Amnesty International Report 2003

The 2003 report is available online at:

http://www.amnesty.org/report2003

<meta http-equiv="refresh" content="0;URL=http://www.amnesty.org/report2003">

PREFACE

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

AI’s vision is of 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.

In pursuit of this vision, 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.

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 has a varied network of members and supporters around the world. At the latest count, there were more than 1.5 million members, supporters and subscribers in over 150 countries and territories in every region of the world. Although they come from many different backgrounds and have widely different political and religious beliefs, they are united by a determination to work for a world where everyone enjoys human rights.

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 2003

This report documents human rights issues of concern to AI during the year 2002. 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 2002. Neither the map nor the country information may be interpreted as AI’s view on questions such as the status of disputed territory. AI takes no position on issues other than human rights.

The later sections of the report contain 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.

AI reports

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 56/013/2003

http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/index/ABC560132003

Abbreviations

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.

_¦ European Committee for the Prevention of Torture refers to the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

AI’S APPEALS

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

The right to life and physical integrity

Political killings and ‘disappearances’

AI calls on governments to end extrajudicial executions and "disappearances". AI calls for prompt, thorough, independent and effective investigations into political killings and "disappearances". AI calls on governments to ensure that those responsible for such human rights violations are 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.

Torture and ill-treatment

AI calls on governments to take steps to eradicate 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:

_ policies making clear that torture and ill-treatment will never 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 all places of detention;

_ informing detainees of their rights;

_ human rights training for law enforcement personnel;

_ compensation, medical treatment and rehabilitation for the victims of torture.

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.

Criminal justice issues

Impunity

Impunity literally means exemption from punishment. When used by AI it refers to the failure of the state to redress human rights abuses by bringing suspected perpetrators to justice. Allowing perpetrators to commit abuses without consequences for themselves perpetuates their crimes.

Impunity denies the victims and their relatives the right to have the truth established and acknowledged, the right to see justice done and the right to an effective remedy.

AI calls on governments to ensure that reports of human rights abuses are promptly, thoroughly and impartially investigated and that those suspected of responsibility are brought to justice in a court of law in accordance with international standards.

AI opposes blanket amnesties for perpetrators of human rights abuses in post-conflict situations. Only by clarifying the truth about what has happened, establishing accountability for human rights abuses, and bringing to justice those allegedly responsible can confidence in the justice system be restored and human rights be guaranteed.

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.

Fair trials

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.

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.

Economics and human rights protection

Economic, social and cultural rights

As all human rights are indivisible and interdependent, effective work on civil and political rights cannot be conducted without equally addressing abuses of economic, social and cultural rights. AI is developing a program of work for the implementation of economic, social and cultural rights.

Economic, social and cultural rights are grounded in international law. National jurisprudence in many countries – and trends to include these rights in constitutional reforms – shows that these rights can be realized through legal remedies. Furthermore, numerous international standards permit individuals and groups to present complaints about violations of economic, social and cultural rights to intergovernmental organizations such as the International Labour Organisation, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and the regional African and Inter-American systems.

AI’s activities in this area have included projects relating to the right to health, food, education and employment.

Companies and economic institutions

Economic interests are increasingly influencing and dominating political agendas, and all too often economic development is pursued without paying attention to human rights. AI believes that economic actors (companies, international financial institutions, international and regional economic forums and relevant non­governmental organizations and intergovernmental organizations) have to be made accountable and that they should ensure that their activities do not impair human rights.

AI seeks to increase the number of economic actors agreeing and taking practical measures to protect and promote human rights.

Non-state actors

AI uses the term "non-state actors" to refer to those acting as private individuals or groups, not as representatives of a government or of an armed political group.

Under international human rights standards, governments have a responsibility to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of all people in their territory. If a government fails in this obligation, it shares responsibility with those who commit the abuse. AI may take action when governments breach their duty to safeguard those in their territory from human rights abuses by non­state actors.

AI takes action against abuses by non-state actors:

_ when the harm they cause is similar in severity and nature to violations that AI would oppose if perpetrated by a government (for example "honour killing", infanticide, female genital mutilation, slavery, debt bondage and forced prostitution); and

_ there is clear evidence that the government has not fulfilled its obligations, under international law, to eradicate the abuse. Indicators of complicity or negligence include failure to punish or prevent the abuses; the absence of legal prohibition or other measures to eradicate the abuses; and failure to provide remedies or compensation to victims.

Discrimination

AI works against grave abuses of the right to freedom from discrimination. Those who are imprisoned solely on grounds such as race, sex, sexual orientation, religion or ethnicity are considered by AI to be prisoners of conscience.

AI calls on all states to take measures to prevent discrimination, not only by their own officials but also by private individuals. States can do this by ratifying international standards against discrimination, such as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and by ensuring that national legislation outlaws discrimination. Both these international standards and national laws against discrimination must be fully implemented.

Asylum-seekers and refugees

AI calls on governments to ensure that asylum-seekers are not returned to countries 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.

Armed conflict

Human rights in wartime

In armed conflict situations, AI continues to oppose the death penalty, torture and ill-treatment, "disappearances", unlawful killings and the imprisonment of prisoners of conscience.

AI takes no position on armed conflict, military service (although it regards imprisoned conscientious objectors as prisoners of conscience) or conscription (except in the case of child soldiers).

AI opposes direct attacks on civilians and indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks and urges all parties involved to respect the standards which are set out in international humanitarian law.

Child soldiers

AI campaigns for an end to the recruitment of child soldiers and for the protection of children in armed conflicts.

Armed political groups

AI opposes torture, hostage-taking, unlawful killings, and other grave abuses by armed political groups. In opposing these abuses, the AI movement makes its protest known through direct appeals, its own publications and the news media. AI bases its position on fundamental standards set out in international humanitarian law.

Military, Security and Police (MSP) transfers

AI urges governments to adopt and implement laws and regulations to prohibit arms exports unless it can be reasonably demonstrated that such arms will not contribute to serious human rights violations, crimes against humanity or war crimes.

_ AI also calls for suitable mechanisms at the international level to provide effective control of the trade in small arms.

_ AI calls on all governments to introduce comprehensive measures to control arms brokering and trafficking to ensure that the MSP transfers they participate in do not assist in the violation of human rights abroad.

_ AI has called for the use of electro-shock equipment by police or prison officials to be suspended immediately unless and until it can be proved safe.

_ AI calls on governments to implement stringent national and international controls on the flow of riot control equipment – such as water-cannon, plastic and rubber bullets, and chemical agents such as pepper spray and tear gas – to ensure that it does not end up in the hands of those responsible for human rights violations.

_ AI continues to press for stringent controls and monitoring of MSP training and know-how.

Promotion of human rights

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

SECURITY for whom?

A HUMAN RIGHTS response

A message from Irene Khan, Amnesty International’s Secretary General

As I write this message, I remember Claudine, a six-year-old girl whom I met when I visited Burundi last September. She was one of the survivors of a massacre by the Burundian army, in which more than 170 people had been brutally killed 10 days before my arrival. She could not recall her family name, but she remembered in vivid, painful detail the way in which her grandfather, parents, sisters and baby brother were bayoneted to death. She described how she herself was wounded but managed to escape by crawling between the legs of the soldiers. When I raised her case with the President of Burundi, he told me that the army had been fighting a civil war for the past 10 years to make the country secure from "rebels". It was apparent that Claudine’s own security did not feature in that larger national security strategy.

As I write this message, the shadow of war darkens over Iraq. Military action is being contemplated in order to make the world more secure. Some 26 million Iraqi women, men and children who have risked terrible human rights abuses at the hands of their own government for several decades, who have suffered the impact of economic sanctions for more than a decade, face an uncertain fate. The only certainty is that if war comes, some of them will die. They could be killed by the fighting, or they might be killed by the Iraqi security forces if they dare to rise against the Iraqi government, or they could die if they flee and neighbouring countries refuse to grant them asylum, as happened in 1991.

Last year the international community waged a war in Afghanistan. That war too was fought in the name of security. An unknown number of civilians died in the bombing raids and hundreds of prisoners reportedly suffocated to death in sealed containers. Many Afghans continue to live precariously as large parts of the country remain insecure and under the control of commanders known to have perpetrated appalling human rights abuses.

Human rights advocates have long been wary of the way in which governments interpret and implement their security agenda at the national and international levels. All too often security measures harm the innocent as well as the guilty. All too often political leaders exploit public fears and prejudices to avoid accountability and promote their own interests.

Our fears were once again confirmed over the past year as the drive for security gained greater momentum around the world. A combination of forces sought to roll back the human rights gains of the past five decades in the name of security and "counter-terrorism". But the restrictions on liberty have not necessarily led to increased dividends on safety. Greater emphasis on security, far from making the world a safer place, has made it more dangerous by curtailing human rights and undermining the rule of international law; by shielding governments from scrutiny; by deepening divisions among people of different faiths and origins; and by diverting attention from festering conflicts and other sources of insecurity.

The establishment of the International Criminal Court, the coming into force of the agreement aimed at ending the use of child soldiers and the adoption of the protocol to allow international inspection of places of detention were important gains for human rights in the past year. On the other hand, the blatant disregard and virtual contempt which many governments displayed for international human rights and humanitarian obligations were a major setback.

At a time of heightened insecurity, governments chose to ignore and undermine the collective system of security which international law represents. Draconian measures – by democratic as well as autocratic governments – to intrude and intercept, to arrest and detain suspects without trial and to deport people with no regard to their fate, weakened human rights protection of individuals as well as respect for the standards of international law. The USA continued to detain prisoners from the war in Afghanistan in defiance of international humanitarian law, turned a blind eye to reports of torture or ill-treatment of suspects by its officials and allies, and sought to undermine the International Criminal Court through bilateral agreements. In the process, it undermined its own moral authority to speak out against human rights violations in other parts of the world.

Action that makes people feel insecure cannot make states or societies secure. Because of the real or alleged actions of a few individuals, entire communities – identified by race, religion or national origin – are being viewed with suspicion. The result is growing unease and uncertainty among large sections of the population. Racial profiling and detention of immigrants in the USA, and labelling of refugees and asylum-seekers as "terrorists" in Europe have compounded the stigmatization. In a climate of increasing xenophobia and racism, asylum-seekers are being sent back to face imprisonment, torture or death and violent attacks on members of minority communities are on the increase. Whipping up public fears in the interests of short-term political or electoral gains is a dangerous business. In the course of the past year, ethnic and religious tensions in countries like India, Nigeria and Côte d'Ivoire demonstrated the dangers of accentuating the divide between citizen and immigrant, people of different faiths, rich and poor, north and south.

Exploiting the international climate favouring "counter-terrorism", many governments reinforced and renewed their crack-down on political opponents and others whose loyalty they doubt, such as trade unionists, journalists, religious and racial minorities, and human rights defenders. Our country reports illustrate numerous examples where, citing national security, government forces acted with impunity to kill, rape, torture and abduct. The tragedy of Claudine was repeated many times in many places during 2002.

Amnesty International does not challenge the right of governments to act against criminal and political violence by armed groups and individuals. On the contrary, we call on governments to protect people in accordance with the law. We consistently and strongly condemn attacks against civilians as a grave abuse of their human rights. We remind armed groups and those who support them of their obligations not to target civilians whatever the circumstances. However, human rights abuse by armed groups is not a licence for governments to ignore their own obligations.

Governments are not entitled to respond to terror with terror. They are obliged at all times to act within the framework of international human rights and humanitarian law. The people who organize and perpetrate bombings of buses in Tel Aviv or a discotheque in Bali, who ambush and kill civilians in Burundi, or who take hostages in a theatre in Moscow must be brought to justice in accordance with standards of fair trial. So too must the Israeli soldiers who carry out unlawful killings in the Occupied Territories, the Indonesian police who torture in Aceh and Papua, the Russian security forces who rape villagers in Chechnya. By denying justice and perpetuating impunity, many governments have both undermined their international human rights obligations and contributed to the cycle of insecurity, violence and violations.

The focus on national security has diverted attention from some very real threats that affect the lives of millions of people. The real sources of insecurity for many people lie in the failure to halt the unimpeded flow of small arms, to eradicate extreme poverty and preventable diseases, to arrest and treat the spread of HIV/AIDS, and deal with the social dimensions of globalization. Real security will remain illusory, especially for the poor, so long as police, courts and state institutions in many countries remain inept or corrupt. Many women will continue to feel insecure as long as they are unprotected from violence in their homes and communities. Amnesty International's campaign on Russia has highlighted the failure of the parliament to adopt legislation to criminalize domestic violence, despite 50 drafts, in a country where some 14,000 women die at the hands of their partners or family members each year.

Addressing these diverse sources of insecurity requires commitment and investment by governments and the international community in all human rights – economic, social, cultural, civil and political. It requires establishing or strengthening institutions that can protect human rights. New resources are being directed to security police and "counter-terrorism" agencies. Where is the new money, however, to strengthen the UN's human rights machinery which has been grossly under-funded for years? Where are the new resources to help countries build fair and effective justice and policing systems? Where are the funds to meet the social needs of poor and marginalized communities? Where is the political will and public awareness to combat violence against women?

Global insecurity, far from diminishing the value of human rights, has actually heightened the need

to respect them. A more secure world demands a paradigm shift in the concept of security, a shift that recognizes that insecurity and violence are best tackled by effective, accountable states which uphold, not violate, human rights. Unless that shift happens, security will be a skewed concept, bringing in its wake greater insecurity.

Throughout the past year, Amnesty International has relentlessly challenged the narrow focus of the security agenda. Our members have lobbied governments, armed groups, corporations and others to promote and protect human rights around the world. Achieving real change in the lives of people is the measure of our success. This report documents achievements as well as disappointments. It records the efforts of our members to campaign for change, to demand justice, to expose the travesty of political rhetoric, to hold governments to account – and above all, to tell the story behind the statistic, to give voice to the voiceless.

Human rights are not a luxury for good times. They must be upheld at all times, including in times of danger and insecurity. They restrain governments from actions that harm and provide the standards for accountability. They empower people and give them the freedom to choose, to challenge and to shape their own destiny. They provide a framework for constructive dialogue between governments and peoples. If the quest for a safer world is to succeed, human rights must lie at its heart.

2002 IN FOCUS

Introduction

Throughout 2002 the international political agenda and media headlines were driven by the "war on terrorism" and the threat of war on Iraq. In the wake of the 11 September 2001 attacks in the USA, and in the name of combating "terrorism", governments stepped up the repression of their political opponents, detained people arbitrarily, and introduced sweeping and often discriminatory laws that undermined the very foundations of international human rights and humanitarian law.

Meanwhile, in the pursuit of security, politics and profit, fundamental human rights were trampled on the world over – and the resulting suffering of millions of people was largely ignored.

In Africa, countless lives and livelihoods were destroyed in conflicts often encouraged and armed by outside powers, during which abuses were committed with impunity. In both Colombia and Israel and the Occupied Territories, AI responded to rapidly deteriorating human rights situations by mobilizing its membership and resources to campaign against escalating human rights abuses. The organization also launched a major worldwide campaign on human rights in the Russian Federation, which highlighted among other things the serious abuses taking place in the long-running conflict in Chechnya.

Many of the human rights abuses recorded by AI during 2002 were committed in the context of conflicts between states and armed political groups. Government forces carried out extrajudicial killings, "disappearances", torture and other serious violations, while armed groups killed civilians and committed other serious abuses, including abductions and torture, in pursuit of their political aims.

While governments, particularly those in the industrialized world, stigmatized asylum-seekers and passed ever more restrictive laws to restrict asylum, millions of people who had fled terror found themselves confined in refugee camps and detention centres, turned away at borders, or targeted in racist attacks.

While governments and the media debated the real or supposed danger of weapons of mass destruction, millions of people faced death and injury in conflicts fuelled by the sale and transfer of arms to known human rights abusers.

While the world’s attention turned away from Afghanistan to Iraq, millions of Afghans – both refugees and those who had remained in the country – faced an uncertain and insecure future.

While governments prepared to spend billions of dollars on war, millions of people suffered the ravages of poverty, and were denied treatment for HIV/AIDS and other diseases.

AI worked ceaselessly throughout 2002 to try to ensure that respect for international law and human rights was not eroded by the "war against terrorism". It continued exposing and campaigning against the wide range of abuses that were being committed by government forces and armed political groups in all regions of the world.

The organization broke into new areas of research and action in relation to economic, social and cultural rights, following the expansion of its mandate the previous year. It kept the spotlight on Afghanistan in the crucial post-conflict period, and established a field office in Kabul to work with local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) on reforming the criminal justice system, addressing ethnic violence, and improving the status of women. It carried on its worldwide work against the death penalty, on the rights of refugees, and on military, security and police transfers.

AI also saw the rewards of past lobbying. The establishment of the International Criminal Court in July was a major step forward by the international community in the campaign against impunity. Although the Court faced attack by the USA, its creation brings hope that those who commit the worst crimes known to humanity will be brought to justice.

The international community also made a new commitment to the continuing battle to eradicate torture. The UN adopted an Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture that will allow regular visits to places of detention by international experts. In addition, the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict entered into force.

‘Counter-terrorism’ and human rights

Exploiting the atmosphere of fear that followed 11 September, many governments ignored, undermined or openly violated fundamental principles of international human rights and humanitarian law.

There was widespread abuse of the rights of people detained as suspected al-Qa’idamembers or alleged "terrorists". More than 600 people, captured during the war in Afghanistan, continued to be held at the US base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, without charge or legal assistance. If they were prisoners of war, they should have been released at the end of the war in Afghanistan. If they were not prisoners of war, they should have been charged with a recognizable criminal offence or released. The US government, however, treated alleged al-Qa’idamembers and associates as "enemy combatants" – a concept applied to detainees regardless of the circumstances in which they were captured or taken into custody (including those who were not taken prisoner during armed conflict). Arguing that it was "at war" with al-Qa'ida, the USA asserted that it was entitled to detain "enemy combatants" until the "war" ended – which means they could be detained indefinitely and without the rights afforded to prisoners of war or criminal suspects.

US forces also held hundreds of detainees in Afghanistan. Some were reportedly transferred to United Front forces in Afghanistan despite their record of abusing detainees; others were sent to countries where torture and ill-treatment are rife. In Pakistan, the authorities handed over more than 400 people to US custody without adequate human rights safeguards, in breach of domestic legislation regarding extradition and the international principle of non-refoulement.

In Yemen, US officials collaborated with the local authorities to locate, attack with missiles and kill six men, one of whom was suspected of being a leading al-Qa’idamember. Available information indicated that on that occasion no attempt was made to arrest, charge or prosecute the al-Qa’idasuspect.

The UN Security Council did little to counter the atmosphere in which human rights were sacrificed in the name of "counter-terrorism". The Security Council, which had adopted Resolution 1373 in 2001 compelling all governments to take measures against "terrorism", and its Counter-Terrorism Committee consistently refused to allow UN human rights mechanisms to advise or inform these initiatives. In November the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution calling on the High Commissioner for Human Rights to analyse the effects of "counter-terrorism" measures: a similar initiative by Mexico had earlier failed at the UN Human Rights Commission for lack of support.

Governments around the world appeared to take on board the message that human rights standards could be jettisoned in times of emergency. Some sought to use the "war against terrorism" to legitimize their repression of political dissent and their failure to address internal conflicts and grievances. In the Philippines, the government branded lawful groups critical of the government, including some human rights organizations, as "fronts" for an armed opposition group, increasing human rights defenders’ vulnerability to abuse. In Liberia, journalist and human rights activist Hassan Bility was accused of belonging to an armed opposition group, severely tortured and held incommunicado and without charge or trial for six months. His was not an isolated case.

The introduction of "anti-terrorism" measures that erode fundamental freedoms, seen in many countries in the months following the 11 September attacks, continued in 2002. In India, for example, parliament enacted the Prevention of Terrorism Act in March, which provides for confessions obtained in police custody to be admissible in courts for "terrorist" offences. Confessions in police custody in India are often extracted through torture, and Indian law prohibits such confessions from being submitted as evidence for other offences.

Many governments justified "counter-terrorism" measures on the grounds of protecting civilians from violent attack. AI strongly condemned such attacks, including the hostage-taking by Chechen rebels in a Moscow theatre; suicide bombings by Palestinians in Israel; killings by Maoist groups in Nepal; and kidnappings by armed political groups in Colombia – and called for the perpetrators to be brought to justice in fair procedures. However, in the post-11 September world, many governments spoke not of law enforcement and justice, but of self-defence and war – a war that appeared to be increasingly waged outside the norms of human rights and international humanitarian law.

-23

Conflict and impunity in Africa

Away from the glare of publicity on the "war against terrorism", conflict, insecurity and violence continued to affect millions of people in Africa. Underlying the violence were struggles primarily for political and economic control of natural resources – and the principal victims were civilians.

While some progress was made towards resolving the conflict in Madagascar, peace talks on Somalia and Sudan failed to end widespread human rights abuses. In Angola, a decades-long armed conflict ended with the disintegration of the main armed opposition group, but grave human rights abuses continued. There were new or escalating conflicts in the Central African Republic (CAR), Republic of the Congo and Liberia.

In Côte d’Ivoire, an armed opposition emerged in mid-September and by the end of the year controlled more than half of the country. France reinforced its military presence, initially to protect foreign nationals and later to monitor a cease-fire agreement. However, government troops and opposition movements in the north and west continued to fight, perpetrating grave human rights abuses against civilians and combatants with little fear of being held to account for their crimes. At several sites, evidence of extrajudicial executions and summary killings was discovered but remained uninvestigated. In an atmosphere of violent xenophobia, many foreign nationals, mainly from Burkina Faso, Liberia and Mali, had their homes destroyed or were killed in raids by government forces on poor neighbourhoods. People originally from the north of Côte d’Ivoire suffered violence and harassment. Hundreds of thousands of people in the fighting zones and the south fled towards the west and north.

In the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), despite peace negotiations and the announcement of the withdrawal of foreign troops, the human rights situation remained bleak, with continued fighting and attacks on civilians, particularly in the east. During the six years of conflict involving at least six governments and many more armed political groups, as many as three million people have died, according to one estimate. The DRC government protested against abuses by foreign forces while simultaneously persecuting its peaceful opponents. Claims by the Rwandese government that it had intervened in the DRC in part to protect the Tutsi population proved hollow when Congolese Tutsi turned their guns on Rwandese forces early in the year. Ugandan forces were responsible for killing unarmed civilians in Ugandan-controlled eastern DRC. Zimbabwe insisted that its intervention was to protect the DRC from external aggression while its forces at home were busy attacking their fellow citizens. A UN Panel concluded that many of the parties to the armed conflict had no intention of ending a war from which they amassed personal wealth with total disregard for the devastating consequences for the population.

In the Great Lakes region too, those perpetuating human rights abuses continued to enjoy impunity. In Burundi, all parties to the conflict continued to commit war crimes and widespread human rights abuses on the civilian population with virtually no prospect of being held to account for their actions. Hundreds of unarmed civilians were killed during 2002 by government forces in reprisal for the activities of armed political groups. In only one instance – the killing of between 174 and 267 unarmed civilians in September – did the government acknowledge responsibility. None of the armed groups acknowledged human rights abuses by their forces.

Despite general elections and a constitutional referendum during 2002 in the Republic of the Congo, instability and human rights abuses continued in the context of renewed armed conflict. Dozens of people were killed, hundreds of women were raped and thousands were displaced with impunity by perpetrators from the CAR and from neighbouring countries. Further north in Chad, peace continued to be illusory, despite seemingly endless negotiations between the government and its armed opponents.

However, 2002 saw some progress in addressing impunity for gross human rights abuses committed during the conflict in Sierra Leone. The Special Court for Sierra Leone was established – the UN Security Council had decided in 2000 to set it up to try those most responsible for crimes against humanity, war crimes and other serious violations of international humanitarian law. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which was provided for by the 1999 Lomé peace agreement, was also established.

While lack of popular participation and accountability remained major factors inhibiting conflict resolution and development, and the struggle to control economic resources provided the context for most conflicts in Africa, the common thread through all these crises continued to be impunity. As long as political and military leaders benefit from the chaos they cause, the human rights of ordinary Africans will remain unprotected. Sustainable peace cannot be achieved through deals to protect those who have been responsible for systematic human rights abuses and the plunder of natural resources. Greater popular participation in the peace processes, and effective measures to end impunity, including the use of regional and international judicial mechanisms, need to be given greater priority.

Spiralling political violence in Colombia

Another human rights tragedy that has gained little international attention – the ongoing conflict in Colombia – became even more serious in February, when peace talks broke down between the government and the main armed opposition group, the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia(FARC), Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia.

Since 1985, over 60,000 people have been killed, 80 per cent of them civilians, and hundreds of thousands more have been displaced, tortured, kidnapped or have "disappeared". All the parties to the conflict must accept responsibility for perpetuating the cycle of violence. Successive governments have failed to challenge the institutional links between the armed forces and the paramilitaries, or to end impunity for human rights violations. The paramilitaries, backed by the army, persist in torturing, killing and "disappearing" perceived opposition sympathizers with virtually no fear of being held to account for their actions. Armed political groups continue to engage in hostage-taking and kidnapping, deliberate and arbitrary killings, and indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks against military targets, which often result in civilian casualties.

Following the election in May of President Álvaro Uribe Vélez, in August the government declared a state of emergency. States of emergency have been repeatedly used by Colombian administrations over the past 50 years. Such measures have resulted in constitutional guarantees being side-stepped, governments ruling by executive decree, and the armed forces being granted broad powers to deal with public order issues. This has inevitably led to widespread and flagrant human rights violations. Unlike previous states of emergency, however, the decrees issued by President Uribe under the state of emergency also targeted foreign nationals and restricted the activities of international human rights and humanitarian organizations in conflict areas. A number of foreign nationals working for NGOs were expelled in 2002. This helped reinforce the secrecy shrouding human rights violations. The Uribe administration also repeatedly called into question the work of many human rights organizations, especially that carried out by Colombian human rights defenders, who they often stigmatized as "guerrilla collaborators".

The government also implemented measures that dragged the civilian population further into the conflict. A new "network of a million civilian informers" required people to collaborate with the security forces in counter-intelligence activities. This put civilians at great risk of revenge attacks by opposition forces. The network – which began operating in many parts of the country – could also serve to strengthen paramilitarism and blur the distinction between legal and illegal vigilante groups.

The government will not resolve the human rights and humanitarian crisis through hardline security measures that pay scant regard to the human rights of ordinary Colombians. It still has at its disposal – as did previous administrations – a series of recommendations elaborated by the UN and other international organizations that, if put into practice, could help to resolve the crisis. Unless the government accepts this challenge, and the armed opposition groups agree to respect international humanitarian law, the human rights crisis will continue to escalate and the civilian population will continue to pay a heavy price.

The international community has a pivotal role to play by encouraging the government to respect and implement the human rights recommendations repeatedly made by the UN and other international bodies. However, some foreign governments, especially the US government, have been increasing military and security aid to Colombia’s armed forces, despite their continuing responsibility for serious human rights violations in collaboration with their paramilitary allies.

AI used every possible opportunity to keep Colombia in the public eye and to challenge the government of President Uribe on its failure to protect human rights, by putting pressure on government authorities, supporting human rights defenders and lobbying internationally. Six delegations visited the country, including a high-level mission led by AI’s Secretary General, and several major documents were issued, including reports on the situation in the contested area of San Vicente del Caguán, on human rights and US military aid to Colombia, and on the impact of President Uribe’s security policies.

Russia: ‘Justice for everybody’

On 30 October AI’s Secretary General, Irene Khan, joined many other human rights activists outside the headquarters of the State Security Service in Moscow to commemorate the Day of the Political Prisoner. As she lit a candle at the gathering, people in countries all over the world also lit candles and signed petitions to Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation, calling for greater respect for human rights.

The event, along with other initiatives around the world, signalled the launch of AI’s year-long major worldwide campaign on human rights in the Russian Federation, Justice for everybody.

The campaign turned out to be timely. In the context of the conflict in Chechnya, AI had for years been documenting rape and other torture, ill-treatment, extrajudicial killings, "disappearances" and looting by the Russian army, as well as serious abuses by Chechen rebels. But against the background of 11 September, and particularly in the aftermath of the hostage-taking by Chechen rebels in a Moscow theatre, international criticism of this appalling record of abuse became increasingly muted as the Russian authorities justified their actions against Chechen rebels as part of the "war against terrorism". A resolution on Chechnya at the 2002 session of the UN Commission on Human Rights was defeated. Monitoring of the situation in Chechnya became more difficult after the Russian authorities refused to extend beyond December the mission based there of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).

AI lobbied the international community, including the European Union (EU), to press the Russian authorities to grant unrestricted access to Chechnya for independent journalists and human rights monitors, including those from international organizations.

AI’s campaign on the Russian Federation also sought to highlight the widespread violations of people’s rights outside the conflict zone of Chechnya. Torture and ill-treatment remain virtually routine in police stations, and conditions in the country’s disease-ridden and overcrowded pre-trial detention centres are generally so appalling that they amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Methods of torture commonly reported include beatings, electric shocks, rape, the use of gas masks to induce near-suffocation, and tying detainees in painful positions.

The victims come from all walks of life, but members of ethnic minorities and the poor are most at risk. Even children are not spared. Members of ethnic or national minority groups are targeted disproportionately by police for checks of their identity documents, often leading to arbitrary detention or ill-treatment. Asylum-seekers and refugees suffer the additional difficulty that their documentation is not recognized by the police. In some regions, whole communities are denied a range of economic, civil and political rights.

One reason why abuses are so persistent is that those responsible usually get away with their crimes. Throughout the Russian Federation victims of human rights violations are denied their right to justice by authorities who ignore or condone the abuses. The authorities fail to investigate thoroughly allegations of human rights violations and bring the perpetrators to justice. They fail to take action to combat racially motivated violence and discriminatory policing. They fail to take measures to protect women from sexual abuse and violence in the home or at the hands of state agents. And they fail to ensure that children are only imprisoned as a measure of last resort.

These concerns were summarized in several AI reports, and AI established a resource centre in Moscow in late 2002. Further initiatives were planned for 2003.

AI members around the world will continue to put pressure on the Russian government to live up to its obligations to protect and promote human rights so that there is justice for everybody in the Russian Federation.

Israel and the Occupied Territories

There was a deepening of the human rights crisis that had been unfolding since 2000 in the context of the Palestinian uprising (known as the al-Aqsaintifada) against Israeli occupation. Day after day people were killed or injured, had their homes and livelihoods destroyed, and had their movement severely restricted. Human rights defenders, including AI members in Israel and in areas under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority (PA), faced enormous dangers as the spiral of violence intensified, with atrocities committed against Palestinians by the Israeli army on one side, and suicide bombings by Palestinian groups targeting Israeli civilians on the other. The number of victims, both Palestinians and Israelis, more than doubled in 2002 compared to the previous year. Among them were more than 100 Palestinian children, most killed unlawfully by the Israeli army, and 45 Israeli children killed in attacks by armed Palestinians. Thousands of other Palestinians and Israelis were injured, many maimed for life.

Assassinations of Palestinians by the Israeli army contributed to increasing violence in Palestinian society, as scores of Palestinians suspected of having helped Israeli intelligence services carry out such assassinations were unlawfully killed by other Palestinians. Thousands of Palestinians were arrested by Israeli forces, among them many children. Most of those arrested were soon released, but hundreds were administratively detained without charge or trial – held on the basis of "secret evidence" that neither they nor their lawyers were allowed to see or to challenge in court. Many of those detained said they were ill-treated.

After the Israeli army retook control of most PA areas, it imposed comprehensive and prolonged closures and curfews on an unprecedented scale throughout the Occupied Territories. Most Palestinian towns and villages were cut off from one another and from surrounding areas most of the time. These sweeping measures of collective punishment affected millions of Palestinians, whose access to work, school and medical care was denied or severely restricted. AI delegates were denied access to towns in the West Bank and Gaza by Israeli soldiers on several occasions, as were international aid workers, medical personnel and journalists. Two UN fact-finding delegations were unable to visit Israel and the Occupied Territories because of the refusal of the Israeli authorities to grant them access.

Closures, curfews and destruction of Palestinian property resulted in massive job losses and the collapse of the Palestinian economy. Unemployment rose to above 50 per cent, and about half the Palestinian population was living below the poverty line, depending almost entirely on outside aid for survival.

Throughout 2002 AI sent an almost continuous stream of delegations to Israel and the Occupied Territories, many working at great risk to themselves, to uncover and tell the world what was happening. The organization repeatedly condemned the unlawful killings, the wanton destruction of civilian property, the deliberate obstruction of humanitarian aid, the killing of medical aid workers, the targeting of civilians by suicide bombers. It also sent an unambiguous message to both sides to the conflict – nothing justifies the targeting of civilians for death and destruction.

The human rights crisis in Israel and the Occupied Territories is among the issues most discussed – and least acted upon – by the international community. Concerns about the worsening situation are regularly expressed by world leaders, the UN, the EU, the Arab League and others. "Peace and security" are recurring keywords of the various political initiatives put forward by the main players in the international community, while human rights are rarely if ever mentioned. To date no concrete measures have been taken at the international level to ensure that the parties to the conflict live up to their obligations and stated commitments to human rights. In this respect the international community has failed the Palestinian and Israeli victims.

AI and numerous other Palestinian, Israeli and international NGOs have repeatedly called for international human rights monitors to be sent to Israel and the Occupied Territories. Even though the call for monitors has been widely supported at the international level, including by the UN and EU, the international community has failed to act in the face of Israel’s rejection of the proposal. AI does not claim that human rights observers can solve all the problems in this complex situation. However, it does believe that had monitors been sent to the area from the beginning of the current crisis, their presence could have contributed to saving Palestinian and Israeli lives. It is still not too late to make amends for past failures.

Pressure mounts on Iraq

The threat of US-led military intervention against Iraq grew during 2002. The US President labelled Iraq as part of an "axis of evil" in January and later called for a "regime change" in Iraq. The US government accused Iraq of possessing weapons of mass destruction, in breach of UN Security Council resolutions, which would constitute a "threat to US security". In November the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1441, which demanded that Iraq abolish its weapons of mass destruction. The Resolution gave UN weapons inspectors sweeping powers, including "immediate and unimpeded access" to any Iraqi site. It threatened Iraq with "serious consequences" if it did not take advantage of "a final opportunity" to cooperate and disarm.

The many debates on the pros and cons of war revealed a glaring absence of concern about the lives, safety and security of the Iraqi people. Also sorely missing from the discussions was any consideration of the fate of Iraqi people in the aftermath of conflict or the potential knock-on effect on the human rights of people living in neighbouring countries.

AI has for decades documented and vigorously campaigned against widespread human rights violations in Iraq. During 2002 , AI stepped up its efforts to ensure that the UN Security Council considered not only the security and political consequences of its action, but also the inevitable human rights and humanitarian consequences of war.

AI members around the globe petitioned their own governments and members of the Security Council to ensure the protection of the rights of Iraqi people. They also spelled out the likely human rights and humanitarian toll of a war on Iraq – civilians being killed by bombing or internal fighting; massive outflow of refugees; and needless deaths of children, the elderly and other vulnerable groups from hunger and disease following 12 years of UN economic sanctions. AI’s Secretary General urged the Security Council to consider the use of force only as a last resort.

AI delegates visited countries near Iraq, including Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, to assess the possible impact of a mass influx of Iraqi refugees if there was a military conflict. AI also warned governments of the dangers of using certain weapons and military tactics that are inherently indiscriminate.

At the end of the year, AI’s members worldwide remained on a high state of alert, ready to respond to the human rights and humanitarian crises that would inevitably accompany an outbreak of war.

Afghanistan: a year of transition

As international attention turned towards Iraq, it began to fade away from Afghanistan – the site of the US-led military intervention in the "war against terrorism".

Following the UN-brokered Bonn Agreement of December 2001, which was designed to bring peace to the country after the fall of the Talebangovernment, an Interim Administration was formed to run the country until the convening of an emergency Loya Jirga(a traditional decision-making assembly) in June.

While the human rights situation improved in important respects, serious human rights violations, especially against women, continued. Such abuses were facilitated and exacerbated by weak institutions and poor security. The weeks before the Loya Jirga, for example, saw a rise in abuses, including intimidation of potential female delegates.

The Loya Jirgaagreed on the composition of a Transitional Administration to run the country for the next 18 months. However, factional fighting continued in some areas of the country. So too did US-led bombing against suspected Talebanand al-Qa’idaforces, which resulted in a mounting toll of civilian deaths. Over 1.7 million refugees returned home during 2002 to face an uncertain and insecure future. Impunity remained a key human rights problem; the sole case of past abuses that was prosecuted only served to highlight the inability of the current institutions to deliver justice.

AI’s approach to Afghanistan in this critical post-conflict period is based on the conviction that human rights guarantees must be at the centre of the rehabilitation and reconstruction process. To pursue this goal, in June AI established a year-long field presence in Kabul. Its aim is to engage with the government and with local and international NGOs based in Afghanistan, research key areas of the criminal justice system, and draw up recommendations for the Transitional Administration, donor governments and the UN.

AI’s presence was welcomed, particularly at a time when many in Afghanistan felt that the international community was turning away from the country as other crises took precedence around the world. AI was able to gain access to detention facilities and police stations in many locations, offer solidarity and support to the local human rights community and give special attention to the problems facing women.

At the end of 2002 there were still many challenges ahead for Afghanistan, particularly in establishing security, addressing impunity, building institutions, and promoting protection of minorities as the country continued the difficult process of transition after decades of war and endemic violations of human rights.

Refugees

In many countries, governments and the popular media portrayed refugees and asylum-seekers as trouble-makers, even as "potential terrorists" rather than as people fleeing terror, and in most parts of the world they faced major obstacles to protection. Policies and practices were encouraged which effectively deny access to territory and asylum procedures, diminish the quality of protection, and undermine fundamental rights of refugees, including the right to seek and enjoy asylum, not to be arbitrarily detained, and to be protected from forcible return to persecution. These rights are not expendable – they are the bare minimum considered necessary to protect the safety, dignity and integrity of refugees.

The view that the UN Refugee Convention was no longer appropriate for contemporary refugee movements was widely peddled. This was despite renewed commitments made in December 2001 by states parties to the Refugee Convention and its Protocol in a Declaration which recognized the "enduring importance" of the Convention. The fact that some states may find it less convenient or politically expedient to live up to their obligations does not diminish the Convention’s importance as an instrument of human rights protection.

In most developed countries, governments focused on immigration controls to reduce the number of asylum-seekers, including through bilateral agreements or unilateral action, with scant regard for human rights or international obligations. Such responses conflicted sharply with the protection needs of the refugees themselves and the responsibilities shouldered by many countries in the developing world that host large numbers of refugees. This imbalance highlights the urgent need to develop a credible framework for international solidarity and responsibility sharing that is based on human rights and oriented to protection. All states should take steps, individually and through international assistance and cooperation, to respect and protect the rights of refugees and find durable solutions.

Governments placed increased pressure on refugees to return "voluntarily", sometimes to uncertain and evolving situations, before they could be guaranteed a return in safety and dignity. For example, a highly politicized sense of urgency was whipped up in several industrialized states to justify plans to return Afghan refugees to Afghanistan. This was at a time when the country was in desperate

need of resources to make sustainable return and reconstruction possible, and when serious protection problems persisted for Afghan refugees in neighbouring Pakistan and Iran. Disregarding these problems, several European states (notably Denmark, France and the United Kingdom) as well as Australia pressed to secure the return of a relatively small number of Afghan refugees. Ambiguous statements by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) did little to help secure attention where it was most needed – the continuing protection concerns of those in and around Afghanistan.

Repatriation that is truly voluntary is one of the hallmarks of sustainable post-conflict societies. However, premature pressure for return undermines the voluntary character of "voluntary repatriation" and weakens the protection offered by the UN Refugee Convention.

A particularly disturbing development was the increasing number of reports of sexual abuse and exploitation of refugee women and girls by humanitarian aid workers and others. Reports on West Africa and Nepal in 2002 showed that sexual exploitation and abuse were symptoms of the protracted uncertainty facing millions of refugees. In some cases the perpetrators were the very people responsible for the welfare of refugees. While resolving protracted refugee situations is key, it is also clear that there is an urgent need for an independent monitoring and complaints mechanism to be established in all refugee situations – not only in camps, but also in urban areas where allegations of sexual and other exploitation are widespread.

International Criminal Court

On a brighter note, the entry into force of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) on 1 July was a major step forward in the long-standing fight to ensure that perpetrators of the worst crimes – genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes – are brought to justice.

This important milestone was reached years earlier than expected, illustrating the will of most of the international community to end impunity for the worst crimes. Such impunity has been a major factor perpetuating cycles of abuse and conflict in most parts of the world.

A number of issues must be addressed immediately to ensure that the ICC can function effectively in its initial years. For example, all states that have ratified the Rome Statute must enact legislation to allow them to investigate and prosecute people accused of the worst crimes in their national courts and to cooperate fully with the ICC. Only a handful of states had passed such laws by the end of 2002. Also, all states should sign, ratify and implement the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities for the ICC to ensure that the ICC can conduct its work on the territories of states without obstruction. At the end of the year 24 states had signed the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities and only one state had ratified it.

The most disturbing challenge to the ICC came from the efforts of the USA to undermine the Court. Expressing fears that the ICC could be used to bring politically motivated investigations and prosecutions against US nationals, the USA repudiated its signature of the Rome Statute in May.

These fears are groundless because the substantial safeguards and fair trial guarantees contained in the Rome Statute will prevent such a situation. Nevertheless, in June the USA demanded that the UN Security Council include in its renewal of the Bosnia and Herzegovina peace-keeping mission an exemption from ICC jurisdiction for UN peace-keepers from states that are not party to the Rome Statute. When the 14 other Security Council members initially refused, the USA vetoed an extension of the peace-keeping mission. Despite calls from over 100 countries not to give in to US demands, on 12 July the Security Council adopted Resolution 1422. This provides for an automatic Security Council deferral (unless it decides otherwise) of any ICC investigation or prosecution for 12 months (from 1 July 2002) of any case involving current or former officials or personnel from a state that has not ratified the Rome Statute over acts or omissions relating to a UN established or authorized operation.

In August, President George W. Bush signed the American Servicemembers' Protection Act. Under this, the USA will not cooperate with the ICC in investigations or prosecutions of US citizens, will deny military aid to states that have ratified the treaty (with some exceptions), and may use "all necessary means" to return anyone detained by the ICC to the USA.

The USA also asked governments around the world to enter bilateral impunity agreements not to surrender or transfer US nationals to the ICC. It exerted extreme pressure on states to meet this request, in many cases threatening to withdraw military aid. At the end of the year, 17 states had signed such impunity agreements with the USA, although none have been ratified so far.

AI called on the USA to abandon its attacks on the ICC and to join the international community in its effort to end impunity.

Economic, social and cultural rights

In the globalized world of 2002, where there was vast wealth and opportunities for some, and destitution and despair for many, and where the talk was of war on nations, not of war on poverty, AI broke new ground to focus its work not only on legal justice but also on social justice. Through its activities on economic, social and cultural rights, AI is determined to demonstrate the interdependence of human rights. All human rights have an intrinsic value, but respect and fulfilment of one right may be essential to achieving progress in relation to another. The "security of the person" stands at the heart of political and civil rights, but it means little if people are starving.

AI’s strategy on economic, social and cultural rights focuses on marginalized people, such as the extremely poor who suffer grave and systematic deprivation of a wide range of rights. Medical care, clean water and adequate food are often beyond their reach. They may be barred from access to schools and jobs. Many are forcibly displaced from their land. Police often refuse to enter their communities to defend women from violence, to combat racist attacks, or to protect the poor from crime.

Attempts to seek justice – whether through the courts, the police, regulatory bodies or government agencies – are thwarted by illiteracy, discrimination, poverty and arbitrary abuse of power by those in authority. Access by the marginalized to mechanisms of redress is often denied on account of their ethnic, religious or linguistic background or simply because they are poor and therefore have little influence on government. Women and girls in most cases face further exclusion.

AI believes that communities which suffer systematic or severe denial of economic, social and cultural rights demonstrate in their everyday life the interdependence of all human rights.

Gearing up its capacity to work on economic, social and cultural rights, AI is seeking to strengthen its expertise and build bridges with groups already active in these areas. A good start was made in 2002 with a number of pilot projects on issues such as discrimination against the mentally disabled in Bulgaria, the right to work of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, discrimination in economic and social rights suffered by Bosnian refugees and displaced persons, and the right to health of HIV/AIDS victims in southern and east Africa.

AI’s work on economic, social and cultural rights seeks to draw attention to the obligations of different actors to respect, protect and fulfil these rights. Just as with civil and political rights, the primary obligation falls on national governments. However, in many cases foreign governments, international organizations and private companies can both violate economic, social and cultural rights and take steps to ensure that they are respected. All have legal obligations in relation to economic, social and cultural rights – and there are strong ethical arguments for believing that they must act on these to ensure that goals such as universal primary education and eradicating preventable disease and hunger are achieved.

Military, security and police transfers

Throughout the year AI continued to call on governments to introduce stringent controls using human rights and humanitarian law criteria for arms exports and arms brokering. AI also made further efforts to prevent the trade of security equipment used for torture, and to convince governments of the need to base military and police training on respect for international human rights and humanitarian law.

At the summit meeting in Calgary, Canada, of the Group of Eight (G8) most industrialized states in mid-2002, AI lobbied for tough arms controls. The G8 leaders agreed to "support efforts by African countries and the United Nations to better regulate the activities of arms brokers and traffickers and to eliminate the flow of illicit weapons to and within Africa" and to "support the reform of the security sector through assisting the development of democratically controlled police structures".

In July AI hosted an international meeting between several NGOs and lawyers to develop the text of an Arms Trade Treaty, building on the work of a group of Nobel Peace Laureates. The proposed treaty codifies state obligations under international law preventing arms exports that would contribute to violations of human rights and humanitarian law.

While the world focused on weapons of mass destruction, AI urged governments not to use weapons with indiscriminate effects, and continued to raise awareness about the human rights abuses facilitated by the supply of small arms and light weapons, particularly to areas of conflict. In August, the UN

Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights proposed the appointment of a Special Rapporteur on small arms. AI had called for the establishment of such a rapporteur in November 2001 at an international conference of humanitarian organizations held in Nairobi, Kenya, and contributed to discussions at the Sub-Commission itself. In October, AI presented an open letter to the UN Security Council shortly before the Council’s Open Debate on Small Arms and Light Weapons. It called for tough controls on arms exports and on international arms brokers and carriers. In November, the Security Council considered the latest report by the Panel of Experts investigating breaches of the arms embargo and other sanctions on Liberia. In order to help reduce human rights abuses, AI supported the Panel’s recommendation that the ban on arms and ammunition and other military assistance to both sides in the conflict in Liberia remain in force.

AI also worked on issues concerning military and police training. It produced a survey of police practices in countries of the Southern African Development Community, which was widely distributed in the region. Linked to this, training, lobbying and outreach activities were organized, particularly by AI groups in southern Africa. Authorities in at least three countries began the process of amending their laws as a result of lobbying.

The organization also published a report that examined the failure of US government institutions to promote and protect human rights when providing military and police training to personnel from over 150 countries. As a result of lobbying, AI in the USA secured in September a legal requirement that the Secretary of State report annually to the US Congress "any involvement of a foreign military or defense ministry civilian" trained by the USA "in a violation of internationally recognized human rights..." Both the US Defense and State departments were to begin tracking and reporting on human rights violations committed by people trained by the US government. AI campaigners in the USA also defeated government efforts to remove human rights conditionality from US foreign assistance programs.

Death penalty

The world moved closer to universal abolition of the death penalty in 2002, although many countries continued to execute prisoners. Cyprus abolished the death penalty for all crimes in April, when the Military Criminal Code was amended to remove the death penalty for the military offences of treason and piracy. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia abolished the death penalty in June when the penalty was removed from the laws of Montenegro, the only part of the country where it still existed. Turkey abolished the death penalty for peacetime offences in August.

By the end of the year, 76 countries had abolished the death penalty for all crimes. A further 15 countries had abolished it for all but exceptional crimes such as wartime crimes. At least 20 countries were abolitionist in practice: they had not carried out any executions for the past 10 years or more and were believed to have an established practice of not carrying out executions or had made an international commitment not to do so. Eighty-four other countries and territories retained the death penalty, although not all of them passed death sentences or carried out executions during the year.

On 25 April, for the sixth consecutive year, the UN Commission on Human Rights adopted a resolution calling for a moratorium on executions. The resolution also urged states that maintained the death penalty not to use it for "non-violent acts such as… sexual relations between consenting adults".

Protocol No. 13 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights) was adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 21 February. Protocol No. 13 is the first international treaty to provide for the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances with no exceptions permitted. When the Protocol was opened for signature in Vilnius, Lithuania, on 3 May, 36 of the 44 member states of the Council of Europe signed the Protocol, indicating their intention to become parties to it. The Protocol will enter into force three months after 10 states have ratified it. By the end of 2002 five countries had ratified it.

In May the World Coalition against the Death Penalty was founded in Rome, Italy. An offshoot of the first World Congress against the Death Penalty, held in Strasbourg, France, in June 2001, this coalition unites national and international human rights organizations, including AI, bar associations, trade unions and local and regional authorities. In a statement released on 13 May, the then UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, described its launch as "an important milestone in the continuing international campaign aimed at limiting and, one day, eliminating the use of the death penalty everywhere in the world".

Meanwhile, executions continued. In 2002 at least 1,526 people were executed in 31 countries, and at least 3,248 people were sentenced to death in 67 countries. These figures include only cases known to AI; the true figures were certainly higher.

The vast majority of executions worldwide were carried out in a tiny handful of countries. In 2002, 81 per cent of all known executions took place in China, Iran and the USA.

• In China, preliminary figures indicated that at least 1,060 people were executed, many without a fair trial. The true number was believed to be much higher.

• At least 113 executions were carried out in Iran.

• Seventy-one prisoners were executed in the USA, including three who were under 18 years old at the time of the crimes of which they were convicted.

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. AI has a varied network of members and supporters around the world. At the latest count there were more than 1.5 million members, supporters and subscribers in over 150 countries and territories in every region of the world. 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.

AI members may be organized in one of several thousand groups in local communities, schools and colleges in more than 100 countries and territories. Tens of thousands of members also participate in networks working on particular countries and themes or using particular campaigning techniques. Listed below are the addresses of recognized AI sections in 54 countries and territories and pre-section AI structures in 23 countries and territories; sections and structures coordinate the work of AI members. Also listed are other AI offices around the world; these offices exist for a variety of purposes including research, lobbying, core language translation and coordination at a regional level.

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.

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 campaigns for an end to political killings and "disappearances".

¤It opposes without reservation the death penalty, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

¤It campaigns for perpetrators of human rights abuses to be brought to justice.

¤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 certain grave abuses of economic, social and cultural rights.

¤It seeks to persuade companies and economic institutions to respect and promote human rights.

¤It opposes abuses by non-state actors where the state has failed to fulfil its obligations to provide effective protection.

¤It works against grave abuses of the right to freedom from discrimination.

¤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 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 campaigns for an end to the use of child soldiers.

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 2002 to March 2003 was £23,728,000. 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 2002 to March 2003, the International Secretariat of AI distributed an estimated £48,000 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 — www.amnesty.org

AI online is dedicated to providing AI’s human rights resources on the Internet. It contains more than 20,000 pages and is visited by over 12,000 people daily from all over the world. During 2002, AI documents were visited on the site approximately 30 million times.

The website 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 2002, the website featured a number of 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, economic relations and human rights. Special web pages were also created for the continuing human rights crises in specific countries including Iraq, Israel and the Occupied Territories and Colombia. One of the particular highlights of the year was an online petition urging governments to ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which was signed by more than 80,000 people worldwide. For latest appeals please visit http://www.amnesty.org/actnow/.

Following the continuing success of the Stop Torture website (http://www.stoptorture.org), other Internet campaign sites have followed, including AI’s Secretary General Irene Khan calling on the leaders of the G8 countries to convert promises into steps to protect human rights (http://web.amnesty.org/g8).

In October 2002 AI launched a worldwide campaign on the Russian Federation to highlight the discrepancy between the human rights protection which those living in Russia have in international and national law, and the reality of widespread human rights abuses. A website was created to accompany the campaign (http://www.amnesty.org/russia) and is available in Arabic, English, French, Russian and Spanish. Many AI sections also produced their own websites as part of this campaign.

During 2002, increased international resources were devoted to web development and there are now plans for the continuing growth of AI online, including improved accessibility of the site, more multilingual content and more action tools to encourage our supporters to participate in campaigning on and off line.

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

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

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

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

AI sections

AlgeriaAmnesty International, BP 377, Alger,

RP 16004

e-mail: amnestyalgeria@hotmail.com

ArgentinaAmnistía Internacional,

Av. Rivadavia 2206 - P4A, C1032ACO Ciudad de Buenos Aires

e-mail: info@amnesty.org.ar

http://www.amnesty.org.ar

AustraliaAmnesty International, Private Bag 23, Broadway, New South Wales 2007

e-mail: adminaia@amnesty.org.au

http://www.amnesty.org.au

AustriaAmnesty International, Moeringgasse 10,

A-1150 Wien

e-mail: info@amnesty.at

http://www.amnesty.at

BelgiumAmnesty International (AI Vlaanderen), Kerkstraat 156, 2060 Antwerpen

e-mail: directie@aivl.be

http://www.aivl.be

BelgiumAmnesty 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

BermudaAmnesty International, PO Box HM 2136, Hamilton HM JX

e-mail: aibda@ibl.bm

CanadaAmnesty International (English-speaking),

312 Laurier Avenue East, Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 1H9

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

ChileCompañía 2085 - P2B, Plaza Brasil,

6500497 Santiago-Centro

e-mail: info@amnistia.cl

http://www.amnistia.cl

Côte d’IvoireAmnesty International, 04 BP 895, Abidjan 04

e-mail: amnestycotedivoire@aviso.ci

DenmarkAmnesty International, Gammeltorv 8, 5, 1457 Copenhagen K

e-mail: amnesty@amnesty.dk

EcuadorAmnistía Internacional, Casilla 17-15-240-C, Quito

e-mail: ai_ecuador@hotmail.com

Faroe IslandsAmnesty International, PO Box 1075,

FR-110, Tórshavn

e-mail: amnesty@amnesty.fo

http://www.amnesty.fo

FinlandAmnesty International, Ruoholahdenkatu 24,

D 00180 Helsinki

e-mail: amnesty@amnesty.fi

http://www.amnesty.fi

FranceAmnesty International, 76 Bd 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

GreeceAmnesty 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 KongAmnesty 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

IcelandAmnesty International, PO Box 618,

121 Reykjavík

e-mail: amnesty@rhi.hi.is

http://www.amnesty.is

IrelandAmnesty 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,

2-7-7F Kanda-Tsukasa-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 101-0048

e-mail: info@amnesty.or.jp

http://www.amnesty.or.jp

Korea (Republic of) Amnesty International,

706-600 Taegu Suaung, PO Box 36, Taegu

e-mail: amnesty@amnesty.or.kr

http://www.amnesty.or.kr

LuxembourgAmnesty International, Boîte

Postale 1914, 1019 Luxembourg

e-mail: amnesty@pt.lu

http://www.amnesty.lu

MauritiusAmnesty International, BP 69, Rose-Hill

e-mail: amnesty@intnet.mu

MexicoAmnistía Internacional, Zacatecas 230,

Oficina 605, Colonia Roma Sur, Delegación Cuahutémoc, Mexico D.F. - CP 06700

e-mail: admin-mx@amnesty.org

http://www.amnistia.org.mx

MoroccoAmnesty International, Place d’Angleterre, Rue Souissra, Immeuble No. 11, Appt No. 1, Rabat - l’Océan

e-mail: admin-ma@amnesty.org

NepalAmnesty International, PO Box 135, Bagbazar, Kathmandu

e-mail: ain@ccsl.com.np

NetherlandsAmnesty International, PO Box 1968,

1000 BZ, Amsterdam

e-mail: amnesty@amnesty.nl

http://www.amnesty.nl

New Zealand Amnesty International, PO Box 5300, Wellesley Street, Auckland

e-mail: campaign@amnesty.org.nz

http://www.amnesty.org.nz

NigeriaAmnesty 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

PeruAmnistía Internacional, Enrique Palacios 735-A, Miraflores, Lima

e-mail: admin-pe@amnesty.org

http://amnistia.org.pe

PhilippinesAmnesty International, Room 305

CRM Building II, 116 Kamia Road, 1101 Quezon City

e-mail: amnestypilipinas@meridiantelekoms.net

PolandAmnesty International, ul. Jaókowa Dolina 4, 80-252 Gdañsk

e-mail: amnesty@amnesty.org.pl

http://www.amnesty.org.pl

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

e-mail: amnistiaPR@yahoo.com

SenegalAmnesty International, BP 269, Dakar Colobane

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

SpainAmnistía 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

TaiwanAmnesty 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

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

e-mail: admin-tn@amnesty.org

United KingdomAmnesty 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

VenezuelaAmnistía Internacional, Apartado

Postal 5110, Carmelitas, 1010 A Caracas

e-mail: admin-ve@amnesty.org

http://www.amnistia.int.ve

AI structures

BelarusAmnesty International, PO Box 10P,

246050 Gomel

e-mail: amnesty@tut.by

BoliviaAmnistía Internacional, Casilla 10607, La Paz

e-mail: perescar@ceibo.entelnet.bo

Burkina FasoAmnesty International, 08 BP 11344, Ouagadougou

e-mail: aburkina@sections.amnesty.org

CroatiaAmnesty International, Marti½eva 24, 10000 Zagreb

e-mail: admin@amnesty.hr

http://www.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

GambiaAmnesty International, PO Box 1935, Banjul

e-mail: amnesty@gamtel.gm

HungaryAmnesty International, Budapest 1051, Arany Janos utca 25

e-mail: info@amnesty.hu

http://www.amnesty.hu

IndiaAmnesty International, C-161 4th Floor, Guatam Nagar, New Delhi, 110-049

e-mail: admin-in@amnesty.org

KenyaAmnesty International, 1st Floor, Room 28,

All Africa Conference of Churches, Waiyaki Way, Nairobi

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 3886, Bamako

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

e-mail: amnesty-mli@djom.net.ml

MongoliaAmnesty International, Ulaanbaatar 21 0648, PO Box 180

e-mail: aimncc@magicnet.mn

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

e-mail: amnesty@cyber.net.pk

http://www.geocities.com/amnestypakistan

Palestinian AuthorityAmnesty 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@py.amnesty.org

http://www.amnistia.org.py

SlovakiaAmnesty International, Staromestská 6/D,

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: info@amnesty.or.th

http://www.amnesty.or.th

TurkeyAmnesty International, Muradiye

Bayiri Sok. Acarman ap. 50/1, Tesvikiye 80200,

Istanbul

e-mail: amnesty@superonline.com

UkraineAmnesty International, P.O. Box 60,

Kiev 01015

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

ZambiaAmnesty 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, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Cameroon, Chad, Cyprus, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Estonia, Grenada, Jamaica, Jordan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Liberia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Mozambique, Romania, Russian Federation, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda,Yemen, Yugoslavia (Federal Republic of)

AI offices

International Secretariat(IS) Amnesty International, Peter Benenson House, 1 Easton Street, London WC1X 0DW, United Kingdom

e-mail: amnestyis@amnesty.org

http://www.amnesty.org

http://www.web.amnesty.org

ARABAI(Arabic translation unit) c/o International Secretariat, Peter Benenson House, 1 Easton Street, London WC1X 0DW, United Kingdom

e-mail: arabai@amnesty.org

http://www.amnesty-arabic.org

Editorial de Amnistía Internacional(EDAI) Calle Valderribas 13, 28007 Madrid, Spain

e-mail: mlleo@amnesty.org

http://www.edai.org

Éditions Francophones d’Amnesty International(EFAI) 17 rue du Pont-aux-Choux, 75003 Paris, France

e-mail: ai-efai@amnesty.org

http://www.efai.org

IS Geneva— UN Representative Office Amnesty International, 22 rue du Cendrier, 4ème étage, CH-1201 Geneva, Switzerland

e-mail: gvunpost@amnesty.org

IS New York— UN Representative Office Amnesty International, 777 UN Plaza, 6 Floor, New York, NY 10017, USA

e-mail: ai-un-ny@amnesty.org

European Union (EU) AssociationAmnesty International, Rue d’Arlon 37-41, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium

e-mail: admin-eu@amnesty.org

IS Dakar— Development Field Office Amnesty International, Amadou Shour, Sicap Liberté II, Villa 1608, Dakar, Senegal

e-mail: ashour@amnesty.org

IS Kampala— Africa Regional Office Amnesty International, Plot 20A, Kawalya Kaggwa Close, Kololo, Uganda

e-mail: admin-kp@amnesty.org

IS Pretoria— Development Field Office Amnesty International, Njeri Kabeberi, PO Box 29083, Sunnyside 0132, Gauteng, South Africa

e-mail: nkabeber@amnesty.org

Caribbean Regional OfficeAmnesty International, PO Box 1912, Room 6, Cathedral House, Church Street, St. George’s, Grenada

e-mail: amnestycro@amnesty.org

IS San José— Americas Regional Office Amnistía Internacional, 75 metros al norte de la Iglesia de Fatima, los Yoses, San Pedro, San José, Costa Rica

e-mail: admin-cr@amnesty.org

IS Hong Kong— Asia Pacific Regional Office Amnesty International, Unit D, 3/F, Best-O-Best Commercial Centre, 32-36 Ferry Street, Kowloon, Hong Kong

e-mail: admin-ap@amnesty.org

IS Moscow— Russia Resource Centre Amnesty International, PO Box 212, Moscow 119019, Russia, Russian Federation

e-mail: russiaresourcecentre@amnesty.org

IS Paris— Research Office Amnesty International, 76 Bd de la Villette, 75940 Paris, Cedex 19, France

e-mail: adminpro@amnesty.org

IS Beirut— Middle East and North Africa Regional Office Amnesty International PO Box 13-5696, Chouran Beirut 1102 - 2060, Lebanon

e-mail: mena@amnesty.org

AI IN ACTION

This section of the Amnesty International Report 2003 shows some of the work undertaken by AI members and supporters during 2002. It cannot reflect the enormous variety of initiatives taken in AI’s name at the local, national and regional level. More information is available from sections (for contact details see What is AI?) and on AI’s websites.

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 campaigns to change government attitudes and unjust laws by feeding information to the media, to governments and to the UN, urging them to take action.

AI 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.

AI visits

During 2002, AI delegates visited 76 countries and territories to conduct research, to meet victims of human rights violations, to observe trials, to contact local human rights activists, and to meet government officials.

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 a matter of days.

¤During 2002, AI initiated 468 such appeals to the Urgent Action Network. They called for action on behalf of people who were either at risk of or had suffered human rights violations including torture, "disappearances", the death penalty, death in custody, or forcible return to countries where they would be in danger of human rights violations.

¤There were also 346 updates to previous Urgent Action appeals, 130 of which recorded good news about the case.

¤These actions were issued on behalf of people in 83 countries and territories.

Long- and medium-term actions

Thousands of AI groups in local communities, schools and colleges work on long- and medium-term assignments in support of prisoners of conscience and other individual victims of human rights abuses. Groups put pressure directly on the authorities, work to raise awareness of AI’s concerns, and work with others in their communities and internationally. Where possible they maintain direct contact with individual victims and their families to offer their support. Over 130 new actions of this type were taken up during 2002, supporting individuals and achieving the change needed to protect many more.

Many cases were successfully closed during 2002. Among them:

¤Seven Tibetan prisoners of conscience were released from Drapchi Prison in China.

¤A prisoner of conscience in the Maldives, who in 2001 had been sentenced to banishment for two and a half years, was released in August 2002.

¤Two doctors in Kenya who faced threats and de-registration for contributing to a post-mortem report had charges against them dropped and restrictions on doctors participating in independent post-mortem investigations were withdrawn.

Campaigning actions

Throughout 2002 AI’s sections and structures worked together on human rights problems in all world regions. A variety of campaigning techniques were bought to bear on individual cases and towards the changes in policy and practice needed to prevent human rights abuses. AI sections and structures directly lobbied for change, publicized concerns in the media, provided education and training, held public demonstrations and organized letter-writing and Internet-based actions.

Concerns worked on during 2002 included:

¤Africa and the G8 Summit of the world’s richest nations: AI addressed arms transfers between the world’s richest nations and African states with poor human rights records, as well as the responsibility of G8 governments to ensure human rights are addressed in their efforts to prevent conflict in Africa and as a precondition of sustainable development.

¤Torture and impunity in Turkey: working towards specific steps that would begin to break the prevailing culture of impunity and help secure justice for the victims of torture, including children.

¤Freedom of expression and the administration of justice in Iran: addressing concerns about the independence of the judiciary and restrictions on the right to defence.

¤Police reform and human rights in the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC), where AI’s approach included working with local activists to develop a dialogue with police and security forces in the region on policing methods that respect human rights.

¤The consistent failure of Guatemalan governments to address the outstanding legacy of mass human rights violations committed during the country’s long civil conflict.

Campaign on the Russian Federation

In October, AI launched a major worldwide campaign to highlight the discrepancy between the human rights protection which those living in the Russian Federation have in international and national law, and the reality of widespread human rights abuses committed in a climate of impunity.

AI published a major report, The Russian Federation: Denial of justice (AI Index: EUR 46/027/2002), as well as a campaign briefing and a series of thematic leaflets.

To launch the campaign AI members around the world held a range of events to urge the Russian government to live up to its obligations to protect human rights.

¤AI’s campaign Justice for everybody was launched in Moscow on 29 October by AI’s Secretary General, Irene Khan; Olga Kitova, an investigative journalist from Belgorod who was ill-treated in police custody; Sergei Kovalev, human rights activist and State Duma (parliament) deputy who is a former AI prisoner of conscience; and journalist Anna Politkovskaya who has written extensively on the armed conflict in Chechnya.

¤AI Chile organized an information stand on human rights violations in Russia in front of the Palacio de Justicia, Courts of Justice.

¤AI Croatia launched the Russia campaign with a press conference. The campaign featured in all major regional newspapers and on national television.

¤In November AI Czech Republic organized a joint action with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), UNICEF and a local children’s organization to mark International Children’s Day. AI volunteers ran workshops for children of Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian refugees in the Czech Republic, exploring issues of tolerance through an interactive play.

¤AI Germany collected signatures on a 30-metre banner.

¤AI Hong Kong held a ceremony in a busy pedestrian area of Hong Kong. Candles were lit in the shape of the AI candle, surrounded by the Russia campaign logo, and AI members also circulated a petition. The event was featured on Chinese television and in several Chinese newspapers.

¤In Iceland, the Russian Ambassador lit an AI candle to mark the launch of the campaign.

¤AI Mongolia held a student conference on the human rights situation in the Russian Federation, as a result of which a student activists’ network was organized to promote and protect human rights.

¤AI Nepal organized a street event in the centre of Kathmandu with decorative banners, public speakers, candle lightings and the collection of over 500 signatures.

¤AI Netherlands launched the campaign with guests Boris Pustyntsev, from Citizen’s Watch, and Liudmila Alekseeva, from Moscow Helsinki Watch. The event received a high level of coverage on both radio and television.

¤AI Pakistan translated the launch report briefing into Urdu and organized a student conference on human rights in the Russian Federation.

¤AI South Africa launched the Russia campaign in Pretoria with an event attended by embassy officials and representatives of many NGOs.

¤AI Zimbabwe’s launch event was attended by embassy staff, government officials and representatives of local NGOs. The university group designed T-shirts with the slogan Moscow Uphold Human Rights! During the event a letter from the Russian Ambassador to Zimbabwe was read out, at his personal request, in which he spoke of his high esteem and support for the work of AI.

Israel/Occupied Territories/Palestinian Authority crisis response

Early in 2002, international attention turned to the serious deterioration in the situation in Israel and the Occupied Territories. In response, AI mobilized its members to take action to stop the destruction of lives and to bring human rights concerns to the forefront. AI members sought to put pressure on the Israeli government, the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian armed groups; AI also called on the international community to deploy a monitoring force with a strong human rights mandate.

¤Several AI delegations, including forensic, military and international human rights law experts, travelled to Israel and the Occupied Territories and AI issued a number of reports and statements.

¤Dedicated web-pages kept the public informed and involved in key actions on AI’s main areas of concern.

¤AI sections all over the world initiated embassy vigils, mass letter and e-mail appeals, government lobbying and public activities.

¤On 27 April AI declared an International Day of Mourning, which coincided with a visit to the area by AI’s Secretary General, Irene Khan. At the same time as she was meeting families who had lost their relatives and their homes in Jenin, and families of some of the victims of suicide attacks in Tel Aviv, thousands of AI members took to the streets to express solidarity with all victims of this human rights crisis and to demand justice and respect for human rights.

¤AI coordinated a worldwide speakers’ tour with Palestinian and Israeli bereaved parents and human rights defenders to promote the message, "stop killing civilians".

Colombia crisis alert

The movement activated its crisis alert mechanism in order to bring to international attention the human rights and humanitarian tragedy unfolding in Colombia.

AI sections were quick to respond to the Colombia crisis alert. Many of them made a special effort to engage the news media as a way of breaking down the wall of silence on the human rights situation in Colombia and in order to put a human face on the crisis.

The first major action was the publication of AI’s Open Letter to newly-elected President Álvaro Uribe. AI sections in Argentina, Norway, Peru, Spain, Sweden and the USA, among others, sent the Open Letter to their media. Opinion pieces, advertisements and media briefings were among the techniques used by sections internationally, including AI Canada, Netherlands and Peru.

¤A daily newspaper in Belgium agreed to publish Urgent Actions on Colombia every week for two months.

¤Other forms of international solidarity for Colombian human rights defenders included solidarity cards, messages and fundraising appeals used by sections in Argentina, Belgium, Italy and the USA, among others. AI Switzerland organized activities for the Swiss groups, which included petitions, posters and a photo display, in collaboration with other NGO and church representatives.

¤The Internet was used for campaigning on Colombia. The majority of AI sections in the Americas had special web pages on Colombia, and used these to promote web/electronic appeals and petitions to President Uribe.

Youth and student networks

AI has several thousand Youth and Student groups in 70 countries. Young activists campaign on all AI concerns.

¤During 2002 Youth and Student groups took part in the campaign against the use of child soldiers and the campaign for justice for everybody in the Russian Federation. For International Children’s Day, they worked on children’s rights in Israel and the Occupied Territories and under the Palestinian Authority.

¤Youth and Student groups collaborated with AI’s Women’s Human Rights Network and the international V-Day movement on violence against women during the annual International Month of Student Action.

¤In July, a youth camp for Russian speakers was organized in Voronezh, Russia.

¤The first Middle East and North African Youth Forum was held in Morocco. This gathering offered young activists in the region an opportunity to discuss human rights issues relevant to the region and to develop their leadership and campaigning skills.

Human rights defenders

AI’s work with and on behalf of human rights defenders around the world seeks to strengthen the capacity of local, national and regional human rights groups to take preventive action against abuses and to create sustainable programs of practical protection.

Human rights defenders in the Americas

According to the Special Representative of the Secretary-General of the UN on Human Rights Defenders, over 90 per cent of the reports received in 2001 regarding killings of human rights defenders in the world occurred in the Americas.

¤In September, AI delegates accompanied threatened human rights defenders in the state of Espirito Santo in Brazil who successfully requested federal intervention to tackle impunity and mass killings committed by a paramilitary group with close links to state officials.

¤Also in September, AI Canada presented Colombian human rights defenders with 17 solidarity quilts, symbolizing their need for protection. Hundreds of AI’s supporters in Canada had contributed squares of material bearing messages of support. During the event, which was attended by representatives of the Colombian government and foreign embassies, Colombian defenders presented the new government with a letter requesting talks to address their demands for protection.

¤AI’s campaigning helped bring about the appointment of an attorney to investigate attacks against human rights defenders in Guatemala.

¤AI helped organize the Second Regional Consultation on Human Rights Defenders in Latin America and the Caribbean. The meeting was held in July in Guatemala, in order to highlight the worsening attacks against human rights defenders there. A Special Unit for Defenders, set up within the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights as a result of several years of lobbying work, carried out a visit to Guatemala, its first to the region.

¤As a result of AI’s work on human rights defenders in Mexico, the government established protection for several defenders at risk. The Human Rights Ombudsman’s Office in Mexico City launched a campaign to promote the value of work carried out by defenders.

Human rights defenders in Africa

Many human rights defenders in Africa are working in areas of armed conflict in extremely challenging and dangerous conditions.

¤AI continued to support human rights defenders in West Africa, building on both the 1998 Johannesburg Declaration and the launch of the West African human rights defenders coalition in 2001.

¤In Central and Southern Africa, AI helped human rights defenders’ networks to develop. In the Great Lakes region, support was given to activists in Goma, eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), who were working in very difficult conditions to rebuild infrastructure after a natural disaster.

¤AI Secretary General Irene Khan met human rights defenders from Burundi and the DRC during a visit to Burundi in September.

¤AI helped to ensure the safety of human rights defenders at risk, including by assisting emergency evacuation and contributing towards legal defence.

¤In some cases AI helped to ensure medical treatment for human rights defenders who became victims of torture or were injured in repressive action by security forces.

¤Working with local partners, AI established links to UN mechanisms for the protection of human rights defenders in particular cases.

Human rights defenders in the Middle East/North Africa

Human rights defenders were targeted in many countries in the Middle East and North Africa region.

¤Actions were launched on behalf of human rights defenders in Algeria, Egypt, Israel and the Occupied Territories, Jordan, Morocco/Western Sahara, Syria and Tunisia.

¤In collaboration with a Spanish NGO, AI organized capacity-building workshops for Algerian human rights defenders and arranged internships for two Algerians with an Egyptian NGO working for the rehabilitation of victims of torture.

¤AI delegates carried out media and public activities, focusing in particular on the situation of Yemeni detainees in Yemen and elsewhere, following the deterioration of the human rights situation in the wake of 11 September 2001, which threatened the human rights achievements made by Yemen over the last decade.

Children’s rights

AI’s Working Groups on Children work for children’s rights in all regions through a range of campaigning techniques, education and awareness-raising.

Concerns worked on during 2002 included:

¤The killing of children in Israel and the Occupied Territories and the Palestinian Authority since the start of the intifada.

¤The multiple abuses children suffer at the hands of the law in Burundi. AI highlighted the fact that many children in detention are particularly vulnerable to abuses, including torture and ill-treatment, because they are impoverished, poorly educated and isolated from their families. Many are held in harsh conditions for excessively long periods without charge or trial.

¤The treatment of children with mental disabilities in Bulgaria, where children are often placed in care homes on the basis of inadequate diagnoses and where they receive little or no therapy or rehabilitation programs and may be ill-treated.

Particular projects in 2002 included:

¤AI Denmark participated in a forum with other NGOs to share information and agree joint initiatives appealing to the Danish government and other authorities about the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Issues covered included the treatment of unaccompanied minors in asylum procedures.

¤AIUK distributed 1,600 postcards appealing for a stay of execution for Napoleon Beazley, sentenced to death in the USA for a crime he committed when he was 17 years old. In spite of considerable international pressure, Napoleon Beazley was executed in May.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender human rights

AI’s activists participated in several actions for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) human rights, including:

¤ Continuing work on behalf of tens of men persecuted in Egypt solely for their actual or perceived sexual orientation. Campaigning initiatives on their behalf included a mobile phone action organized by AI Netherlands, which yielded over 4,000 text messages which were sent as a petition to President Hosni Mubarak.

¤The case of three men executed in Saudi Arabia, possibly for their sexual orientation.

¤Ongoing work on LGBT rights in Ecuador, where homophobic harassment and violence continues despite anti-discrimination provisions in the constitution.

Campaigning highlights included:

¤The AI Global Human Rights Conference, held in Sydney, Australia, from 30 October to 1 November, attracted over 300 people from more than 20 countries. Many LGBT rights NGOs and activists participated in the conference, which increased awareness of the discrimination and persecution faced by LGBT and intersex people, and raised the profile of AI’s LGBT rights work. The conference passed a resolution to advocate a UN declaration on the right to sexual self-determination.

¤As part of Europride 2002 in Cologne, Germany, LGBT groups from AI Germany and AI Poland organized three days of AI meetings and public events focused on the LGBT human rights situation in Europe. Delegates attended from Belarus, Germany, Moldova, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Serbia, Switzerland, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.

¤AI Philippines continued to campaign in conjunction with local LGBT organizations to make the Philippines the first country in the region to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. In December an anti-discrimination bill was approved by a legislative committee, an important step in the bill’s passage through Congress.

Women’s rights

AI’s International Women’s Human Rights Network took action on a number of issues during 2002, including:

¤The application of the Sharia penal code in Nigeria.

¤The continued existence of discriminatory laws in Pakistan that fail to tackle the violence which affects a high proportion of the country’s women.

Particular projects in 2002 included:

¤An International Women’s Day action on violence against women in Kenya, focusing on rape in custody and within marriage, and the documentation of medical evidence in rape cases.

¤In April a meeting of AI’s women’s human rights activists was convened in London. Representatives from 45 AI sections and structures shared their experiences, planned their future role in the movement and discussed the issues surrounding women’s human rights which impact on the work of AI.

¤AI USA’s women’s human rights action team in Wyoming and Colorado collaborated with local and state coalitions against domestic violence to train service providers and officials. They focused on providing training in how to apply a human rights framework, including the concept of due diligence, to the issue of domestic violence, and explaining how domestic violence can amount to torture.

¤The Intersectional Women’s Network-Africa is a special project uniting women to defend women’s human rights in Africa. The network comprises AI women human rights defenders from more than 10 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Since its creation in 1999, the network has participated in several campaigns, as well as working on individual cases and running awareness programs on the rights of women, children and refugees.

Health professionals network

Health professionals in more than 30 countries continued to take action on cases involving prisoners deprived of health care, suffering the effects of torture or in other ways likely to benefit from appeals by health workers.

More than 40 medical actions and updates, as well as relevant Urgent Actions, were sent to network members during the year. Around a third of these appeals were for fellow health professionals, mainly doctors and nurses.

¤In September the network campaigned on the issue of conditions in mental health institutions in Bulgaria following the publication of an AI report on the issue.

¤The Health Professionals Network participated in the launch of the Russia campaign in October. The network focused on the medical documentation of torture.

¤In August, a workshop on the protection of the rights of women and girls through the forensic documentation of rape was co-sponsored by AI and the Independent Medico-Legal Unit in Durban, South Africa. Doctors, lawyers, counsellors and others from 10 countries in the region participated.

¤The Dutch Section medical examination group produced an interactive CD-ROM illustrating the effects of torture. This will be made available to doctors in the Netherlands and elsewhere in order to improve their awareness of torture-related injuries.

Trade union network

AI activists continued to work for basic labour rights; on behalf of those threatened or imprisoned because of their defence of workers’ rights; and with trade unions on all human rights concerns.

¤Throughout 2002 the Trade Union Network took up the cases of individual trade unionists in danger of human rights abuses in many countries including Brazil, China, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala and Turkey.

¤In May, AI launched a campaign to work with trade unions internationally on behalf of imprisoned labour activists and others affected by repression of labour rights in China.

¤AI worked with delegates attending the International Labour Conference, focusing on campaigning for the ratification of core labour standards worldwide.

¤AI received good news in May when Dr Taye Wolde-Semayat, trade unionist and prisoner of conscience on whose behalf AI and the trade union movement had worked for many years, was released from prison in Ethiopia.

Human rights education

Human rights education in AI includes a broad range of education programs in the formal and informal sectors which are implemented by our members around the world.

These human rights education programs:

¤Encourage change and empower people to claim their rights.

¤Recognize the universality and indivisibility of human rights.

¤Increase knowledge and understanding of human rights.

¤Assist people to use the legal instruments designed to protect human rights.

¤Use interactive and participatory methodology to develop respect for human rights and the skills needed to defend them.

¤Take a long-term strategic approach and are planned and integrated into all parts of AI’s work.

Throughout 2002 AI sections and structures in all regions of the world developed and implemented human rights education programs for a wide range of target groups, including teachers, police and other law enforcement officials, journalists, lawyers, health professionals, women’s organizations, indigenous people and youth groups.

Many AI sections and structures played a major role in lobbying for human rights to be included in the curriculum for children’s education, police and military training and other key areas of the tertiary education system.

Activities included courses and workshops, training of trainers, programs in schools, competitions and street dramas.

At the international level a newsletter, web pages and a database were produced to facilitate the exchange of information and expertise on human rights education.

Refugees and asylum-seekers

One of AI’s main activities in the field of asylum is advocacy aimed at strengthening legislation, regulations and other tools for protection of the rights of refugees and asylum-seekers.

¤AI’s EU Office launched a campaign for the EU Council in Seville in June urging EU member states to adopt a human rights perspective to the debate on asylum and migration in Europe.

¤AI Germany presented AI’s concerns on the new migration law to parliament in January. The activities of AI Germany and others led to a change in the law to restore persecution by non-state actors as a ground for refugee status.

¤AI Ireland spearheaded a campaign against the introduction of carrier sanctions. These sanctions, which penalize carriers who transport inadequately documented passengers, including asylum-seekers, are among several restrictive measures states have introduced in recent years in order to limit access to their territory and asylum procedures.

¤AI New Zealand took an active part in a joint NGO lobby group working for an end to arbitrary detention of asylum-seekers.

¤AI UK played a big part in campaigning against provisions in the 2002 Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, helping to inform debates taking place in the UK parliament.

¤AI USA and AI Canada worked vigorously to challenge a "safe third country" agreement between the USA and Canada.

In many countries, there has been a strong increase in AI members actively working on refugee issues.

¤In South Africa, the specialized network of AI members has tripled in size.

Raising awareness of refugee rights

AI aims to raise awareness about the human rights of refugees, asylum-seekers and migrants among the general public and policy-makers.

¤AI Australia ran a major refugee campaign that included the "Faces of Hope" photographic display of 10,000 faces, launched in Sydney on International Human Rights Day on 10 December.

¤AI Belgium organized a series of visits to open refugee centres for AI members.

¤AI Czech Republic ran a Christmas project in Brno to collect toys and books for refugee and asylum-seeking children.

¤AI Turkey conducted several training seminars on refugee issues for people working with refugees and asylum-seekers.

World Refugee Day

AI sections organized a number of activities for World Refugee Day on 20 June.

¤AI Luxembourg celebrated the courage of women refugees.

¤AI Germany organized a symposium in cooperation with the UNHCR on refugee protection in Europe.

¤AI Malaysia organized a forum on the refugee situation in Malaysia, with speakers from local NGOs and the UNHCR.

Human rights and economic relations

AI’s Business and Economic Relations Network seeks to increase the number of companies and economic institutions taking measures to protect and promote human rights.

¤AI’s Business and Economic Relations Network collaborated with other NGOs on a sustained campaign on "conflict diamonds" which resulted during 2002 in the agreement by most diamond producing and trading countries to implement the Kimberley Process Certification system with effect from January 2003. AI welcomed the industry’s commitment to working with governments and civil society on the private sector’s role and responsibility in tracking rough diamonds. However, AI remained concerned about the system’s shortcomings which leave the process open to abuse.

¤In the run-up to the G8 summit of the world’s richest nations, AI asked companies which are participants in the UN Global Compact to put in place policies ensuring that the companies’ own security personnel and any security forces engaged by them are familiar with, and committed to, international guidelines and standards for the use of force in policing.

¤AI asked companies from G8 countries to lobby their respective governments, urging them to control the trade in "conflict diamonds" and other resources which fund the supply of arms in armed conflict areas and contribute to human rights abuses.

Military, security and police transfers

AI’s Military, Security and Police Transfers Network campaigns to increase the accountability of governments and businesses involved in the manufacture and trading of arms and security equipment, and those providing police or security training. AI’s members urge all those involved in military, security and police transfers to consider the human rights implications of their operations.

Actions during 2002 included:

¤AI members campaigned for better laws on arms exports in Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Italy, Slovakia, Spain, the UK and the USA. In almost all cases, positive developments followed.

¤A commitment by the G8 countries to tackle international arms brokering and trafficking followed AI lobbying of the G8 Summit in Canada, under the slogan No Arms for Atrocities.

¤AI worked to develop the text of an International Arms Trade Treaty and promoted it with key governments.

¤AI’s work to ban the trade in torture equipment contributed to an improvement by the US Department of Commerce in the regulations governing US crime control exports. AI also published a report on US foreign military and police training in over 150 countries, after which an important legal change to protect human rights was brought in.

¤AI continued to campaign for strict national controls on the trade and use of security equipment. It organized an International Expert Meeting on Security Equipment and the Prevention of Torture in London in October, which was attended by 40 international experts.

¤AI submitted proposals to the European Commission to draw up a law to prevent the trade in torture equipment and security equipment used for torture. A draft EU regulation governing this trade was issued to the 15 member states in December.

¤With the 500-plus members of the NGO alliance on small arms, AI helped promote the creation of a UN Rapporteur on Small Arms.

¤AI members campaigned for better weapons collection and destruction programs in countries saturated with small arms, such as Afghanistan, Angola and Sierra Leone.

¤AI campaigned on policing in the Southern African region, with a special report released internationally, and workshops with AI members in the region to build awareness of human rights standards for policing.

¤Projects on human rights and policing in other countries were developed, including in Afghanistan, Jamaica and Timor-Leste.

¤AI Philippines organized a three-day training workshop for members and other NGOs in the Philippines and the region to study the problem of abuses committed with small arms and security equipment.

¤AI addressed large rallies and provided workshops on arms control at the European Social Forum in Florence, Italy, in November.

INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

Throughout 2002, AI continued its efforts to further its human rights work by seeking to influence international and regional organizations in terms of both campaigning against ongoing human rights abuses and promoting international standards for the protection of human rights. Below are some of the highlights of AI's work with these organizations.

UN Headquarters, New York

AI has urged the Security Council to pay attention to the human rights consequences of the adoption of Security Council Resolution 1373, which called for sweeping measures to combat "terrorism" and established a Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC). In June AI submitted information to the CTC on several states taking measures which violated human rights, including the right to life and the right to freedom of expression. Other measures taken fell far short of international legal safeguards for arrest, detention and fair trial, including the presumption of innocence. The CTC informed AI that the information had been circulated to the CTC members but did not indicate any action taken by the CTC as a result. AI also expressed concern to the Chair of the CTC, Ambassador Greenstock (United Kingdom), inter alia, that the CTC guidelines to states did not require states to specify how in implementing Resolution 1373 they were also respecting their obligations under human rights treaties to which they were a party, and that reports to the CTC were not scrutinized by UN human rights experts. Despite interest from some states and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Security Council refused to appoint a human rights expert to advise states on how best to meet their human rights obligations when implementing Resolution 1373. In view of the CTC's refusal to take account of human rights concerns, AI looked to the UN’s main human rights body – the UN Commission on Human Rights – and the UN General Assembly to address this deficit (see below).

During the year AI participated in informal briefings arranged by the Security Council on the human rights situation in the Great Lakes region and Sierra Leone, and provided the Council with information on other countries including Afghanistan and Liberia. It also followed closely Resolution 1441 on Iraq. On Israel/Occupied Territories, AI called for the deployment of a team of independent experts to investigate alleged human rights abuses in Jenin. AI also raised concerns about attempts to exempt UN peace-keepers from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and urged the Council to adopt stronger measures to control small arms and light weapons.

After 10 years of often difficult negotiations the UN General Assembly (GA) adopted in December an Optional Protocol (OP) to the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The OP, which was to enter into force upon the 20th ratification, was an important addition to existing international standards to eradicate torture, aiming to prevent acts of torture before they occur. It establishes a system of regular visits to places of detention by an international body of experts, complemented by sustained regular visits conducted by national visiting bodies.

AI also campaigned for a GA resolution on the protection of human rights and "counter-terrorism". The initiative for the resolution came from the government of Mexico and was a welcome first step in ensuring that states respect human rights when taking measures to combat "terrorism", in particular as required by Security Council Resolution 1373. The GA resolution, adopted in November, reaffirmed state responsibility to protect human rights and that certain rights are non-derogable. It also asked the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to monitor the situation, make recommendations to states on the protection of human rights when taking steps to counter "terrorism", and report to the Commission on Human Rights and the GA.

AI participated in the UN GA Special Session on Children with a specific focus on ratification of relevant international instruments, including on child soldiers and the imposition of the death penalty on those aged under 18 at the time the offence was committed. AI also joined with others in advocating that the outcome document of the Special Session must have a rights-based framework and use the Convention on the Rights of the Child as the framework for all work on children's issues at every level – national, regional and international.

UN Geneva

In advance of the March-April 2002 Commission on Human Rights (the Commission), AI identified six priority countries – Colombia, Indonesia, Israel/Occupied Territories, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe – and five priority themes – the death penalty, "disappearances", the draft Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, human rights and "counter-terrorism", and follow-up to the World Conference against Racism. On AI's country priorities, the Commission adopted resolutions on Israel/Occupied Territories and a chairperson's statement on Colombia and East Timor, but draft resolutions on Russia and Zimbabwe failed. The Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers visited Saudi Arabia in October – the first ever visit to that country by a UN human rights thematic mechanism. AI had worked towards this for more than eight years through both the confidential 1503 procedure and public sessions of the Commission. Resolutions which reflected AI's concerns were adopted on the abolition of the death penalty, the draft convention on "disappearances", and the draft Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. A Mexican draft resolution on the protection of human rights and "counter-terrorism" for which AI had lobbied was withdrawn on the last day of the Commission in the face of strong opposition from the USA and several other countries. The Commission also decided to undertake a review to enhance its effectiveness. Throughout the year AI participated actively in this review with a specific focus on strengthening the human rights mechanisms of the Commission, specifically the special rapporteurs and working groups, and on a commitment by Commission members to human rights protection.

As part of its work to raise the profile of the Commission's thematic mechanisms, AI worked in cooperation with the Law Society of England and Wales to produce a new version of the publication The United Nations Thematic Mechanisms: 2002 (AI Index: IOR 40/009/2002). AI's International Secretariat in London, United Kingdom, also hosted visits by representatives of thematic mechanisms, including the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, and the new Special Rapporteur on the right to health. Throughout the year AI submitted cases to a broad range of human rights mechanisms and prepared briefings prior to their visits to countries such as Australia, Bolivia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Georgia, Guatemala, Indonesia, Macedonia, Russian Federation, Thailand, Turkey and Uzbekistan. AI also hosted an international expert meeting with the Special Rapporteur on torture on security equipment and the prevention of torture.

AI observed the 54th session of the Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. During the plenary sessions AI made oral statements supporting the development of human rights principles for transnational corporations and calling on governments to adopt legislation to control and monitor the supply and demand for small arms and light weapons. AI also lobbied around the issue of human rights and "terrorism", and supported a call for an optional protocol to be drafted setting up an individual complaints mechanism for the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

In 2002, AI continued to actively protect the rights of asylum-seekers, displaced persons, refugees and migrants. The organization contributed in particular to the Agenda for Protection of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), a key product of the UNHCR Global Consultations on International Protection. In collaboration with other non-governmental organizations (NGOs), AI also pressed for a wider engagement of the non-government sector in international standard-setting, notably with regard to the conclusions of the UNHCR Executive Committee. AI sought to strengthen its work with relevant special procedures, including the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants. AI also participated in an important discussion on "when displacement ends" led by the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General on internally displaced persons. AI's work was increasingly concerned with the rights of migrants and other non-nationals, and in November AI became an observer to the Governing Council of the International Organization for Migration.

AI attended the Annual Meeting of the Chairpersons of the treaty-monitoring bodies and focused on the importance of ensuring follow-up to treaty-body recommendations. In particular, AI emphasized the need for such recommendations to inform the work of the UN agencies and UN technical cooperation programs, and for treaty bodies to better collaborate with NGOs in order that they may more effectively demand implementation at the national level. AI provided treaty-monitoring bodies with country-specific information including: the Committee against Torture (Egypt, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia and Spain); the Committee on the Rights of the Child (Israel and UK); the Human Rights Committee (Egypt, Gambia (in closed session and without government representatives), Georgia, Togo, Viet Nam and Yemen); the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (Canada); and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (Russian Federation, Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago). Following the publication of the Committee against Torture’s report on Sri Lanka under the Committee’s Article 20 procedure, AI wrote to the Committee to seek clarification about the Committee’s findings. AI was particularly concerned that despite a disturbing number of cases of torture and ill-treatment the Committee found that the practice of torture was not systematic.

Prior to the International Labour Conference of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) in June, AI issued Fundamental rights at work(AI Index: IOR 42/001/2002) which called on member states which had not done so to promptly ratify eight fundamental labour conventions which formed the basis of the 1998 ILO Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (the ILO Declaration). AI also drew attention to specific concerns, including forced labour and violation of the right to freedom of association, in China, Colombia, Mauritania and Myanmar.

Regional intergovernmental organizations

In advance of the July summit of the Organization of African Unity (OAU)/African Union (AU) in Durban, South Africa, AI published African Union: A New Opportunity for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in Africa(AI Index: IOR 63/002/2002). The report looked at the transformation of the OAU into the AU and the opportunities for the political and other organs created by the Constitutive Act to reinforce the promotion and protection of human rights in Africa. The report challenged African leaders to ensure that the AU strive to enhance the realization of human and peoples’ rights in Africa.

Throughout the year AI campaigned for ratification of the Protocol establishing the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (see, for example, African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights: An opportunity to strengthen human rights protection in Africa,AI Index: IOR 63/001/2002). The Protocol required 15 ratifications to enter into force but only six African states had ratified it by the end of the year: Burkina Faso, Gambia, Mali, Senegal, Uganda and South Africa. AI attended the first session of the African Committee on the Rights and Welfare of the Child and participated in the discussion on the Committee’s rules of procedure and methodology. At sessions of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, AI drew the Commission’s attention to human rights violations in Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, Liberia and Zimbabwe, and to the serious situation faced by human rights defenders in Africa.

Through its European Union (EU) office in Brussels and its offices in EU member states, AI continued to press the EU to put its human rights policies into practice more effectively, not only in external relations but also regarding human rights problems within its own borders. AI’s major reports on Greece and Spain contributed to pushing for a proper system of accountability at EU level, all the more urgent with 10 countries set to join the EU in 2004.

AI addressed substantial memorandums to EU summit meetings with its Mediterranean and Latin American partners. Appeals were made to the EU to raise human rights concerns in its dealings with countries such as Algeria, China, Colombia, Iran, Israel, Tunisia, Turkey, Russian Federation and Zimbabwe. On these and other countries, AI pressed for more active use of the EU’s specific instruments such as the guidelines against torture and against the death penalty, and the human rights clause in its agreements with third countries.

In response to the build-up of anti-immigrant sentiment before the June EU summit in Seville, Spain, AI campaigned forcefully to inject a human rights perspective into debates that threatened further fortification of Europe at the expense of the EU’s key human rights obligations including the right to asylum. (Refugee issues are dealt with in the previous section, AI in action.)

The European Parliament (EP) began to respond to AI’s critique that it should strengthen its human rights role and to focus on holding the European Council and European Commission accountable. This included a personal pledge from newly elected EP President Pat Cox (Ireland).

The conference on the Future of Europe responded positively to calls from AI and others for human rights to be anchored more firmly, by incorporating the Charter of Fundamental Rights in a new constitutional treaty, and by accession of the EU to the European Convention on Human Rights. AI was also active in advocating a stronger EU role in the world in pursuit of sustainable development and human rights goals.

AI participated actively through written submissions and oral interventions in the elaboration of Council of Europe "Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on human rights and the fight against terrorism". AI continued to monitor proposals to reform the European Court of Human Rights. AI was particularly concerned at a proposal to allow the Court to decline applications "which raised no substantial issue" under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. If adopted, this proposal would mean that the Court would no longer have to issue rulings on all cases, in effect limiting the right of individuals to seek redress before the Court. In January AI joined forces with other NGOs and produced a Joint Response to the reform proposals. Throughout the year, AI continued to encourage other NGOs to sign the Joint Response, and to push governments in Council of Europe member states to hold consultation meetings on the reform proposals with civil society in their countries. AI also undertook a number of actions to persuade states to ratify Protocol No. 13, which abolishes the death penalty in all circumstances.

At the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) AI participated in the September session of the Human Dimension Implementation Meeting and contributed to the discussions with oral interventions and written statements on fair trial concerns in the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 attacks in the USA, the death penalty and violence against women. During the year AI also participated in OSCE meetings on human rights defenders and violence against women.

At the General Assembly (GA) of the Organization of American States (OAS) in Barbados in June, AI focused on the draft Inter-American Convention against Terrorism, as well as on human rights defenders, ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, strengthening of the Inter-American system for the protection of human rights, the draft Inter-American Convention against Racism and All Forms of Discrimination and Intolerance, and child soldiers. The GA adopted the Inter-American Convention against Terrorism which included an article on respect for international human rights law, international humanitarian law and international law on refugees. In a resolution on human rights defenders, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights was invited to elaborate on and analyse the situation of human rights defenders in the Americas, and to cooperate with the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General on human rights defenders. The GA also adopted resolutions urging ratification of the Rome Statute and promoting the elaboration of a draft convention against racism and all forms of discrimination and intolerance. The issue of child soldiers was addressed in a resolution on promotion of and respect for international humanitarian law which stated that "the particular protection and assistance needs of women and children in situations of armed conflict must be effectively addressed". The GA welcomed the May 2000 adoption of the UN Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict. As part of the international Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, AI issued a press release welcoming the adoption of this resolution and stressing the need to respond to affected children in the Americas region, including direct and indirect participation in armed conflict, forced displacement and the growth of organized armed gangs. OAS member states were urged to ratify and implement the Optional Protocol, to support programs for prevention and assistance, and to establish as 18 the minimum age for recruitment. In November AI was confirmed as an accredited organization with the OAS.

Impunity: the International Criminal Court

AI continued its active engagement with the Coalition for an International Criminal Court in a year which saw the 60th ratification of the Rome Statute, triggering its entry into force on 1 July. Thirty-nine states ratified the Rome Statute in 2002, bringing the total at the end of the year to 87. AI continued to lobby states to ratify the Rome Statute and to incorporate the treaty into their national laws. As the ICC became operational, AI urged governments to establish transparent processes for the nomination of judges to the ICC including consultation with civil society. AI spoke against the adoption in July of UN Security Council Resolution 1422 as not consistent with the Rome Statute, UN Charter and international law. The resolution requests the ICC – without consideration of the facts – to defer all cases where persons taking part in UN Security Council-established and authorized peace-keeping operations are accused of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, if they are nationals of states that have not ratified the Rome Statute. AI also urged governments to reject US requests to enter into impunity agreements not to surrender to the ICC US nationals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Selected AI reports

• 2002 UN Commission on Human Rights: Rights at risk (AI Index: IOR 41/025/2001)

• Rights at risk: Amnesty International’s concerns regarding security legislation and law enforcement measures (AI Index: ACT 30/001/2002)

• The United Nations Thematic Mechanisms 2002: An overview of their work and mandates (AI Index: IOR 40/009/2002)

• International Criminal Court: Checklist to ensure the nomination of the highest qualified candidates for judges (AI Index: IOR 40/023/2002)

• International Criminal Court: US efforts to obtain impunity for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes (AI Index: IOR 40/025/2002)

• Statements and press releases issued by Amnesty International during the 58th Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights (AI Index: IOR 41/021/2002)

• The Arab Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism: A serious threat to human rights (AI Index: IOR 51/001/2002)

• Universal Jurisdiction: Belgian court has jurisdiction in Sharon case to investigate 1982 Sabra and Chatila killings (AI Index: IOR 53/001/2002)

• African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights: An opportunity to strengthen human rights protection in Africa (AI Index: IOR 63/001/2002)

• African Union: A new opportunity for the promotion and protection of human rights in Africa (AI Index: IOR 63/002/2002)

EU Office (available on www.amnesty-eu.org)

• The human rights agenda for the EU in 2002: AI Memorandum to the Spanish Presidency (EU Office, January 2002)

• A critical assessment of the European Parliament’s 2002 human rights reports (EU Office, March 2002)

• Towards sustainable peace and security: The human rights imperative for the Barcelona process (EU Office, April 2002)

• Settle the past, safeguard the future: AI memorandum to the EU-Latin America Summit (EU Office, May 2002)

• EU war on "illegal immigration" puts human rights at risk: AI appeal to the Seville Summit (EU Office,

June 2002)

• The EU and human rights: Time to change – AI memorandum to the Danish Presidency (EU Office, June 2002)

• Turkey: Briefing on present state of human rights development during the pre-accession process (EU Office, September 2002)

• Human rights in Chechnya: a litmus test for EU-Russia relations (EU Office, November 2002)

• Missing: A common asylum policy that is ambitious, coherent and protection-centred – AI open letter to Justice and Home Affairs Council (EU Office, November 2002)

The treaties tables are only available in hard copy or as Acrobat PDF.

********