In Washington, D.C. on February 15-16 stakeholders fromaround the world, including UNCAT Chairperson, Claudio Grossman and UN SpecialRapporteur on Torture, Juan Mendez, and PHR staff, will participate in the“Forensic Evidence in the Fight Against Torture” conference, co-sponsored bythe International Council for Torture Victims and American UniversityWashington College of Law.

This unique 2-day conference willinclude both plenary sessions and panels, where experts from over 20 countrieswill share national, regional and international best practices, challenges andemerging developments in the field.

Conference registration is free but required – please go to www.wcl.american.edu/secle/registration to register.

Last week, Human Rights USA (HRUSA)and the International Human Rights Clinic at Washington College of Law,American University released their much-awaited report, “Indefensible: A Reference for Prosecuting Torture and Other Felonies.”  With the goal of demonstrating that criminal accountabilityfor torture is possible, the report applies a legal framework to the voluminousamount of evidence which shows that high-ranking government officialsauthorized torture and other cruelty when detaining and interrogating detaineescaptured after September 11th.

The report provides clear andconcise legal analysis on the torture debate. From the authority to prosecutegovernment officials, to the proof of abuses at the highest levels, to violationsof U.S. and International law, it truly is an encyclopedic “reference” in thefight for accountability.

The report was launched at awell-attended presentation and panel discussion at Washington College of Law inWashington DC. The event showcased a panel of speakers including Benjamin G. Davis ofthe University of Toledo College of Law, David M. Crane of SyracuseUniversity College of Law, John Sifton of HumanRights Watch, Richard J. Wilson of AUCollege of Law, and Allison M. Lefrak ofHRUSA. Each of the panelists brought their own unique experience to bear on theissues of torture and accountability. 

Professor Davis outlined the variousmechanisms by which accountability might be achieved and made clear that civilsociety must also play a continuing role in both accountability and preventionof further abuse:  “We have to set down amarker that inside America you don’t torture, and outside America you don’ttorture.

Professor Wilson, thoughexpressing that the “odds of prosecution are a long shot,” stressed that up tothis point in the history of the torture debates, there “has only been onestory.”  The new report gives voice tothe other story—that torture is immoral and illegal.  All panelists made clear that the Americanpeople need to take a public stand and loudly voice their opposition to torture.   

PHR stands proudly with theauthors of this important report in hopes that it will form the foundation ofmany future efforts at calling to task those who participated in the US regimeof torture. “Justified” torture stands as both a moral and legal travesty, andallowing its use makes a mockery of us all.    

Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) applauds members of Congress whowrote to the King of Bahrain, His Majesty Shaikh Hamad Bin Isa Al-Khalifa, torequest open access for non-governmental organizations (NGOs). PHR was recentlydenied entry to Bahrain to continue its human rights investigation despiteprevious assurances from the Government of Bahrain.

Given the ongoing unrest in the country, the Government of Bahrainshould embrace openness and transparency in its dealings with the internationalcommunity. NGOs can provide international independent monitoring of thesituation in Bahrain and can further human rights protections.

PHR thanks Representative Jim McDermott (D-WA) for taking the lead onthis bicameral letter, and Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) for co-signing. Othersupporters of the letter include Keith Ellison (D-MN), Donald Payne (D-NJ),Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Jim McGovern (D-MA), Mike Honda (D-CA), John Conyers(D-MI), Trent Franks (R-AZ), John Carter (R-TX), and Jim Moran (D-VA).

PHR looks forward to greater openness on the part of the Bahrainigovernment and will continue to advocate for an end to attacks on civilians.

This is a blog posting from Dina Fine Maron and M. Francesca Monn, writing from Mae Sot, Thailand, a town on the border with Burma. Maron and Monn are interning with PHR for the month, collecting information about medical conditions and human rights abuses inside Burma’s prisons. This research is being completed with the help of Assistance Association for Political Prisoners-Burma (AAPP-B), a Thailand-based advocacy group consisting of former Burmese political prisoners.  Many AAPP-B employees have generously shared their experiences in prison to supplement our knowledge. 

Until a massive prisoner release in January, more than 1,000 of Burma’s citizens, according to the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners- Burma (AAPP-B), were locked away in Burma’s prisons because of their political beliefs and their perceived or real involvement in resisting Burma’s military junta government.

AAPP, a group that documents these arrests, maintains that these prisoners’ fates are unjust; political prisoners are charged under laws designed to curb free speech and expression and are sent to prison without any opportunity to mount a defense for themselves or consult a lawyer. Many of these political prisoners were released in mid-January – in some cases stepping out from beyond prison walls for the first time in decades – but hundreds of political prisoners remain locked in prisons across the country, according to the AAPP. 

Testimony from a series of interviews held with former political prisoners revealed that torture in prison is common, and can include beatings and deprivation of sleep, food, and water for days on end. Prisoners are also commonly subjected to conditions including solitary confinement that collectively amount to psychological torture.

While conditions in Burma’s 42 prisons and 100+ labor camps are quite poor, political prisoners face particularly harsh and life-threatening conditions. They are also frequently denied necessary medical treatment.

The conditions faced by Burmese political prisoners do not meet the UN Standard Minimum Treatment of Prisoners or Burmese prisons regulations drawn up more than a century ago. Burma’s own Prisons Act of 1894 sets a low threshold for health care in prisons.

Those regulations call for:

• Transfer of ill prisoners to outside health facilities when their conditions warrant increased medical attention 
• Separation of sick and healthy prisoners
• Medical care for any ill prisoners
• A health clinic in each prison
• A qualified medical professional on staff in each prison
• Weekly inspection of prisons by medical professionals to ensure sanitary conditions and decent food quality

The testimony of former political prisoners and those familiar with the conditions inside Burma’s prisons has made it clear that these expectations have not been met. It is therefore crucial to call for improved prison conditions as well as the immediate, unconditional release of all remaining political prisoners.  

Check back for more information about Maron and Monn’s trip and the conditions faced by Burmese prisoners.

 

The US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) achieved a new milestone a few days ago when it released a newly-created training module, “Guidance for Adjudicating Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (LGBTI) Refugee and Asylum Claims.”

This is the first comprehensive LGBTI training guide that USCIS has provided to its asylum officers, who are responsible for deciding whether thousands of LGBTI asylum seekers are eligible to receive asylum every year. The training module is a result of collaboration between USCIS and Immigration Equality, a national legal aid and advocacy organization whose mission is to advocate and fight for equal immigration benefits for individuals within the LGBTI community.

Individuals may seek asylum in the US by showing that they have been victims of persecution in the past, or that they have a well-founded fear of future persecution in their countries, on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

For asylum purposes, LGBTI claims usually fall under the “particular social group” category. Yet without a heightened awareness of cultural norms, treatment of LGBTI populations, and legal and moral standards in an asylum seeker’s home country, it can be difficult for asylum officers to pinpoint exactly why an LGBTI applicant is afraid of returning to his or her home country.

This training module is aimed at ensuring that asylum officers are able to identify issues specific to LGBTI asylum claims and grant asylum to LGBTI applicants who face persecution because of their sexual orientation or gender identity in their home countries.

While guidance already exists for other types of asylum claims, claims made by LGBTI individuals often involve unique issues. In conducting asylum interviews, asylum officers must be sensitive to issues of sexual orientation and gender identity. This training module provides new resources that should be extremely helpful for asylum officers.

For example, it contains “essential LGBTI definitions,” as well as lists of appropriate questions for officers to use during interviews. Specifically defined are terms such as intersex, transgender, and sexual orientation, which may not always be intuitive for asylum officers. Legal definitions pertaining to requirements for asylum petitions are also provided.

The module also includes LGBTI-specific examples of harm which may be evidence of persecution. It is vital for asylum officers to have an understanding of different types of persecution that are particular to LGBTI applicants.

Additionally, the training module extends the possible list of exceptions to the one-year filing deadline imposed on asylum seekers. The exceptions, including recent HIV diagnosis or recent steps to transition from birth gender to corrected gender, often prevent LGBTI asylum seekers from filing their claims within one year of their arrival in the US.

The training module is an important achievement for USCIS. There has been a clear need for additional safeguards to protect LGBTI applicants. This training module has the potential to not only affect interviews, but also to ignite a change in the mindset of asylum officers and the legal community relating to LGBTI applicants. It provides instruction and education to asylum officers, while at the same time shedding light on the difficulties that this group of asylum applicants faces.

In a press release marking this accomplishment, Immigration Equality wrote that this training module “will be a welcome tool for officers, attorneys and applicants who must work together to ensure our country remains a safe haven for those escaping often unspeakable persecution abroad.” If utilized, this resource will offer LGBTI applicants an opportunity equal to any other asylum seeker in making their claim.

This is a blog posting from Dina Fine Maron and M. Francesca Monn, writing from Mae Sot, Thailand, a town on the border with Burma. Maron and Monn are interning with PHR for the month, collecting information about medical conditions and human rights abuses inside Burma’s prisons. This research is being completed with the help of Assistance Association for Political Prisoners-Burma (AAPP-B), a Thailand-based advocacy group consisting of former Burmese political prisoners.  Many AAPP-B employees have generously shared their experiences in prison to supplement our knowledge. 

 

For political prisoners in Burma, access to healthcare is rare.

 

Burma’s most famous prison, Insein, is one of the few prisons with its own doctors. Known for its dismal conditions and for using harsh torture methods during interrogations, Insein often holds political prisoners in the months prior to their hearing and for large portions of their sentences. According to AAPP, the prison usually has three doctors for a population of an estimated 9,000-10,000 prisoners.

 

Other major prisons that hold political detainees, such as Sittwe, Tharawaddy and Thayet, do not have their own doctors. Instead, government-appointed physicians are assigned to visit the prisons on certain days. If inmates become ill during the nights, weekends, and days when doctors are not on the prison grounds, they do not have access to treatment. In a prison system that utilizes torture, and in which malnutrition, close quarters and unsanitary conditions may exacerbate health issues, meeting even the basic health needs of prisoners requires the constant availability of adequately trained medical professionals.

 

When medical assistance is available, it is often provided by a medic rather than a physician. In many cases, these medics are merely prison guards who have received training in rudimentary medical procedures. Even when patients have access to doctors, the medications they require are rarely available and permission must be granted by military intelligence officials before inmates can be transferred to hospitals. Some political prisoners have reported that they believe seeing a prison doctor is futile since they will not receive the care they need. Others report that it is common for prisoners to be denied transfer to hospitals for life-saving care.

 

In Burma, most prisoners are allowed to visit with their families twice a month, a practice which gives them access to supplemental food and medications. Food-borne illness and malnutrition are common in Burmese prisons, and medications are generally limited to common painkillers. However, political prisoners are often sent to remote prisons far from their families, forcing them to subsist on what little the prison provides.

 

Burmese political prisoners have organized to bring about changes in prison conditions, and have attained small victories such as being allowed to wash out their cells once a week. Despite these efforts, conditions for political prisoners overall remain considerably worse than those faced by most criminals. Nonetheless, the Burmese government does not officially recognize that there is any distinction between the types of prisoners, and continues to deny that “political prisoners” exist within its penal system.

Check back for more information about Maron and Monn’s trip and the conditions faced by Burmese prisoners.

Over the last month, the Bahraini police have been using tear gas almost every night against protesters in residential areas. Specifically, thepolice have been targeting the Shi’a neighborhoods of Iker, Sitra, Nuwadrat,and Ma’ameer. While there are international guidelines for the proper use oftear gas, victims of such attacks describe the police using tear gas inappropriately – including firing into homes and other closed spaces. Such inappropriate use can have disastrous consequences. Since the start of the unrest in February 2011, at least 13 civilians have died from exposure to the tear gas, according to Bahraini civil society groups. They note that those who die from tear gas inhalation are usually people who are already vulnerable due to old age or disease, which make the gas’s effects more deadly.

One of these victims was a newborn baby who was in her own homewhen she was exposed to the gas. She died on December 11^th when shewas just 6 days old. 14-year-old Yasseen Al Asfoor was the most recent victimof government misuse of tear gas against protestors; he suffered fromrespiratory problems and tear gas killed him on January 22^nd.

A Bahraini doctor told Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) that she believesthat the government is using a new kind of tear gas that is more dangerous. Butwithout knowing the active ingredient, she has been struggling to treatpatients:

“I wasexposed to different types of gas when I went to (the village of) Sitra—a whitegas and a yellow one, but I also saw a third gas of a blue color from adistance.  The gas felt like a poison,like a thousand knives and needles all over your body; what kind of tear gas issupposed to affect people this way? I have seen tear gas patients who are in a stateof convulsion that never ends, like a prolonged seizure… Before the tear gasthat was being used had ‘Pennsylvania, USA’ written on it, now the canistersare just blank with no labels. It is impossible to know what the contents are.”

Other Bahraini doctors also noted that the symptoms of the teargas were unusual. When they asked the Ministry of Health to run tests on thegas canisters, their requests were denied. Since the long-term effects ofprolonged and repeated exposure to tear gas has never been studied, physiciansin Bahrain have begun to worry about the impact that repeated exposure to thesechemicals may have on the general population.

Because the Bahraini government has demonstrated it cannot betrusted to use riot-control materials in a manner consistent with internationalguidelines, the U.S. should not authorize additional sales of tear gas andrelated materials to Bahrain. PHR urges the U.S. Administration to ensure thatit does not grant export licenses for tear gas and other materials that may beimproperly used against civilians. The Administration should also ensurecomprehensive end-use monitoring of all U.S. items sent to Bahrain that may beused during the ongoing attacks. Additionally, PHR welcomes the U.S.Administration’s decision to delay a pending $53 million arms sale to Bahrain,and encourages the Administration to continue to block such a sale absentsignificant human rights improvements in the country. There is a resolution inboth the House and Senate (H.J. Res. 80/S.J. Res. 28) that would block thissale absent enumerated improvements including ending attacks on civilians andholding any perpetrators of these attacks accountable, dropping politically-motivatedcriminal charges, and reinstating dismissed public employees.

The Government’s continued attacks on civilians demonstrate that therehas been little improvement in Bahrain since the release of the report of theBahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry, chaired by international law expertCherif Bassiouni. The report detailed instances of torture, killings, arbitrarydetention, and excessive use of force. Included in the report were keyrecommendations, some of which involve establishing an impartial accountabilitymechanism to bring those responsible for human rights violations to justice,investigating alleged acts of torture using forensic experts, and droppingcharges against those wrongly convicted. The Government of Bahrain isconsidering methods of implementing the recommendations, and announcements ofits action plan are expected next month. The U.S. and the rest of theinternational community should approach those announcements with full knowledgeof the Government’s ongoing attacks against civilian populations. In themeantime, the international community must demand an end to attacks oncivilians, a thorough investigation of incidents since the release of theCommission of Inquiry report, and accountability for all those responsible.

Doctors in Libya are still under attack – even though the Libyan conflict officially ended last August. In December 2011, Qaddafi loyalists attacked the Director of Tripoli’s Central Hospital, holding him at gunpoint and forcibly detaining him and doctors went on strike after another doctor was assaulted on hospital property.

These attacks constitute egregious violations of medical neutrality,which prohibits attacks on medical professionals, facilities, and patients,protects patients’ right to access healthcare, and guards health professionals’right to treat any individual in need of medical assistance, regardless of background or identity. Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) documented violations of medical neutrality in Libya during the conflict in 2011 – violations that represent a disturbing trend of attacks on the medical profession amidst armed conflict and civil unrest.

Attacks on the medical profession, if left to continue unabated,will erode patients’ access to necessary care and amplify damage against the civilian population. Transitional government authorities must abide by their international treaty obligations to ensure security for both patients and doctors within the neutral space of health care facilities. Doctors must be able to provide care to all patients regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or political affiliation. Without this unbiased care and access to medical treatment, all Libyans will continue to suffer.