After five years in detention, asylum seeker GlorismelCenteno Ortiz was finally released on September 29 2011. Centenospent nearly two years in federal custody for criminal charges that wereultimately dismissed and then another three years in immigration detention.Centeno is one of thousands of immigrants that languish indefinitely indetention for years, waiting for the day they will finally be deported orreleased.

Centeno was 11-years-old when he and his mother fled thebrutal violence of the Salvadoran civil war and landed in Los Angeles. As ateenager without much opportunity, Centeno became entangled with gangs and wasconvicted of armed robbery. Even though his asylum application was stillpending, he was deported back to El Salvador. When Centeno returned to LA toreunite with his mother, he sought counseling from Homies Unidos, a non-profit organizationthat helps young men leave gangs. He reestablished a noble life in the US-volunteering with gang-affected youth, working three jobs, and raising a son. In2007, after a night out with friends in Tijuana, Centeno was arrested at theborder and charged with criminal illegal reentry after deportation. Thecriminal charges were dismissed in July 2008, but he remained in immigration detentionfor several years until his release last week.

Although immigration detention is meant to be civil (ratherthan punitive), the conditions are usually no different than those whereconvicted felons are held. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) houses thevast majority of immigration detainees in prisons and prison-like facilities. Detainedasylum seekers wear prison uniforms and are typically locked up for up to 23hours a day. They have essentially no outdoor access and often may visit withfamily only through Plexiglas barriers.

Centeno’s case was complex and took an unacceptable amountof time to wind its way through the justice and immigration systems. Thegovernment did not bring criminal charges against him, so he was not convictedof anything, but the government wouldn’t release him for two years. Then he wastransferred to immigration detention, where he was denied a bond hearing, theprocess which determines whether locking someone up is justified, and helanguished in immigration detention for another three years. He had no idea asto when or whether he would be released.

Indefinite detentioncreates a high degree of uncertainty and uncontrollability that manifests inpsychological and physical harms. Some of these harms are chronic anxiety anddread, levels of stress that damage immune and nervous systems, depression, suicide,and enduring personality changes and permanent estrangement from family andcommunity. These health harms are even more debilitating for asylum seekerslike Centeno, who have often been traumatized by events in their homecountries. The negative psychological and physical effects associated withindefinite detention worsen existing symptoms of trauma and diminish thelikelihood that real healing can occur.

Indefinite detention is unconstitutional and should beconsidered cruel, inhuman treatment for asylum seekers who have already beensubjected to persecution. DHS should strictly limit detention of asylum seekersand must do better to ensure that individuals who do not pose a security threator flight risk have the opportunity to pursue release from detention.

In the last two weeks the international press has applauded the Burmese government as it made some important steps toward democracy. In early October the government halted construction on a dam project on theIrrawaddy River, saying “it was against the will of the people.” This week, the government freed 206 political prisoners.

The US government has responded enthusiastically and hinted that it will, “Meet their action with action,” according to the special envoy to Burma, Derek Mitchell. There’s no denying that these events could be milestones in the transition from a military dictatorship to a democracy, but more must be done before Burma can be called a democracy or before the US should consider easing pressure on the Burmese government.

Despite the release of 206 political prisoners, there ares till more than 1,000 political prisoners behind bars. The token release of a handful of prisoners is insufficient. The international community must maintain pressure on Burma until all political prisoners are released.

Although construction has stopped on the Myitsone dam inKachin state, the dam isn’t the only project in Burma that is protested by the Burmese people. Oil and gas pipelines, the deep water Dawei port project, a transport project in Arakan State and a dozen other dams in the country are all under construction. Rights groups have accused the government of using the army to clear civilians from the development areas without properly compensating them, and the army has committed its usual battery of human rights abuses in the process.  Most of these projects are in areas where ethnic minorities live and these groups rarely benefit from the development projects.

PHR recently finished an investigation in Kachin state which found that the Army was committing human rights abuses against the minorities there. The Kachin Women’s Association of Thailand has documented rapes and gang rapes of 34 women and girls by the Burma Army, and a gang rape by the army was reported as recently as last Friday. Over 40,000 Kachin civilians have fled their homes in fear of the Burma Army. Still, the Burmese government has denied that civilians are being displaced and has refused to provide relief for a majority of these people.

Other ethnic areas are experiencing similar abuses.  In Shan state, the Burma Army has recently implemented its “four cuts” policy, aimed at depriving opposition groups of food, funds, information, and recruits. The impact on the civilian population has been devastating. Just this summer, Shan Women’s Action Network and Shan Human Rights Foundation reported that the Burma Army has committed several abuses against Shan people, including: forced labor, extrajudicial killings and rape (pdf).

The Burmese government’s abuse of ethnic groups casts a dark shadow on the recent progress made towards democracy. The political prisoner release and the suspension of construction on Myitsone dam must be seen in perspective of everything that is happening in Burma. Of course, they are important steps toward democracy, but the government still has a long way to go. The United States government and others are right to acknowledge these steps forward, but they should be cautious about easing sanctions.  Atrocities are currently being committed on a wide scale by the Burma army and political prisoners remain behind bars.  The international community should continue to exert pressure on Burma.

In August,International Forensic Program (IFP) Director Stefan Schmitt and two of the program’sexpert consultants, Dr. Robert C. Bux and Attorney Nery Osorio, traveled to Bogota,Colombia as part of their ongoing project with local partner organization EQUITAS to support the independent forensicinvestigation of cases of forced disappearance and extrajudicial executions.

First, theteam from PHR met with attorneys for families of “false positive” victimsallegedly executed by the Colombian Military. “False positives” are civilian victimswho have beenfalsely identified by military forces as belonging either to the active guerrillamovement or other illegal armed groups, allowing the military to inflate thenumber of enemies they killed. Some estimate that thousands of civilians mayhave been killed for this purpose.

Forensicexperts working with PHR’s IFP conducted autopsies and reviewed forensicreports by the Colombian authorities in several of these “false positive”cases. As Colombia is in the process of adopting an adversarial court system—whereinan impartial judge hears arguments from opposing sides in a dispute duringtrial—the autopsies and meetings were held in preparation for upcoming trialsof “false positive” cases. This is a monumental step forward for a country thathas long relied on an inquisitorial system of justice, where a state-appointed courtor judge both investigates and rules on a case, which can often lead to biasand inadequate protection for defendants.

Second, PHRheld a workshop with EQUITAS on "The Role of Forensic Experts in Investigationsof Violations of Human Rights," specifically to discuss issues surroundingcross examinations of forensic expert witnesses. Among other topics, PHR’sforensic experts shared their experiences as expert witnesses in internationalcourt systems. Many participants felt that the experiences shared by Dr. Bux and DirectorSchmitt were invaluable, particularly as forensic practitioners from the UnitedStates—a system with a very well-established adversarial court system.

Workshopparticipants includedrepresentatives of variousnon-governmental human rights organizations and delegates from the National Unit of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Lawto the Attorney General's Office. A great deal of time was spent discussing legal strategieswith the prosecutors from the Attorney General’s Office.

 “The three days of work were very helpful andwe believe the impact is quite favorable [for] EQUITAS and the lawyers'organizations we work with,” said Ana Guatame, Co-director of EQUITAS.

The nextsteps in the PHR/EQUITAS project are to continue to monitor these cases as theymove through the Colombian courts, with a distinct possibility of futuretestimony provided by Dr. Bux and/or Ms. Osorio.

In the aftermath of the collapse of Muammar Qaddafi’s Libyan regime, potential evidence of past human rights violations has surfaced. However, even as Libyans navigate the challenges of building a new government, they must also address how to identify and preserve evidence of past crimes.

Reports suggest that a recently discovered mass grave may contain 1,200 victims of a 1996 massacre in Tripoli’s Abu Salim prison. The slaughter was largely covered up by the Libyan government; in fact, many victims’ families were unaware of the deaths for years. The location of the bodies was never revealed.

In a recent interview with Human Rights Watch, Stefan Schmitt, Director of the International Forensic Program at Physicians for Human Rights, described the challenges posed by dealing with this potential evidence.

Schmitt noted how careful exhumations of human remains are essential for any later identification efforts, as well as forensic findings on the cause and manner of death. Hasty attempts to remove bodies, either by victims’ families or Libya’s National Transitional Council (NTC) tend to disarticulate and commingle remains. Therefore, PHR has called for an end to all exhumations and recommends that the grave site be guarded until it can be properly exhumed and the remains examined by forensic specialists. For those families seeking answers, the NTC must communicate their plans for a proper investigation and commitment to justice.

Additionally, numerous mass graves that are the result of killings in the last days of the Gaddafi regime have been discovered in the past few weeks. Along with the infamous prison site at Abu Salim, they may provide important forensic evidence of what actually occurred during Qaddafi’s reign—if the sites are properly examined by experts.

While Libya entered the international spotlight in the last six months as revolutionary forces toppled the oppressive regime of Muammar Qadaffi, the country has a long history of human rights violations. In 2006, PHR was instrumental in securing the release of five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor who had been sentenced to death for allegedly infecting Libyan children with AIDS. In 2008, PHR fought for the release of Fathi al-Jahmi, a Libyan political prisoner who died as a result of his treatment in custody in 2009. This past September, PHR sent a team of experts to Libya where they discovered evidence of widespread human rights violations committed during the recent conflict. These human rights violations were documented in the recent report, Witness to War Crimes (pdf).

Despite repeated calls for reform, the immigration detention web continues to grow in scale and cost, and the majority of immigrants held by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have broken no criminal laws. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the DHS agency charged with managing the 250 detention facilities throughout the country, has only partially heeded calls from NGOs to provide a more transparency and oversight. Even more troubling, similar short-term facilities are usually unmarked, unlisted and unavailable for inspection by NGOs. Due in part to their clandestine nature, they receive little attention from NGOs or journalists. Despite the limited duration of the detentions in these facilities, (ranging from a few hours to a few days), the human rights violations alleged to occur are just as distressing as those occurring in long-term detention centers.

Detention standards for long-term facilities are publicly available, but DHS has refused to release the guidelines for short-term facilitates. Internal policy memos, which are not legally binding, seem to provide the only guidance for DHS officials. In 2008, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) released a vague memo indicating that conditions of short-term confinement must ensure safety and security and promote well-being and general good health, but CBP has failed to live up to this policy. In September, No More Deaths released a report chronicling the abuses suffered by individuals held in CBP short-term centers in Arizona. The individuals profiled in the report complained of a lack of water, food, and medical attention; overcrowding; unsanitary conditions; and extreme temperatures.

In 2009, the ACLU of Southern California filed a class action lawsuit challenging the conditions of a short-term ICE detention facility located in downtown Los Angeles. The lawsuit alleged that the “rudimentary necessities of decent human life” were denied to detainees because they had no access to soap, water, or a change of clothes. The lawsuit also highlighted the ICE practice of shuttling detainees to local jails at night and back to the downtown facility in the morning in an attempt to skirt the rules prohibiting long-term detention there. As a result, the facility became overcrowded, leading to “violence, safety hazards, and humiliation.” The parties ultimately reached a settlement in favor of better conditions at the facility. However, as soon as the settlement period expired, stories began to emerge that conditions had reverted back to being inhumane, disgusting, and grossly unsanitary.

DHS must include all short-term facilities in its detention reform efforts that have been underway since October 2009.  Complete transparency about the size, location, and conditions of these facilities must be achieved to safeguard against continued human rights abuses in short-term detention facilities.

With budgets in crisis and the recession showing no signs of abatement, Massachusetts is looking for creative ways to cut prison spending. In a recent Joint Committee on the Judiciary session, Republican lawmakers and a group of sheriffs asked the Committee to support a bill that would require Massachusetts inmates to pay for their time in lock up. The bill would authorize state-jail overseers to charge people $5 for every day they are incarcerated, and would also impose a $5 fee for medical and dental visits and $3 co-pays for prescription medications.

The “pay-to-stay” bill would automatically deduct the fees from an inmate’s commissary account – most of which comes from deposits made by family and friends, and is intended to allow purchases of shampoo, deodorant, and snacks. If an inmate is unable to afford the fees during his lock-up, he will receive a bill upon his release for the money owed to the state. The debt is forgiven if the individual does not return to prison within two years.

While supporters claim the bill alleviates tax payer burden, tax-paying families of inmates would end up bearing the expense. Inmates earn a maximum of $1.50 a day while working in jail, so the daily costs and medical co-pays would inevitably shift to families. Furthermore, the bill disproportionately affects communities of color as they are overrepresented in the prison system.

The fees for doctors’ visits and prescription medications are particularly troubling. At the Committee hearing, one sheriff whose district already employs a co-pay system touted the recent drop in doctors’ visits as proof of the cost-saving effectiveness of charging inmates for health services. This view ignores the inevitable corollary that many inmates who have genuine health problems may not seek medical care or take much-needed medications in an effort to avoid the fees. Conditions of confinement create a host of physical and psychological health problems for inmates, and the state should not encourage them to “tough it out.”  Ignoring health problems will ultimately lead to increased costs to take care of inmates after their condition has worsened.

The “pay-to-stay” bill encroaches upon the important right of inmates to access medical care and places an additional financial burden on vulnerable families. The Massachusetts legislature should swiftly reject it.

Last year, a woman from a small town in Chihuahua Mexico fled her home after six men in her family- including her father and brother, were killed by drug cartels. She walked across the bridge over the Rio Grande into El Paso, Texas and asked immigration officials for asylum. Her request was denied and she was deported back to Mexico to face the cartels.

Violence in Mexico has escalated dramatically since 2009, particularly in Northern Mexican states where drug trafficking routes are concentrated. Cities along the US/Mexico border have seen a huge influx of people fleeing Mexico in search of safety.  This population is escaping persecution from a variety of state and non-state actors including drug cartels and criminal gang organizations, corrupt federal police, and the Mexican military. They are journalists, human rights activists, lawyers, and business-owners. They have seen their colleagues and family members assassinated in broad daylight, kidnapped from their homes, decapitated and suffer other terror-filled atrocities. Researchers estimate that over 230,000 people have fled their homes and roughly half have crossed into the US.

Despite mounting evidence of targeted violence, immigration judges seldom recognize that Mexican nationals have a “well-founded fear of persecution”- the substantive criteria for asylum in the United States. The Executive Office for Immigration Review reports that in FY2010, only 49 of 3221 (1.5%) of Mexican asylum applications were approved.  Mexico is one of the top five asylum-seeking countries.

Indeed, not all claims coming from Mexico meet the substantive requirements for asylum. Victims of generalized violence do not qualify. Those who do fit the “refugee” definition are often unable to make successful legal arguments because of the complex and fact-specific nature of asylum law. The Refugee Act of 1980 (which shapes much of US asylum law) was drafted to offer protection in the context of the Cold War. The law predates much of the drug cartel and gang violence that has emerged over the last decade and now the Mexican experience does not fit cleanly under a traditional interpretation of persecution. More sophisticated and creative arguments are required, but the vast majority of Mexican asylum seekers has no legal representation and must navigate the complicated process on their own.

In addition to these legal challenges, asylum for Mexicans is made even more difficult by the political and economic incentives the US has in maintaining loyalty to Mexican President Felipe Calderon. Granting asylum for Mexicans implies that the Mexican government is unwilling or unable to protect its citizens from human rights abuses. This politically-charged statement may strain the relationship between the US and Mexican governments and is one that judges would rather avoid.

The security situation in Mexico shows no sign of improvement. Asylum officer and immigration judges must do better to understand the dynamics of drug-war violence and stand strong against pressure to let foreign-policy positions influence the lives of individual victims.

Last week, Federal District Judge Sharon Blackburn declined to strike down major portions of Alabama’s extreme anti-immigrant law, HB 56, makingAlabama the state with the strictest immigration laws in the country.

Among other alarming provisions is one that requires state and local police to demand proof of immigration or citizenship status if “a reasonable suspicion” exists that the person is in the country illegally. Other provisions threaten children’s access to schools by requiring elementary and secondary school officials to verify the immigration status of children and their parents. School principals and superintendents across the state report that school attendance of Latino children has dropped noticeably since the law went into effect last Thursday.

Immigration has become a contentious issue in Alabama over the last decade, during which the Latino population has grown from 25,000 to120,000. Despite this jump, the group only represents 4% of the population.Still, Republican lawmakers in Alabama have been looking for an opportunity to crack down on undocumented immigrants.

Supporters of HB 56 claim the law will reduce crime and help alleviate the state’s economic problems. However, both justifications are unfounded and flawed. The violent crime rate has dropped by more than a third over the last decade despite the expanding immigrant community. Indeed, arguments that immigrants pose a security threat have never had any credible foundation.

In addition, it costs state agencies considerable resources to implement and defend the law. By spending more time on basic traffic stops and potential court appearances, fiscally-strapped law enforcement agencies devote less to protecting Alabama communities from real harm.

Alabama agriculture is also suffering. Tomato and squash growers have complained that their crops are rotting in the field, and they are at risk of losing their farms as a result of HB 56, which has scared off many migrant farm workers typically employed during the autumn harvest. Similarly, contractors working to rebuild infrastructure after massive tornados ripped through the state last spring now expect delays due to the difficulty of finding workers to lay roofs and pour foundations.

In a state with a deep and complicated civil rights history, HB 56 is all too familiar. By reestablishing barriers to education and mandating racial profiling, Alabama has revived the hostile, racist laws it supposedly put in its past. The Department of Justice already announced its intention to appeal the decision to the Eleventh Circuit, and it remains to be seen whether the injurious provisions of the law will hold up.

On September 29, guilty verdicts and harsh sentences were issued in Bahrain against 20 medical professionals and two protestors who were convicted for providing care to protestors during the country's popular uprising earlier this year. PHR's Chief Policy Officer, Hans Hogrefe, appeared on BBC World News on to discuss the draconian sentences.

---

Source: BBC World News

---

Recently, The Nation and The New York Times disclosed that theCentral Intelligence Agency (CIA) may be involved in the transfer of suspectedterrorists to Somalia for detention and interrogation, in violation of US andinternational law.

Of particular concern to PHR are reportsthat detainees are being held in small, filthy, windowless cells infested withbedbugs and mosquitoes that relentlessly torment detainees. Furthermore, theprison is reportedly underground, resulting in detainees having no time outside. Reports also indicate that many have been there more than a year and are exhibiting signs ofmental stress, such as pacing or rocking themselves against the wallscontinuously.

Finally, detainees mayhave never been brought before a court nor allowed access to legal representationrelating to the lawfulness of their detention. If true, any one of these conditions may violate the Convention AgainstTorture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.    

Because of the gravity of theallegations, PHR, along with a coalition of leading human rights organizations, sent a letter to President Obamaseeking clarity as to:

• whether the US, independently orthrough contractors, is involved in the detention, interrogation, orinterrogation of suspected terrorists at Somalian prisons; 
• the measures that the US has takento ensure that it abides by its obligations under US and international law, aswell as Executive Order 13491; and
• whether the International Committeeof the Red Cross has been notified of, and been provided access to, detaineesheld at the Somali prison.

To date, PHR has not received a response fromthe Administration. PHR urges PresidentObama to ensure that counterterrorism operations are being conducted withrespect for human rights and the rule of law.