dar es Salaam

e-mail: aitanz@simbanet.net

TogoCCNP, BP 20013, Lomé

e-mail: aitogo@cafe.tg

Tunisia Amnesty International, 67 rue Oum Kalthoum, 3ème étage, Escalier B, 1000 Tunis

e-mail: admin-tn@amnesty.org

United Kingdom Amnesty International,

99-119 Rosebery Avenue, London EC1R 4RE

e-mail: info@amnesty.org.uk

http://www.amnesty.org.uk

United States of AmericaAmnesty International,

322 8th Ave, New York, NY 10001

e-mail: admin-us@aiusa.org

http://www.amnestyusa.org

UruguayAmnistía Internacional, Tristan Narvaja 1624, Ap 1, CP 11200, Montevideo

e-mail: amnistia@chasque.apc.org

Venezuela Amnistía Internacional, Apartado

Postal 5110, Carmelitas, 1010 A Caracas

e-mail: admin-ve@amnesty.org

http://www.amnistia.int.ve

AI coordinating structures

BoliviaAmnistía Internacional, Casilla 10607, La Paz

Burkina Faso Amnesty International, 08 BP 11344, Ouagadougou

e-mail: aburkina@sections.amnesty.org

Caribbean Regional OfficeAmnesty International C.R.O., PO Box 1912, Grenada, West Indies

e-mail: amnestycro@caribsurf.com

CroatiaAmnesty International, Marticeva 24,

10000 Zagreb

e-mail: admin@amnesty.hr

CuraçaoAmnesty International, PO Box 3676, Curaçao, Netherlands Antilles

Czech RepublicAmnesty International, Palackého 9, 110 00 Praha 1

e-mail: amnesty@amnesty.cz

http://www.amnesty.cz

Gambia Amnesty International, PO Box 1935,

Banjul

e-mail: amnesty@gamtel.gm

IndiaAmnesty International, G13 First Floor, Hauz Khas Main Market, New Delhi, 110016

e-mail: admin-in@amnesty.org

Hungary Amnesty International, 1399 Budapest,

PF 701/343

e-mail: amnesty.hun@axelero.hu

MalaysiaAmnesty International, Pro-tem Committee, 43A, Jalan SS 15/4, 47500 Subang Jaya Selangor Darul Ehsan

e-mail: amnesty@tm.net.my

http://www.crosswinds.net/~aimalaysia

MaliAmnesty International, BP E 3885, Bamako

e-mail: amnesty-mli@spider.toolnet.org

e-mail: amali@sections.amnesty.org

Mongolia Amnesty International, Ulaanbaatar 21 0648, PO Box 180

e-mail: aimncc@magicnet.mn

PakistanAmnesty International, NEC, B-12, Shelozon Centre, Gulsan-E-Iqbal, Block 15, University Road, Karachi - 75300

e-mail: amnesty@cyber.net.pk

http://www.geocities.com/amnestypakistan

Palestinian Authority Amnesty International,

PO Box 543, Khalaf Building, Racheed Street, Gaza City, South Remal via Israel

e-mail: admin-pa@amnesty.org

ParaguayAmnistía Internacional, Calle Juan de Salazar 488 casi Boquerón, Asunción

e-mail: ai-info@amnistia.org.py

http://www.amnistia.org.py

Poland Amnesty International, ul. Jackowa Dolina 4, 80-252 Gdansk

e-mail: amnesty@amnesty.org.pl

http://www.amnesty.org.pl

SlovakiaAmnesty International, Staromestská 6,

811 03 Bratislava

e-mail: amnesty@internet.sk

http://www.internet.sk/amnesty

South AfricaAmnesty International, PO Box 29083, Sunnyside 0132, Pretoria, Gauteng

e-mail: info@amnesty.org.za

ThailandAmnesty International, 125/4 Sukhumvit Soi 89, Bangjak, Phrakhanong, Bangkok 10250

e-mail: admin-th@amnesty.org

http://www.thailand.amnesty.com

Turkey Amnesty International, Muradiye Bayiri Sok. Acarman ap. 50/1, Tesvikiye 80200, Istanbul

e-mail: amnesty@superonline.com

Uganda Amnesty International groups, PO Box 23966, Kampala

e-mail: augamnesty@yahoo.com

Ukraine Amnesty International, Maydan Rynok 6, Drohobych, 82100

e-mail: officeai@dr.lv.ukrtel.net

Zambia Amnesty International, Private Bag 3, Kitwe Main PO, Kitwe

e-mail: mjmusonda@hotmail.com

e-mail: JMusonda@comesa.int

ZimbabweAmnesty International, 25 E Bible House,

99 Mbuya Nehanda Street, Harare

e-mail: amnestyzimbabwe@yahoo.com

AI groups

There are also AI groups in:

Albania, Angola, Aruba, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Botswana, Cameroon, Chad, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Estonia, Grenada, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Liberia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Mozambique, Romania, Russian Federation, Yemen, Yugoslavia (Federal Republic of)

AI IN ACTION

''I have been struck by the courage of the people. Families whose homes were bombed in Kabul and who fled with nothing are bravely putting their lives together. Children, dirty and half-starved, still smile and play in the dust. Women who have suffered repression for the past 20 years are full of ideas of how they will rebuild a better, more equal society for themselves. Their courage is so inspiring that I wanted to share this experience with you. This is what makes our work meaningful. So, let's take the opportunity today to celebrate the work of all human rights defenders and the courage of all victims."

AI's Secretary General, Irene Khan, speaking at a refugee camp in Pakistan on Human Rights Day, 10 December 2001

The attacks in the USA on 11 September gave the AI movement one of the strongest challenges of its 40-year history. An immediate yet considered response by human rights organizations was vital in the wake of the attacks. This section of the Amnesty International Report 2002gives an overview of work undertaken by AI members throughout the year in response to 11 September and in their upholding of commitments to programs of work previously in place.

AI's strength reflects the quality of the materials it produces and the meticulous research on which its campaigning activities are based. During 2001, AI delegates visited more than 75 countries and territories to meet victims of human rights violations, observe trials, and interview local human rights activists and officials.

AI's activities range from public demonstrations to letter-writing, from human rights education to fundraising concerts, from targeted appeals on behalf of a single individual to global campaigns on a specific country or issue, from approaches to local authorities to lobbying intergovernmental organizations.

AI confronts governments with its findings by issuing detailed reports and by publicizing its concerns in leaflets, posters, advertisements, newsletters and on the Internet. AI information is available on countless websites worldwide.

AI campaigns to change government attitudes and unjust laws. One of the ways it does this is by feeding a constant stream of information to the media, to governments and to the UN, urging them to take action.

The organization also strives to promote awareness and strengthen the protection of human rights. It appeals to international organizations to intervene when a crisis appears likely to develop. It seeks the protection of refugees fleeing persecution and it works with local human rights workers who are subjected to harassment or who are under threat of attack.

Long- and medium-term actions

The number of AI's local groups, youth and student groups and networks participating in actions continued to grow throughout the year. Based in more than 100 countries, members took action on 2,813 named individuals, including prisoners of conscience and other victims of human rights violations. A total of 818 long-term Action Files were running, and were assigned to 2,742 groups who used a variety of campaigning techniques including letter-writing and public events. A total of 72 new Action Files were produced and allocated during the year, while 184 were closed in the same period.

The year saw AI activists responding to an increasing number of requests for action. One such Action File concerned the treatment of youth and student groups in Belarus, especially an opposition youth movement known as ZUBR, a new country-wide grouping of students and young people. Concerns included the arbitrary detention of ZUBR activists for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of assembly and association, and the alleged ill-treatment of ZUBR members by the police. Other files included one on behalf of political prisoners held in Drapchi prison in Tibet, and one each on the Indian states of Jammu and Kashmir and West Bengal.

Local groups were also involved in Regional Action Networks (RANs), which generate ongoing campaign work on a specific group of countries. During the year a total of 1,796 groups were assigned to 23 RANs and they took part in 181 actions.

Youth and students

Youth and students make up approximately half of the AI membership worldwide and are organized into about 3,500 groups in 60 different sections and structures. In 2001 they campaigned energetically and creatively on all AI concerns. In March students from 15 countries participated in an International Week of Student Action to raise awareness about the widespread use of torture in Peru. Although the event was tailored for the youth and student network, other AI activists also became involved, particularly as the timing of the presidential elections in Peru afforded a good opportunity for raising AI's concerns.

Youth camps took place in different regions. Among these was the first AI international youth camp in Europe, held in Slovenia, where 70 participants from 28 European countries met to discuss human rights, develop their campaigning skills and take practical action. This gathering produced a lively debate about further enhancing the role of youth and student groups in AI.

Urgent Actions

If urgent action is needed on behalf of people in imminent danger of serious human rights violations, volunteers around the world are alerted, and they send thousands of letters, faxes and e-mails within days.

During 2001, AI initiated 408 such appeals to the Urgent Action network. There were also 404 updates to previous urgent action appeals; 117 of these recorded good news about the case, and 235 asked for further appeals to be sent. These actions were issued on behalf of people in 81 countries and territories, who were either at risk of or had suffered human rights violations including torture, "disappearance", the death penalty, death in custody, or forcible return to countries where they would be in danger of human rights violations.

Crisis response

The scale and nature of the 11 September attacks in the USA required an immediate response from human rights activists. At least 3,000 people from more than 60 countries were killed, causing trauma and grief in every region on earth. AI condemned the attacks unreservedly. AI members worldwide offered their condolences and expressed their solidarity to the victims and their relatives. Under the slogan Justice not revenge, AI called for the perpetrators of the attacks to be brought to justice, in line with international human rights standards.

A US-led coalition began bombing in Afghanistan on 7 October and continued for the rest of the year. An as yet unknown number of Afghan civilians were killed or injured or had their homes or property destroyed. AI raised concerns with US authorities about specific attacks in which civilians were killed and civilian objects were destroyed, urged that investigations be conducted into possible violations of international humanitarian law and called for a moratorium on the use of cluster weapons. In November AI called on the USA, the United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan (United Front), and the United Kingdom (UK)to conduct an inquiry into the deaths of hundreds of Talebanprisoners and others at Qala-i-Jhangi fort, after an uprising by some Talebancaptives was put down by bombing by US warplanes and United Front artillery.

AI members tackled the serious human rights concerns raised in this crisis through campaigning and publicity work. One of the most pressing issues was how to deal with the spate of attacks against Muslim, Asian, Middle Eastern and other minority communities in many countries. Another urgent concern was how to react to the introduction or tightening up of security and anti-terrorism legislation in many countries around the world in ways which undermined human rights protection. AI sections joined coalitions and worked with other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in calling for restraint and respect for human rights by all parties in the armed conflict in Afghanistan and surrounding countries.

AI highlighted its concerns in its report, The backlash: Human rights at risk throughout the world (AI Index: ACT 30/027/2001), which AI members used to lobby their governments to take strong action against perpetrators of racist attacks in their countries. It enabled AI members to raise concerns about the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers, as well as about limits to civil liberties and basic freedoms which were being felt in all regions of the world. The US authorities were challenged about the introduction of special military commissions; on the detention without basic human rights safeguards of mainly non-US nationals; and on the debate regarding the possible use of "pressure techniques" by US security forces to elicit information from detainees during interrogation.

Part of the aim of the crisis response was to draw attention to human rights violations taking place in countries not immediately involved in the conflict but where abuses were taking place following the 11 September attacks; these included campaigning and mass letter-writing on cases in Malaysia and Nepal, among others.

After 11 September a number of countries introduced or amended their legislation in ways which had a direct impact on human rights. High-profile lobbying was done by AI's European Union (EU) office and within sections in the EU. Initiatives were undertaken by AI sections in Canada, India and the UK. AI members in the UK sent "greetings cards" to their members of parliament condemning draconian measures being introduced in the UK government's emergency legislation, the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act. The section was joined by other NGOs, as well as UK Muslim community groups, in a vigil outside Parliament on Human Rights Day, 10 December, to protest against the measures under the slogan "No to detention without trial".

AI Spain mobilized more than 1,000 members to actively work on the crisis response, some of whom participated in demonstrations held all over the country. The section successfully lobbied the Spanish government to commit funds to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and collected 10,000 signatures for letters to the US authorities.

The International Secretariat (IS) set up a website page entitled Justice not revenge, which was used as an active campaigning tool in providing fast and accessible information to the public as well as to AI members. Website actions were prepared on Central Asia and on Afghanistan; the latter, the Human rights agenda for Afghanistan, was also translated into Pashtu and Dari for use in Afghanistan, as well as into Sindhi and Urdu. Other sections, including Belgium and Canada, used Internet campaigning to reach wide audiences.

Many AI sections joined with other NGOs and also held their own events around the Justice not revengetheme. AI Switzerland used the image of a lottery ticket to convey the message that human rights should not be a lottery. In Morocco, the section took the opportunity of an annual youth camp event attended by 25 youth organizations to draw attention to AI's crisis response. AI sections in Belgium and Sweden focused on AI's concerns about the rights of women in Afghanistan. In addition, a number of AI sections lobbied their own governments to put pressure on the UK, US and Russian governments not to supply or use cluster bombs or other arms which would be used to violate human rights.

AI members in Pakistan undertook campaigning actions in difficult circumstances. Members held a vigil in October and their efforts were rewarded with some success in obtaining media coverage of AI's information. They played a key role in translating materials into Urdu and Sindhi. Much of the section's work focused on refugees, including preparation for and participating in the December visit of AI's Secretary General.

On Human Rights Day, many AI sections held candlelight vigils and related activities, and some sections lit 30 candles to represent each of the articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This symbol was used by AI's Secretary General, Irene Khan, at an event held in a refugee camp in Pakistan which she was visiting. A major focus of attention was the presentation to the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan of the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway. The attention of the world's media on this event afforded AI Norway an excellent opportunity to organize activities around the country, as well as a letter and website petition. These were presented to Kofi Annan on 9 December.

AI's global website petition for Human Rights Day - Act Now for Human Rights!- called on all governments to address human rights both at home and internationally, and to ensure that justice and human rights standards not be undermined in the aftermath of 11 September. The petition was signed by thousands of people, from Austria to South Africa. Some sections chose different symbols. AI New Zealand's message "Give human rights a hand" was used to collect handprints of people wishing to express their commitment to human rights. AI Belgium's 10 December petition addressed to the UN Secretary-General was sent by e-mail to 2,000 members and generated 1,000 signatures within four days. From Bermuda to Uruguay, Nepal to Poland, AI sections and members campaigned on the crisis response in dynamic and varied ways.

Human rights defenders

Human rights defenders play a vital role in holding states to account in respect of their promises and obligations to protect the rights of their citizens. In many countries around the world human rights defenders face constant persecution on account of their efforts to support the victims of human rights violations and to expose the abuses committed by state agents. Work to strengthen and protect human rights defenders continued to be one of AI's priorities.

In Latin America, AI's special program of protection mechanisms for human rights defenders at risk works closely with local and international organizations to develop and apply national programs of protection for defenders. This work includes a program of national and international internships, as well as various initiatives to enable human rights defenders facing imminent danger, including witnesses, to be accompanied. Members of the electronic Human Rights Defenders Network for Latin America took special action on behalf of threatened human rights defenders in Colombia, Dominican Republic, Guatemala and Mexico.

In June AI supported a consultation held in Mexico between human rights defenders from Latin America and the Caribbean and the UN Special Representative on human rights defenders, to discuss the Special Representative's mandate and brief her on obstacles faced by defenders in the region. In October the Special Representative visited Colombia to raise with the authorities the urgent needs of defenders, more than 30 of whom were killed in the previous five years.

Also in June, AI published a report, Colombia: Robust measures urgently needed to protect human rights defenders(AI Index: AMR 23/023/2001), outlining the systematic persecution of members of ASFADDES, an organization working on behalf of the "disappeared", and calling for the Colombian authorities to adopt concrete measures to protect them. In December AI published a report, Mexico: Daring to raise their voices (AI Index: AMR 41/040/2001), and launched a campaign on behalf of Mexican human rights defenders whose work the authorities often attempted to undermine by portraying them as criminals or subversives. The report documented continued harassment of human rights defenders in Mexico, despite a change of government in December 2000 after more than 70 consecutive years of one-party rule, and emphasized the authorities' duty to investigate these and past cases.

In South Asia, AI has facilitated gatherings of human rights defenders since 1999 to discuss mutual concerns about their work, encourage interaction as a means of support, and develop concrete protection mechanisms. This work continued in 2001 with a series of workshops for human rights defenders in India to discuss the UN human rights system and how it can be used by human rights defenders to support their work.

The work of human rights defenders in West Africa was promoted in a successful campaign launched in April in Senegal. It was followed by a workshop on protection mechanisms with the UN Special Representative on human rights defenders. Innovative campaign activities included publicizing the work of human rights defenders in the media as well as lobbying governments in West Africa and intergovernmental organizations. The campaign led to the establishment of coalitions of human rights defenders in many West African countries, and the formation of a subregional network for their promotion and protection.

In July a subregional workshop was organized in Mali for women human rights defenders in West Africa to highlight the difficult environment in which they work, and to develop appropriate protection mechanisms. Work continued in developing a placement project whereby human rights defenders forced to flee their country would be enabled to continue their work within the region in collaboration with human rights NGOs.

Human rights defenders in the Middle East continued to face difficulties in their work. In Tunisia, judicial proceedings against the Ligue tunisienne des droits de l'homme, Tunisian Human Rights League, continued, and measures were taken to curtail the activities of the Conseil national pour les libertés en Tunisie(CNLT), National Council for Liberties in Tunisia. On several occasions, members were prevented from gathering and were ill-treated by security forces. Judicial proceedings were initiated against leading figures of the CNLT.

tx8640

In September, during an official visit to Tunisia, two AI delegates were detained at night and ill-treated by plainclothes agents of the security forces. Equipment and documents relating to human rights were stolen. At least one person reported having received overt death threats from security agents to dissuade him from meeting with the AI delegates.

Worldwide campaigns

Intensive work continued on AI's worldwide campaign Take a step to stamp out torture, begun in October 2000 and focusing on three key themes: the means of preventing torture; the role of discrimination in the torture inflicted on certain groups; and putting an end to the impunity which has shielded so many people responsible for torture. The campaign has had a significant impact in several important areas: individual cases of people at risk of torture and ill-treatment (see example below); and developing a wider understanding and awareness of torture, discrimination and impunity. In addition, AI members worked hard to press governments to observe international treaties. By the end of the year, the torture campaign website, www.stoptorture.org, had received around 32,790 subscribers from 188 countries willing to take action on urgent cases by sending appeals.

Campaigning for an individual

AI took worldwide action in November on behalf of Houndjo Mawudzro, a student leader and human rights activist in Togo who had been detained and tortured in September. There were fears that he would be tortured again when he was rearrested on 7 November and charged with "defamation of character and false accusation" because of a press statement he issued giving details of the torture he suffered when first detained in September. An urgent appeal issued on his behalf was posted on AI's website www.stoptorture. org, and a press release was issued to coincide with the visit of the President of Togo to France. 10,900 appeals were sent on his behalf. Houndjo Mawudzro was released on 28 November, after being summoned to the prosecutor. Houndjo Mawudzro thanked his supporters and said that he had been aware of AI's campaign on his behalf.

Campaigning on intergovernmental action

There were also achievements on broader issues.

Following the adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on 17 July 1998, AI launched a worldwide campaign for all governments to ratify the Statute. The Court, which will bring to justice those accused of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, will be created when 60 states have ratified the Statute. At the end of 2001, 48 states had ratified, and it was expected that the number will reach 60 in the first half of 2002. Almost all AIsections and structures around the world lobbied their governments to ratify, and in many countries led the national campaign, in most cases in close coordination with other national NGOs.

Campaigning by AI activists contributed to four countries ratifying the UN Convention against Torture during the year, and a number of government leaders and officials made commitments to adopt legislation to prevent torture in their countries. In moves widely acknowledged as significant, the UN Commission on Human Rights adopted AI's recommendations for governments to take measures to stop the production and transfer of torture equipment, and the EU adopted guidelines for the prevention and eradication of torture in other countries.

Child rights

For the 2001 Child Rights Action, AI's activists continued the work against the torture and ill-treatment of children. Featuring cases from Albania, Chechnya, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Egypt, AI highlighted concern about children tortured by police and during armed conflicts. Material was produced especially for younger children between the ages of 10 and 12.

AI's child rights activists, together with the movement's activists on intergovernmental organizations, worked towards the UN General Assembly Special Session on Children (UNGASS). AI focused on three main areas: ratification of international instruments; child soldiers and juvenile justice, particularly the imposition of the death penalty for persons under 18 years of age; and torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. UNGASS was postponed following the attacks in the USA on 11 September, but AI's lobbying for child rights continued.

AI's activists, in close cooperation with the International Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, continued to lobby for the Optional Protocol to the UN Children's Convention on the involvement of children in armed conflict. On 12 November, New Zealand became the 10th state to ratify the Protocol, thus allowing it to enter into force on 12 February 2002.

The risks faced by children in areas of armed conflict were addressed in an action on the torture and routine ill-treatment of conscripts by their superiors. An action was also issued on the deaths of conscripts in the armed forces and national police in Paraguay. AI activists continued to campaign against the recruitment and deployment of child soldiers by the UK armed forces, including in NATO's Operation "Essential Harvest" in Macedonia and in military operations in Afghanistan in the wake of the attacks in the USA on 11 September.

AI continued to receive and act on cases of violence against children by police officers. One concerned the alleged beating on the face and body of a 15-year-old-girl by police in Romania. AI was also concerned that the child was held and questioned at the police station without any legal and other appropriate assistance. AI members also campaigned on the grossly inadequate conditions at Panchito López juvenile detention centre in Paraguay, where ill-treatment, sometimes amounting to torture, was endemic.

Women's rights

AI's worldwide campaign against torture, Take a step to stamp out torture, signalled another major landmark in the organization's work on women's rights. Its report Broken bodies, shattered minds: Torture and ill-treatment of women(AI Index: ACT 40/001/2001) was published on International Women's Day, 8 March, and attracted huge media and public attention across the world. AI presented detailed recommendations to governments, including public condemnation and criminalizing of violence against women, investigating all allegations, and prosecuting and punishing the perpetrators.

AI sections in more than 40 countries in five global regions took part in the international campaign which accompanied the launch of the report. Their campaigning activities focused on developing links with women's movements in their countries and raising public awareness on the interrelationship between torture and violence against women.

Some key events that took place during the campaign were:

AI Norway worked with a national network of women's shelters to expose the lack of proper protection and support for battered and raped women in the country, despite strong commitments by the Norwegian government on the issue of violence against women;
in Thailand, the section organized a series of meetings with women's NGOs working on behalf of women in the sex industry. A seminar was held examining the underlying discrimination facing women sex workers and the need for strong legal reform in Thailand to protect their rights. This initiative was followed by a one-day human rights education conference for sex workers, and a high-level meeting with the Senate (Parliament) Commission of Women, Youth and Elderly Affairs;
AI local and student groups in the USA were involved in organizing a speakers' tour covering eight cities by local activists working on behalf of women in prison in the USA and women asylum-seekers in the country. The tour prompted the launch of a manual to protect female prison inmates in the USA and a campaign to support women asylum seekers fleeing gender-based persecution;
AI Philippines focused on the climate of state impunity as the impediment in addressing torture and violence against women, and worked with its growing network of women's NGO partners to press Congress to pass legislation protecting women from such abuses;
AIPalestine and AIMorocco worked with women's NGOs, producing manuals for workshops and outreach, to enhance making women's rights a reality.

AI sections took the opportunity offered by AI's campaign against torture to connect with women's movements in their countries to raise the profile of the new Optional Protocol to the UN Women's Convention, which provides for an individual complaint procedure and an inquiry procedure into violations of women's human rights. Paraguay became the fourth country to ratify the Optional Protocol, a step which it took on International Women's Day. In Mongolia, AI members joined a prominent women's network in a public event acknowledging the importance of the UN Women's Convention. In Bermuda, the AI section worked with women's NGOs to urge that the UK's ratification of the UN Women's Convention be extended to Bermuda.

A series of country reports containing evidence of violence against women was produced during the year. Specific information included rape or other sexual abuse of women in custody in Jamaica, Lebanon, the Philippines, Turkey and the USA; and torture, including rape, and gender-oriented violence within different communities in India.

The rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and

transgender (LGBT) people

2001 was a highly successful year for LGBT activism. In June, as part of the ongoing campaign against torture, AI launched its report, Crimes of hate, conspiracy of silence: Torture and ill-treatment based on sexual identity(AI Index: ACT 40/016/2001). This was the first time an LGBT-themed report had featured in an international AI campaign, and it was enthusiastically received by LGBTrights activists.

The report, launched in Argentina at a gathering of representatives of NGOs and the national and international press, highlighted the cases of many torture victims targeted because of their real or perceived sexual identity. The international launch of the report was matched by many national launches and actions. AIUSA held events in Chicago, New York, San Francisco and Washington. AI Philippines produced placards, banners, stickers and temporary tattoos for a gay pride march in Manila, at which AI activists distributed the report and news release. AI Poland held a conference with a local gay and lesbian association. In El Salvador, the report was launched at a public presentation attended and covered by national newspapers and television and radio stations. At an event in Israel at the Association for LGBT Individuals, a board member of AI Israel gave a lecture on torture and sexual identity. AI Netherlands organized the sending of thousands of telephone text messages to the authorities in Namibia on the issue of hate crimes. In the UK, the event to launch the report was dedicated to the memory of Poliyana Mangwiro, also known as Tsitsi Tiripano, a Zimbabwean LGBT rights activist who was closely associated with AI and who died shortly before the report was published. The launch received press coverage in 23 countries.

The year saw several challenges to the freedom of expression and association of LGBT activists and organizations around the world, as well as numerous cases of people harassed or attacked because of their sexual identity. An AI delegation visiting Honduras expressed concern about the refusal by Honduran authorities over seven years to grant legal status to local NGOs working on LGBT issues. AI expressed concern to the authorities in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia about the failure of the Belgrade police to protect participants in Serbia's first gay pride celebration from assault by anti-gay individuals and organizations. AI protested against the exclusion of the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) from participation in the UN World Conference against Racism.

In May, some 60 men were arrested and detained in Egypt, allegedly in connection with their sexual orientation. Fifty-two of them were brought to trial in July. Twenty-two men and one juvenile were adopted by AI as prisoners of conscience following their convictions and sentences of between one and five years' imprisonment. Members of the LGBT worldwide network were at the forefront of AI's campaigning on this issue. On 15 August, to mark one of the hearings in this case, AI activists from all five global regions demonstrated in support of the men. Two examples of the many activities undertaken by AI sections were: AI Switzerland, together with other NGOs, demonstrated about the case in front of UN buildings in Geneva in August; and AI Sweden joined a demonstration organized by the Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights (RFSL) at the Egyptian embassy in Stockholm. After the latter demonstration, the RFSL president and the coordinator of the AI Sweden group for LGBT issues were invited to a meeting with Egypt's Chargé d'Affaires to discuss the case. AI sections in Asia joined a region-wide public outcry against Egypt's ill-treatment of the arrested men.

There was good news for AI's LGBT rights campaigners. In June the Romanian government adopted an emergency ordinance which abolished Article 200 of the Penal Code, which dealt with, among other things, homosexual consensual relations, and under which prisoners of conscience had been held.

Other LGBT work continued throughout the year. In August AI made a statement on identity-based discrimination to the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.

Alongside increased activism during the year, several new LGBT groups, structures and networks were set up, and improvements to the international network of LGBT groups and structures were initiated. In October an AI delegation attended the 23rd ILGA European Regional Conference in the Netherlands. The Conference allowed LGBT groups and organizations in Europe to share their experiences and expertise.

Military, security and police (MSP)transfers

Throughout 2001, AI members continued to campaign for effective controls on the transfer of arms and security assistance in order to prevent these being used for grave human rights abuses. It campaigned for a worldwide ban on the production, promotion and trading of any security equipment used for inherently cruel, inhuman or degrading purposes, and for their suspension in the case of questionable equipment such as electro-shock weapons.

Concerted lobbying and publicity by AI members worldwide surrounded the publication of the report, Stopping the torture trade(AI Index: ACT 40/002/2001), issued as part of AI's campaign against torture. In Nigeria, for example, a press conference was held, and letters were sent to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Defence and members of the Nigerian legislature. In Ireland, AI groups and health professionals undertook extensive lobbying of politicians on this issue. In Germany, AI called on the government to suspend the trade in electro-shock weapons, and in Spain AI members contributed to efforts which succeeded in exposing a company involved in trafficking leg-irons and other security equipment. Also in Spain, the government agreed to ban the sale of leg-irons and belly-chains. Action by AIUK led to an official review of police equipment, including electro-shock weapons.

AI welcomed the adoption in April of a resolution by the UN Commission on Human Rights calling on all governments to take appropriate measures to prevent the production, use and export of equipment designed to inflict torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The Commission requested the UNSpecial Rapporteur on torture to find ways to prohibit the trade in such equipment, and to combat its proliferation. The Commission also called on the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to provide support to governments in the training of law enforcement officers to prevent torture and ill-treatment. Lobbying by AIUSA contributed to the move by the US Congress in September to begin preparing a ban on the export of crime control equipment to countries where the government has repeatedly engaged in acts of torture, and for a total export ban on equipment used for torture.

The first-ever UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons, held in New York, USA, in July, provided AI with other opportunities to raise public awareness and put pressure on governments to work towards a legally binding international convention to control arms exports. AI sections used the event to publicize the issue. In France a video on small arms featuring a World Cup football player (Lilian Thuram) was broadcast on television and in cinemas from July to November. AI Italy led the Italian Coalition on Small Arms in presenting to the Italian government a research paper on the production and export of small arms from Italy. AIUSA helped organize an international rally at the Conference, which brought together families of victims of gun violence with human rights activists from around the world.

x6480 Although delegates from Canada, Norway and the EU pressed for clear agreements that small arms not be exported to countries where there is a clear risk that they will be used to violate human rights, the move was blocked by several countries, including China, the Russian Federation and the USA and countries in Asia and the Middle East. AI's delegation to the UN Conference worked with the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), an alliance of over 300 NGOs. AI continued to campaign for human rights controls on arms and helped organize an international conference in November in Nairobi, Kenya, of over 100 NGO representatives.

AIUSA helped lobby the US Congress to suspend military aid for Colombia in the Fiscal Year 2002 Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill as a result of the Colombian government's failure to ensure that human rights conditions were met. Work by the section with a coalition of organizations resulted in a decrease in the amount of money that was approved for the armed forces in Colombia, and in the maintaining of human rights conditions on aid to Colombia in the final version of that Bill.

AI also campaigned for the strengthening of the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Transfers. To more fully protect human rights, AI advocated that the EU Code must be made legally binding, and its implementation subject to accountability and scrutiny in national parliaments and in the European Parliament. Citing cases of arms trafficking to West and Central Africa, as well as to Indonesia, Israel and Saudi Arabia, AI pressed for the EU Code to include control of the activities of brokers and carriers, as well as the distribution of licensed products and the establishment of strict mechanisms for their use.

Following the 11 September attacks in the USA, AI sections in the EU, USA and other arms-exporting countries pressed their home governments to impose a moratorium on the use of cluster bombs and to refrain from sending arms into Afghanistan which could be used to commit human rights abuses. AI also urged them to use their influence to stop the use of child soldiers and landmines, and to promote concrete measures to end impunity and ensure compliance with the Geneva Conventions. AI also approached the governments of the Russian Federation and Pakistan and called on other neighbouring governments to take steps to protect human rights.

To further promote the central relevance of international law in underpinning effective arms control, especially international human rights and humanitarian law, AI helped develop a draft "Framework Convention on International Arms Transfers", codifying existing law. A number of AI sections, including AICanada and AIUK, lobbied their home governments to support the Convention. In support of this work, a further edition of the campaign newsletter Terror Trade Times(AI Index: ACT 31/002/2001) was produced by the IS, providing AI sections with information on cases of gross human rights abuse with small arms and security equipment, and was used as a campaigning tool by sections.

An increasing number of AI sections strengthened their work on outreach to police on human rights issues. The IS began to develop a series of expert training workshops for staff and section representatives covering key issues related to the control of small arms and security equipment, and also the training and accountability of police and law enforcement officers. Variations of these workshops were held in the Czech Republic, Kenya, Malawi, Poland, South Africa and the UK and helped to strengthen the network of 60 MSP coordinators and groups.

Human rights education (HRE)

Human rights education is now a major component of the work of many AI sections and structures around the world. At the 2nd International HRE Forum, held in October in Belfast, Northern Ireland, 70 AI delegates and invited guests from 41 countries were able to share their experiences, ideas, HRE programs and materials.

The event was held in Northern Ireland in the context of the ongoing peace process. The Chief Commissioner for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission gave the opening address, and AI Ireland and AI Northern Ireland presented their "Cross Border Primary School Human Rights Education Peace Initiative". AI's Secretary General, Irene Khan, spoke strongly in support of HRE as an important tool in preventing human rights violations.

Following the attacks in the USA on 11 September, the AIUSA HRE team developed a Crisis Response Guide for teachers. The Guide included lessons and activities to assist in introducing a human rights perspective into people's reactions to the attacks and to reassert the validity of human rights. The Guide is used extensively in schools and also in the wider community.

Regional HRE strategies were developed with AI sections. These were consistent with AI's international policy on HRE and reflected the regional needs and human rights environment. A regional consultation took place in Morocco in April for AI members from the Middle East and North Africa. In March a regional consultation for Asia was held in Thailand.

In Asia, AI Mongolia worked with a local project to produce a range of education programs for the AI membership and also government officials. AI Philippines conducted HRE for new members. AI Malaysia used theatre effectively as part of its HRE program, and AI Nepal continued its work with a network of 25 educators who conducted programs in rural areas for women and youth and were re-evaluating their work with the police.

As part of AI Israel's program of work in schools, a container of toys donated by schoolchildren was sent to AI Sierra Leone. AI Palestine conducted programs with women and children on awareness of women's and children's rights. Together with the Lebanese Ministry of Education, AI organized a HRE workshop in Lebanon, where key workers in the formal education system discussed methods for delivering HRE as part of the curriculum. A workshop for newly authorized human rights groups including women's rights NGOs was held in Bahrain in November.

In March, AI Slovenia and the IS organized the annual conference for the HRE Central and Eastern Europe project in Bled, northern Slovenia. Attended by 30 HRE coordinators and other HRE activists from 15 countries, the agenda included program development, HRE materials and techniques for fundraising. AI Ireland and AI Netherlands gave a presentation on human rights education and the police. Arange of innovative HREprograms were also implemented by sections and structures in the Americas.

The Rights-Education-Action-Program (REAP), funded and administered by AI Norway and focusing on long-term projects in specific countries, played a major role in strengthening AI's approach to HRE. AI Mexico and AI Morocco were the first AI sections to receive funding from REAP.

Refugees

One of the effects of the attacks in the USA on 11 September was to further erode basic principles of refugee protection. Several commentators, including AI and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, warned about statements and practices equating refugees with criminals or "terrorists". AI called on governments to protect refugees and asylum-seekers, and to ensure that any security measures put in place after 11 September would not prevent those displaced by conflict or persecution from receiving protection.

AI called on the US authorities to provide information on the hundreds of foreigners taken into custody in the USA after 11 September. Many sections lobbied against new anti-terrorism measures which could have a negative effect on the rights of asylum-seekers and refugees. AIUK members took action on the newly-proposed measures in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act. AI members campaigned for states neighbouring Afghanistan to keep their borders open, and urged that Afghans elsewhere not be denied access to the asylum process.

Despite worldwide events to mark the 50th anniversary of the UN Refugee Convention, core principles of refugee protection were challenged in 2001. In August the Australian government refused to allow more than 400 shipwrecked asylum-seekers on the Norwegian freighter, the Tampa, to disembark on to Australian territory. AI and other NGOs urged the Australian government to allow the passengers to apply for asylum in Australia, but this was refused and they were eventually sent to the Pacific island republic of Nauru and to New Zealand to have their asylum claims examined. AI Australia voiced its opposition to this and to many other measures forming the so-called "Pacific Solution" which would prevent asylum-seekers from gaining access to Australia. AI Spain also undertook a thorough analysis of the Spanish asylum system and published a comprehensive report in September.

AI sections around the world continued to work against narrow interpretations of the UN Refugee Convention. AI Germany successfully campaigned to ensure that people fleeing persecution by non-state actors should be eligible for refugee status in cases where the government in the country of origin was unable or unwilling to provide protection. Work undertaken by AI Sweden led to indications that the government would review current Swedish legislation giving only subsidiary protection to people fleeing persecution on the basis of gender or sexual orientation. AI Japan and AI Norway also worked on individual cases of people fleeing persecution for reasons of their sexual orientation.

AI's work for fair and satisfactory asylum procedures continued to be one of the main areas of campaigning and lobbying. The EU was examining a number of proposals affecting refugee protection in all EU states, including on asylum procedures. AI's EU Association highlighted a number of issues such as the right of asylum-seekers to remain in the country while their appeals were being considered. In December the EU summit undertook a review of the implementation of the conclusions of the 1999 summit which was one of the foundations of the establishment of a common EU asylum system. AI New Zealand campaigned against a marked increase in detention of asylum-seekers. AI Netherlands campaigned against an accelerated procedure to examine asylum claims in the Netherlands which did not contain necessary safeguards. AI Uganda worked to ensure that proposed asylum legislation in Uganda was in line with international standards.

AI sections and structures continued to assist individuals around the world by providing asylum-seekers, legal counsel and decision-makers with human rights information about asylum-seekers' countries of origin. AI also opposed the forcible return of many asylum-seekers to countries where they might risk serious human rights abuses. In November an Uzbek opposition leader, Muhammad Salih, who had refugee status in Norway, was arrested in the Czech Republic and threatened with extradition to Uzbekistan, where he would have been at grave risk of torture. After the intervention of AI and other organizations he was allowed to return to Norway. AI members also took action on the forcible return from Bosnia-Herzegovina and Sweden of Egyptians suspected of membership of armed Islamist groups. AI believed the men to be at grave risk of torture in Egypt.

INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

Intergovernmental organizations play an important role in the protection and promotion of human rights worldwide. Throughout 2001, AI continued its efforts to further its human rights work by seeking to influence international and regional organizations, by both campaigning against human rights abuses and promoting international standards for the protection of human rights. It lobbied the institutions directly and individual member states through AI sections in those states.

Below are some of the highlights of AI's work with these organizations.

UN Headquarters, New York

Following the 11 September attacks in the USA, AI urged the Security Council to ensure that the UN Charter, international human rights and humanitarian law provide the framework for action it proposed to counteract "terrorism". Security Council Resolution 1373 called for wide-ranging measures to combat "terrorism" and established a "Counter-Terrorism Committee" to implement its provisions. The Committee can seek expert advice on how to implement the resolution but, in the absence of plans to include human rights experts, AI insisted that such expertise be provided. This is especially important since implementation of the resolution could adversely affect human rights protection, notably in areas of immigration, asylum and law enforcement. AI also urged that the Committee's guidance on implementation be amended to ensure that action taken conforms with international human rights standards.

The Security Council gave particular attention to the situation in Afghanistan following the attacks by the US-led coalition in the country. AI contributed to this debate by providing information on the human rights situation and briefed senior officials. AI made recommendations to promote a human rights agenda for Afghanistan in its report, Afghanistan: Making human rights the agenda (AI Index: ASA 11/023/2001). Specific proposals included ending impunity and ruling out an amnesty for grave abuses of human rights in any political settlement; protection of the rights of women, minorities, refugees and internally displaced persons; and the building of human rights institutions. AI pressed for the establishment of an expert committee to tackle impunity and advise on rebuilding the justice system.

AI participated in informal briefings arranged by the Security Council on the human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Liberia and on "Women, Peace and Security". On the DRC, AI highlighted the use of child soldiers in the armed conflict, the need to address the impunity enjoyed by perpetrators of human rights abuses and to rebuild the judicial system, and the deployment of human rights monitors. In the briefing on Liberia, AI focused on the protection of refugees and internally displaced persons, and advocated deploying UN human rights monitors throughout the country to report on the human rights situation. AI is part of the Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Working Group which contributes to the implementation of Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security. In briefing the Security Council, the Working Group stressed the need to involve women at all levels when negotiating peace and reconstruction, and its willingness to contribute to the UN Secretary-General's study on the implementation of Resolution 1325.

AI used the General Assembly as an opportunity to campaign for governments to ratify human rights treaties, including the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict. It also urged governments to support the draft optional protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

AI paid particular attention to resolutions dealing with Afghanistan, Iran, "terrorism" and refugees. The attacks of 11 September gave added focus to the General Assembly debate on "terrorism" and impetus to complete the draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism. AI expressed concerns about the very broad definition of "terrorism" in the draft convention, the failure to protect the right to seek asylum and the lack of fair trial guarantees in a statement, Draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism: A threat to human rights standards.

The General Assembly Special Session on Children was postponed to May 2002 following the attacks in the USA. AI had three main concerns which it wanted discussed at this session: ratification of human rights treaties; child soldiers and juvenile justice, in particular, the imposition of the death penalty on persons under 18 years of age at the time the crime was committed; and torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. As part of its campaign against the recruitment and use of children as soldiers, AI urged governments to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict.

UN Geneva

At the 2001 Commission on Human Rights, AI focused its campaigning on the human rights abuses in Colombia, Indonesia, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone and Togo. It spotlighted abolition of the death penalty, in particular for those under 18 years at the time the crime was committed; the draft convention on "disappearances"; and the draft optional protocol to the Convention against Torture. AI also called upon all states to extend open invitations to the UN thematic special rapporteurs and working groups, and during 2001 provided information and briefings to such mechanisms, including the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, the Special Rapporteur on torture and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders. In addition AI submitted information under the confidential "1503 procedure" about the human rights situation in Indonesia and Saudi Arabia.

At the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, AI drew attention to the torture and ill-treatment of people targeted because of their identity, such as race, gender or sexual orientation. In June AI published a report entitled Crimes of hate, conspiracy of silence: Torture and ill-treatment based on sexual identity (AI Index: ACT 40/016/2001). In a public statement AI called on the Sub-Commission to play a pioneering role in breaking the conspiracy of silence about abuses against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

tx6480 AI was an active participant in the preparations for the World Conference against Racism in Durban, South Africa, in August and September. It sought to draw attention at the Conference to racism in criminal justice systems, including in the use of the death penalty, and discrimination against refugees and asylum-seekers. AI also supported efforts to bring to light multiple forms of discrimination such as those relating to race and gender, sexual orientation and caste. As a contribution to the Conference, AI produced two reports, A handbook: Using the international human rights system to combat racial discrimination and Racism and the administration of justice.

2001 marked the 50th anniversary of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee Convention). AI highlighted its continued importance and advocated that those countries who had not yet acceded to these instruments did so (see 50th Anniversary of the Refugee Convention: Amnesty International appeals for further accession, AI Index: IOR 51/003/2001). During 2001, the Global Consultations on International Refugee Protection, a process initiated by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and aimed at revitalizing refugee protection, culminated in a Ministerial Meeting of States Parties to the Refugee Convention and/or its 1967 Protocol, held in Geneva in December. At the meeting, a declaration was adopted expressing the continued commitment of states to the full and effective implementation of the Convention and its Protocol. AI stressed the importance of developing a more effective system for monitoring the implementation in its statement to the meeting, Refugee protection is human rights protection (AI Index: IOR 51/011/2001).

AI continued to provide UN treaty-monitoring bodies with human rights information on states' reports. During 2001 AI gave information to the Human Rights Committee and the Committee against Torture on countries including Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bolivia, Brazil, Georgia, Indonesia, Israel, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Switzerland, Ukraine and the United Kingdom. Information was also provided to the Committee on the Rights of the Child about Saudi Arabia and the recruitment of child soldiers in Paraguay, and to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination before its consideration of China's periodic report. AI also made a written submission to the Human Rights Committee for its consideration when drafting a General Comment on Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This deals with derogations under the Covenant regarding the protection of rights under states of emergency.

As in previous years AI participated in the International Labour Conference and raised concerns about the situation in Colombia under International Labour Organisation Conventions No. 87 on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise and No. 98 on the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining, and the situation in Myanmar under Conventions No. 29 on Forced Labour and No. 87. AI also called on states to ratify Convention No. 182 on the Worst Forms of Child Labour, which includes an explicit reference to child soldiering (Article 3).

Regional intergovernmental organizations

AI continued its campaign for member states of the Organization of African Unity to ratify the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. At sessions of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, AI drew attention to violations of the right to freedom of expression in North Africa and attacks on human rights defenders throughout Africa. AI established first contacts with the newly appointed African Committee of Experts which will monitor state party compliance with the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child.

AI continued to press the European Union (EU) to develop a more comprehensive human rights policy that encompassed not only its relations with countries outside the EU but also addressed human rights problems within its own borders. AI's proposals for guidelines on torture for use in relations with other countries met with a swift response from the Council of Ministers, which in April adopted guidelines modelled on those operating successfully on the death penalty since 1998. AI consistently raised its concerns, including through a publicity campaign, about the impact of European integration in the field of asylum. It drew attention to the torture and ill-treatment of members of minority groups, including asylum-seekers, and called for systematic monitoring and accountability at national and EU level, particularly in view of the forthcoming enlargement of the Union by up to a dozen new member states. The 11 September attacks in the USA gave new significance to the need to ensure refugee protection. AI criticized the EU for pursuing a single-minded security agenda which risked compromising basic human rights standards. In discussions with the Belgian EU Presidency and in an open letter in November, AI Secretary General Irene Khan called for governments to make certain that the aim of security would not undermine the very rights the EU seeks to safeguard, and that the principles and values on which it was founded would not be compromised.

AI campaigned for Council of Europe (CoE) member states to ratify Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides a guarantee against discrimination. It also pushed for the CoE to adopt draft Protocol No. 13 to the Convention, which abolishes the death penalty in all circumstances. After the 11 September attacks, AI raised its concerns about anti-terrorism legislation and legislative proposals in CoE member states. With the aim of ensuring that the human rights of all people within CoE member states were respected and protected in the course of measures taken to enhance security, AI made recommendations to strengthen guidelines being prepared within the CoE in its submission, A human rights framework for the protection of security. AI also raised concerns about proposals to reform the European Court of Human Rights that might reduce an individual's right to redress before the court.

AI raised concerns about the continued resort to the death penalty at the Human Dimension Implementation Meeting, the annual human rights conference of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), in particular in relation to Belarus, Kazakstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and the USA. In a statement on the prevention of torture, AI urged that the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights compile an annual report on torture, identifying specific factors leading to torture, ill-treatment and impunity, and potential remedies. AI called for the OSCE to examine more fully the issue of violence against women, and to reaffirm the right to conscientious objection to military service (see OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting 2001: Statements issued by Amnesty International, AI Index: IOR 30/001/2001). In a consultation meeting on human rights defenders, AI expressed concern about their ill-treatment in a number of OSCE countries and called for the principles of the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders to be incorporated into national laws and implemented (see OSCE Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting: Human rights – advocacy and defenders, AI Index: IOR 30/002/2001).

In February AI chaired an NGO hearing on human rights defenders at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, where the creation of an Inter-American Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders was proposed. AI, in cooperation with other NGOs, urged governments participating in the third Summit of the Americas of the Organization of American States (OAS) in April to prioritize human rights over commercial or economic issues, to strengthen the inter-American human rights system, and to support and protect human rights defenders throughout the continent (see Americas: Putting human rights on the agenda - summary of Amnesty International's concerns on the Americas, AI Index: AMR 01/001/2001). Several resolutions adopted at the OAS General Assembly in June reflected AI's concerns and recommendations, including the request for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to study the situation of human rights defenders in the Americas; the call for the OAS Permanent Council to consider drafting an inter-American convention against racism and all forms of discrimination and intolerance; and the appeal to OAS member states that have not already done so to ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and its Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict.

In advance of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) Regional Forum in June, AI called on participating governments to ensure that their agenda included the deteriorating human rights situation in Aceh, Indonesia, its implications for regional peace and security and, in particular, threats against human rights defenders. AI attended the Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions in Sri Lanka and presented recommended standards for the establishment and functioning of such bodies in the document, National human rights institutions: Amnesty International's recommendations for effective protection and promotion of human rights. In a region without an intergovernmental human rights body, AI believes that this forum is an important vehicle for discussion and promotion of human rights within the region.

Developing international human rights law

Throughout 2001 AI campaigned for a strong and effective Optional Protocol to the (UN) Convention against Torture and participated in the negotiations. The aim of this Protocol is to establish an international body of experts in, for example, human rights, penal management and health, which would make visits to places of detention within the jurisdiction of states parties, to facilitate states' compliance with the provisions of the Convention against Torture. Negotiations to reach agreement on the text were difficult and the Working Group session in 2001 ended with three separate proposals on the table - all of which need substantial work if the Optional Protocol is to be a success. For further details, see AI's report, Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture: Time to take a stand on the prevention of torture.

Impunity: the International Criminal Court

As one of the more than 1,000 members of the NGO Coalition for an International Criminal Court, AI campaigned for states to ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court through its national sections and structures in more than 60 countries. During 2001, 21 states ratified the Rome Statute. By the end of 2001, a total of 48 states had ratified it. For the Statute to enter into force, 12 more ratifications are required, following which the Court will be established. AI commented on draft implementing legislation for Argentina, Croatia and the United Kingdom.

As part of its work on universal jurisdiction, AI produced Universal jurisdiction: The duty of states to enact and implement legislation on CD ROM. The document contains over 750 pages of information that will resource a forthcoming worldwide action for AI sections and structures to lobby their governments to enact legislation on universal jurisdiction.

Selected AI reports

Universal jurisdiction: The duty of states to enact and implement legislation (AI Index: IOR 53/002/2001 to IOR 53/018/2001) on CD ROM
Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture: Time to take a stand on the prevention of torture (AI Index: IOR 51/006/2001)
A human rights framework for the protection of security (AI Index: IOR 61/005/2001)
Claiming women's rights: The Optional Protocol to the UN Women's Convention (AI Index: IOR 51/001/2001)
United Nations General Assembly, 56th Session 2001, Draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism: A threat to human rights standards (AI Index: IOR 51/009/2001)
A handbook: Using the international human rights system to combat racial discrimination

(AI Index: IOR 80/001/2001)

Racism and the administration of justice (AI Index: ACT 40/020/2001)
National human rights institutions: Amnesty International's recommendations for effective protection and promotion of human rights (AI Index: IOR 40/007/2001)

EU Office

(available on website: www.amnesty-eu.org)

Putting human rights into practice - AI Memorandum to the Belgian Presidency of the EU

(EU Office, July 2001)

The asylum crisis: A human rights challenge for the EU (EU Office, September 2001)
Security, refugee protection and the human rights agenda after 11 September: AI's concerns regarding EU policies (EU Office, November 2001)
The Human Rights Agenda for the EU in 2002 - AI memorandum to the Spanish Presidency

(EU Office, November 2001)

Due to the complicated graphical nature of the tables found in the Amnesty International Annual Report, it has not been possible to present the tables in text only formats.

If you wish to view the tables please refer to the Acrobat PDF versions available on the Amnesty International website or purchase the paper copy of the Annual Report.

Page 39 of 39

Document - Amnesty International Report 2002

View the overview page for this document

Amnesty International Report 2009