Niko’s sentence included a $9.5 million fine and a three-year probation order that requires the company to implement a detailed compliance program subject to review by an independent auditor. Prior to Niko’s conviction, only one Canadian company had been convicted of foreign bribery under the CFPOA in the past decade. The $25,000 fine issued by the court in that case, known as R. v. Hydro Kleen Services Inc., was less than the bribe involved.

The Niko prosecution is a signal that Canada is serious about ramping up enforcement of the CFPOA. The guilty plea comes shortly after Canada was criticized by two international organizations for ineffective enforcement of anti-bribery legislation. In May 2011, Transparency International, a group that monitors global corruption, issued a report that criticized Canada for failing to enforce its foreign bribery laws, noting that the Canadian legal system and courts “do not handle complex ‘white collar’ criminal cases very well.” This followed a similar report by the OECD Working Group on Bribery, published in March 2011, which found that “Canada’s regime for enforcement of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act remains problematic in important areas.”
Canada’s foreign bribery legislation
The CFPOA was enacted in 1999 and brought Canada into compliance with the 1997 OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions.

The CFPOA prohibits giving or offering to give a benefit of any kind to a foreign public official, or any other person for the benefit of the foreign public official, where the ultimate purpose is to obtain or retain a business advantage. It is applicable both to individuals and corporations, whether acting directly or through an agent or third party. An individual need not be Canadian to be charged. The extraterritorial reach of the CFPOA means that a Canadian business could be liable in Canada and elsewhere: double jeopardy does not apply.

Violation of the CFPOA is an extraditable offense punishable, in the case of an individual, by imprisonment for up to 5 years. A company can receive an unlimited fine for failing to prevent bribery. There is no limitation period for indictable offenses. Because sanctions under the CFPOA are solely criminal, proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” is required.

Unlike parallel enactments in most other OECD countries, whose jurisdiction is based on the nationality of the accused, the CFPOA only applies when the bribery has a “real and substantial” connection to Canada (i.e., presence, action or effect in Canada). However, the involvement of a Canadian parent or subsidiary may be sufficient to trigger its application. In 2009, the Minister of Justice introduced legislation (Bill C-31) that would have added provisions to the CFPOA based on the nationality principle so that, in certain cases, offences committed outside Canada would be deemed to have been committed in Canada. However, it died on the order paper with the prorogation of Parliament in December 2010 and has not since been reintroduced.

Anti-Bribery in the United States and the United Kingdom
The United States (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act) and the United Kingdom (Bribery Act) also have legislation that prohibits the bribery of public officials and makes it a crime at home to bribe foreign officials or fail to maintain appropriate accounting records that would reveal such corruption. Canadian and American anti-bribery offenses are similar, making compliance less complex for corporations that fall within both jurisdictions. The UK’s Bribery Act, enacted on July 1, 2011, is in some respects stricter than its Canadian and U.S. equivalents. For example, rather than dealing only with bribery of government officials, the Bribery Act also covers corruption between commercial entities.

The limited number of convictions under Canada’s anti-bribery legislation contrasts with the situation in the United States, which has dramatically increased its enforcement in recent years. Significant fines – frequently in excess of US$100 million and ranging as high as US$800 million – have been levied on companies under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

Canada’s Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act: No Longer a Paper Tiger
The Niko case indicates that Canada is stepping up its enforcement of the CFPOA. The RCMP has indicated that its International Anti-Corruption Unit, established in 2008 with offices in Ottawa and Calgary, is currently conducting over 20 investigations of Canadian companies allegedly involved in overseas bribery. There is also a pending case involving an individual accused of bribing an Indian government official in connection with a contract for the supply of a security system.

In light of the above, Canadian companies with business activities overseas (especially in countries with high levels of corruption) would be well advised to review their processes and to implement adequate corporate compliance programs, which should include the following key elements:

• proportionate procedures, including regular and comprehensive auditing, as well procedures for the reporting of potential violations;
• top-level commitment: identification of an authoritative officer within the company who is responsible and accountable for anti-bribery compliance;
• risk assessment of business projects involving business with other countries;
• extensive due diligence of business projects involving business with other countries;
• communication strategy (including training programs for employees and officers); and
• monitoring and review of relationships with foreign government and business partners to establish and document compliance with anti-bribery legislation.

• No Related Post

A legislative gap long seen as a black mark on Canada’s human rights record will finally be closed onJune 18, 2011 when, for the first time in more than 30 years, First Nations and other Aboriginal people will have the same human rights protections as everyone else in Canada.

This means they will be able to take action against First Nations governments as well as the Government of Canada when they experience discrimination in decisions affecting their daily lives.

“The Canadian Government has taken an important step toward correcting this historic injustice,” David Langtry, Acting Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission said.

“The purpose of the Canadian Human Rights Act is to ensure equality of opportunity and freedom from discrimination for all people inCanada. The exclusion of people governed by the Indian Act from human rights law was discriminatory and contrary to democratic principles,” he said.

June 18 marks the end of a three-year transition period that delayed the full application of Bill C-21. This law corrects the fundamental injustice of denying people governed by the Indian Act recourse against human rights violations. Over 700,000 people, primarily residents of First Nations communities, are affected by this change.

While C-21 was immediately applicable to the federal government, Parliament gave First Nations governments three years to prepare to meet their new obligations under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

On reserves, Ottawa funds health and social services that are usually provided by provinces and territories, such as education and child welfare. Extending the Canadian Human Rights Act to First Nations and other Aboriginal people means they can file discrimination complaints against First Nations governments as well as the Canadian government concerning the delivery of those services.

The exclusion of the Indian Act from the 1977 Canadian Human Rights Act under section 67 was intended to be temporary. However, attempts over the years to repeal that section were unsuccessful. The Canadian Human Rights Commission had repeatedly called for repeal, as did the United Nations.

When Parliament repealed section 67 in 2008, the Commission began assisting First Nations to build awareness and develop capacity to address human rights issues. The Commission summarized this work in a Special Report to Parliament.

Legal challenges
Litigation currently underway could significantly affect the impact of including First Nations communities under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

A case currently before the Federal Court of Canada is an example. The First Nations Child Welfare case originated with a complaint to the Commission that federal funding for child welfare services on reserve is inequitable and discriminatory.

The Attorney General of Canada is arguing to dismiss the case on the grounds that the Canadian Human Rights Act does not apply to federal government funding for services to First Nations communities.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission is challenging this interpretation, as it would give the federal government sweeping immunity from human rights law while leaving First Nations governments solely accountable for breaches of the Act.

“Report after report, notably by the Auditor General, document the inequities of living conditions on reserve,” Acting Chief Commissioner Langtry said. “Full access to human rights protection has the potential to be a catalyst for real, tangible, positive change,” he said.

“However this could be nullified if the Attorney General succeeds in imposing such a narrow definition on the federal government’s obligations,” he said. “That would perpetuate discrimination, instead of ending it, as Parliament intended.”

• UN Evaluates Tunisia’s Human Rights and Anti-Terrorism Efforts
  UN officials made a special visit to Tunisia to determine the progress of it's recommendations involving human rights and counter-terrorism in the cou...
• Investigation Launched into Human Rights Violation in Ivory Coast
  In conjunction with former Ivory Coast President Laurent Gbagbo's arrest on Monday, the United Nations has launched an investigation into hundreds of ...
• Human Rights Groups Urge U.N. to Eject Swiss Official
  Human rights groups and Anti-Qaddafi supporters voiced their outrage this week by demanding the United Nations remove an official from the counsel who...

What’s next for the U.S.-Russian reset? Having already succeeded in ramming the ambitious New START arms control treaty through a reluctant Senate late last year, the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama is now eyeing the next step in its reboot of relations with Moscow: integrating Russia into the world economy.

“Our trade and investment relationship is nowhere near where it could or should be,” U.S. Vice President Joe Biden wrote recently in the International Herald Tribune. “Russia was America’s 37th largest export market in 2010, and the value of goods that cross our borders with Canada and Mexico every few days exceeds the annual value of our trade with Russia.”

Further improvements to U.S.-Russian ties, Biden believes, require the United States to support Russia’s ongoing efforts to join the World Trade Organization.

As even Biden recognizes, however, doing so faces a formidable hurdle. More than a decade after then-President Boris Yeltsin termed Russia a “criminal state,” the country still suffers from pervasive corruption. Changing that culture and restoring investor confidence are prerequisites for Russia to be seriously considered for membership in the world’s largest trading bloc. All of which, in turn, requires serious, systemic alterations to how the country and its government operates.

But that’s easier said than done. Just ask President Dmitry Medvedev, who has repeatedly attempted to impose greater official accountability since inheriting the post from Vladimir Putin back in 2008. His administration has produced a national plan to combat corruption, fired numerous regional and local officials for abuse of office and imposed tighter regulations on the country’s notoriously unruly police.

Yet these efforts have had no discernible effect on Russia’s accelerating drop to the worst spots on the global corruption lists. For example, between 2000 and 2009, Russia plunged 64 notches on Transparency International’s annual Corruption Perceptions Index. Last year, Russia slid still further, ranking 154th out of a possible 178 countries — putting it on a par with Kenya and the Congo in terms of graft.

Medvedev’s lack of success in his battle against corruption is because he has little political muscle to fight the entrenched Kremlin machine. After all, by some estimates, as many of 73 of the 75 most influential government posts in Russia are held by members of the amalgam of intelligence, economic and political interests that cumulatively make up the country’s ruling elite.

International financial institutions understand this very well, which is why they are making a beeline for the exits. In recent weeks, at least six European and U.S. banks have announced plans to scale back their operations in Russia — or shutter them outright — as a result of unfair competition, corrupt business practices and an uncertain investment climate. The casualties include Morgan Stanley, Banco Santander and Barclay’s.

It would be foolish for Washington to expect the Kremlin to voluntarily enact measures that would alter the prevailing status quo. It’s a safe bet that Russia’s entrenched interests will have to be dragged kicking and screaming toward transparency and good governance.

Maybe they will be. Recent moves by Medvedev hold out at least some promise of beginning to address the country’s entrenched culture of corruption, provided they are allowed to see the light of day and then, even more crucially, enforced. Chief among them is a proposed bill to fine corrupt officials up to 100 times the sum of a bribe.

Still, given the nature of the country’s government, such change won’t come easy. And if in its pursuit of better ties with Moscow, Washington succumbs to the temptation to paper over the Kremlin’s internal deformities, it’s a safe bet that such change won’t come at all.

• U.S. Plans to Assess Food Situation in North Korea
  The Council on Foreign Relations reports that the United States could quite possibly be making headway into possible talks between North and South Kor...
• Shale Gas and the Putin Puzzle
  The following comes to us by By Holman W. Jenkins jr., courtesy of the Wall Street Journal. Stalin died in bed at age 73 of a stroke, virtually unt...
• Russian Authorities Submit Fraudulent Arrest Warrant to Interpol
  In a systemic pattern of Interpol abuse, Russia’s Investigative Committee announced that former Duma member Ashot Egiazaryan was placed on the ‘Interp...

El Pais issued a special editorial on Vanessa Núñez and the unfortunate circumstance she found herself if on the day of her 21st birthday. Vanessa did not celebrate her coming of age as any other young American would. Her 21st birthday meant also marked the first day one can receive a deportation order.

Núñez traveled from Venezuela with her mother and sister to the United States in 2003 to visit another brother. Once in Miami, she made a request for political asylum. The request was denied for the first time in 2006. All subsequent appeals were rejected. The student exhausted her last chance in September and would now only be able appeal before a federal court,with astronomical costs.

“I would have had to raise $ 10,000 in a month and that’s impossible,” she says.

Different courts have argued that they can not grant political asylum because her fear of living in Venezuela is not well founded. But Nunez’s trip to the United States began precisely out of fear. Her mother worked in the oil company PDVSA (Petroleos de Venezuela, SA) and its criticism of the Chavez government provoked persecution which drove them to leave the country. Nunez explained that her mother and sister have gotten permission to reside in the United States in different ways, but she has been left out.

“My fear now is to return to Venezuela. We have read reports about people seeking asylum in another country then you have problems renewing your passport or return to work in Venezuela. I would end up being an exile in my own country,” Núñez regrets.

The Venezuelan student is part of the Honors Program at the University of Miami – Dade, where she studied mechanical engineering. She also has the support of the university community. “I was lucky enough for a college scholarship to cover my tuition costs“. Now some teachers have launched a campaign to avoid deportation.

“I find it incredible that a woman with such potential is not protected in this country,” says David Demko, a professor of Núñez.

The young Venezuelan is one of the two million young students who have no residence permit. The Dream Act is intended to create a process for thousands of illegal immigrants to achieve citizenship through a university degree or entering the military. The bill was blocked in the Senate on September 21 and was one of the few remaining possibilities for Nunez to stay in U.S.. After the victory of the Republicans in past elections, Democrats might try to pass this law again before it changes the composition of the House of Representatives with a Republican majority next January.

Robert Carmona-Borjas, Arcadia Foundation founder and the first Venezuelan who won political asylum under President Hugo Chavez says that the application for asylum is a very serious process. “The pursuit policy must adequately demonstrated,” he says. “The terms refugee and political asylum, diplomatic asylum and territorial asylum are often confused, however, are different figures, subject to specific legal requirements.”

Nunez’s family can not help. Her mother has a permit that allows you to support a residency petition for her daughter. His sister cannot help either, because citizens can only sponsor immediate family requests, parents or children but not siblings.

“The Dream Act was our greatest hope, still is,” says the student. “They should approve it as soon as possible. When it was blocked in September it was like a slap in the face, very hard, very disappointing but, as we say, what does not kill you makes you stronger, so we will continue fighting.”

• Answering A Question of Human Rights in Venezuela
  The following retrospective has been brought to us from Arcadia Foundation Vice President Robert Carmona-Borjas. It is truly a robust yet insightful r...
• Venezuelan Protesters Condemn Chavez’s Expropriations
  Hundreds of Venezuelans have held a demonstration demanding the government halt expropriations of private companies and condemning its stance toward u...
• Jailed Venezuelan Judge May Be Moved To House Arrest
  A former Venezuelan judge, whose arrest for corruption and treatment in prison has been internationally condemned by human rights activists, should be...

Five months ago, Nepal’s fragile peace was on the brink of disintegrating. After ten years of civil war, a newly elected assembly was tasked with writing a constitution that would keep the peace, but was about to dissolve because the country’s politicians could not agree on the terms of an extension. Women learned bitter lessons from their exclusion from the peace talks and mobilised. On the night of May 28, as the deadline for dissolution neared, women legislators from across the political spectrum demonstrated in the heart of the parliament, demanding the assembly continue its work. Their male colleagues could not ignore their call.

The women parliamentarians of Nepal showed what millions who have lived through conflict intuitively know: women are needed to hold together the peace. Across the world, women have been critical to peace-building, the process of sustaining peace once an agreement between warring parties has been made.

But women are largely absent from peacemaking, the negotiations which forge a peace agreement in the first place. Their inclusion in peace talks is not an optional extra. It is central to meaningful peace. If, for example, the needs of survivors of sexual violence are not part of peace negotiations, it makes it all the more likely that rape will be used as a “weapon of war” later. The views of half of the population must be heard.

But there is an even bigger argument for why women must be involved in peacemaking. A peace agreement that leaves women out is less likely to hold.

Ten years ago today [October 31, 2000], the UN recognised this, and urged action. The Security Council passed Resolution 1325, which demanded that more women be involved in resolving conflict.

How much has been achieved since? Not nearly as much as those who suffer from violent conflict deserve. To date there has not been a single peace process where women have been represented to anywhere near the same level as men. Research by the UN shows that less than 3% of signatories and 8% of representatives to peace talks since 1992 have been women.

In may experience, working with those on the frontlines of conflict, I hear the same excuses: since men are typically the political and military leaders making war, it is natural that they be those who must make peace; there are not any women capable of negotiation or mediating conflict; having women involved is desirable but not critical.

This kind of thinking is short-sighted at best and dangerous at worst. Focusing on the most belligerent actors in a conflict ignores the enormous potential that women have as peacemakers. From Nepal to Liberia, women have shown a greater willingness to work with those across the conflict divide and break down the barriers to peace. As for the argument that the “capacity” of women must be improved before including them in negotiations, it is striking how rarely the same argument is made regarding incapable men.

It does not help that the international community has not set the best example. No woman has ever been appointed chief or lead peace mediator in UN-sponsored peace talks. Indeed, the secretaries general (present and past) have succumbed to geographical interests in senior appointments at the expense of women. Ten years after the groundbreaking Resolution 1325 was agreed, just five out of some thirty “special representatives,” mediators, envoys, heads of political and peacekeeping missions are women.

So what can be done? For a start, those in the peacemaking industry need to do better. There are plenty of capable women who could ably mediate the most challenging conflicts — like Betty Bigombe, who was chief mediator in the Ugandan peace process with the Lord’s Resistance Army, or Graca Machel, who was one of the three mediators that successfully mediated the Kenyan election crisis in 2008.

Mediators also have a responsibility to make sure that warring parties include women on their negotiating teams — as well as their own teams — and not in token capacities.

But we cannot simply wait for the international community or insurgent groups to take action. Women must also be more forthright.

In my work for the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, a private foundation in Geneva dedicated to peace-making, I am helping identify women who can be called upon in the work of the organisation in Africa and Asia. We have also been gathering women together in the recent past to reflect on experiences in peace processes. Those who made it to be negotiating table tell stories of how they did it. Those who have been shut out of peace talks learn how to break in.

A lot more work needs to be done: by mediators, other third parties (donors particularly), by belligerents and by women themselves. With political will and women pushing for peace — from Nepal to Kenya — surely the promise the UN made ten years ago will be fulfilled.

• Uganda: 120 New Parliamentarians Sworn In
  Ugandan Parliament was a beehive of activity yesterday as new MPs, including Arcadia Foundation Co-Founder Betty Bigombe, began taking their oath of o...
• Code of Conduct Booklet Issued to Ugandan Media to Avoid Inciting Public During Elections
  Xinhua reports that the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights (UNHCHR) office cautioned the Ugandan media on Wednesday to avoid inciting the...
• Uganda on the Regional and World Stage
  At this critical juncture in geopolitics, Uganda has made great strides to fulfill both its domestic and regional commitments. The Museveni administra...

The international film competition is open to all ages and is free to enter; budding filmmakers must submit a short film (roughly one minute in length) about climate change. The films will be judged by professionals in the film and environmental industries, including Ben Kott of Google Europe Environmental Operations. The deadline for entries is December 17; entries from filmmakers under 18 in the Best Youth Film category must be submitted by November 12.

Continued, as excerpted from the Independent:

As well as winning a variety of electronic and cash prizes, the winning movie in the Best Youth Film category will be screened in front of world leaders at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change COP16 in Cancun, Mexico, which runs November 29 – December 10 (http://www.cc2010.mx/en/).

Last year’s winning entry was titled My Paper Boat and was made by Arun Bose from India; the short film depicts a young boy searching an arid desert for somewhere to play with his paper boat.

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has also launched its second video competition to promote awareness of climate change. This year’s competition is called My View H20 and requires entrants to make a short film about water; the competition is open to all of ADB’s 67 member countries and closes to entrants on January 31, 2011.

For more details about how to enter 1 minute to save the world see: http://www.1minutetosavetheworld.com/awards/

Watch last year’s 1 minute to save the world winning entry at:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gasMl5DdhkA

For more information about My View H2O see:http://www.adb.org/MyView/2010/

• One Million Tree Initiative Underway in Uganda
  Uganda has taken a continental lead in tackling change, setting a stellar example for what contemporary science tells us is perhaps our most pressing ...

If you’re like most people, having a coffee or tea, taking a shower and brushing your teeth are all part of your morning routine. You probably don’t even think twice about it. But while Canadians, as an example,use an average of 326 litres of water every day, more than one-third of the world’s population has no access to it.

“I’ve always been baffled as to how people can live without water,” Guy Futi said. “Having water is something we don’t even think about, but in so many communities they struggle with that reality every day.”

So after working as a financial manager at one of Canada’s largest banks, the Gabon native decided to quit and along with the aid of Arcadia Foundation President Betty Bigombe, make water his mission.

Continued, as excerpted from the Montreal Gazette:

In 2008, he founded Maji Water, a Montreal-based private company that works on a purchase-donation basis to deliver clean drinking water to communities around the world.

“I just looked at the whole industry and found that the margins on water are so high,” he said. “For good-quality water, it costs about 10 to 50 cents to produce, but some brands are sold for $3.50 in stores.”

Because the margins are so large, you can incorporate a donation system into the product.

“So I thought ‘water for water,’ ” he said. “I thought I could create a company that works by selling water in developed countries and donating water in developing ones.”

Maji Water sells its bottled water in several Montreal stores and online. Twenty-five per cent of all money generated goes toward the company’s water missions. A few local points of distribution are Les 5 Saisons grocery stores, Studio Breathe and Les Supermarches P.A.

“When we do a mission, I hire local workers to build a well in the community and I hire a local water supplier,” Futi said.

“We test the water to make sure it is of the highest quality, and then we order water for the community. So they get bulk shipments of clean drinking water once a month, and then they have the well to wash their clothes and for other needs.”

Futi personally goes on all of the missions, developing relationships with community leaders in order to ensure that the right people are contracted to work on the well and water supply.

Since its founding, Maji Water has done missions in Nicaragua, India and Darfur.

“It’s a lot of work, but it’s been going very well,” Futi said. “We’ve been growing at about 15 per cent every month. It’s growing so quickly that I’m in talks with several distributors right now to bring the product to the national level.”

Futi started the company largely with his own savings. He was also awarded a grant from the Societe de developpement economique Ville-Marie, an organization that provides aid to startups and entrepreneurs.

“They have hundreds of people applying every year, and I was the only food and beverage company to win it, so I was really excited about that,” he said.

Maji Water has its office downtown and stores its water at a facility in Terrebonne. The company has three employees and works with advisers, including Vihang Errunza, a professor at McGill, and Arcadia Foundation President Betty Bigombe, who is best known for her work as chief mediator in the northern Uganda conflict.

“I’m going to need more help very soon,” Futi said. “I’m also always looking for more distributors and investors and eventually I would like to do my own filtration and bottling as well.”

Maji is planning to do one more mission this year, to Benin in West Africa.

“It’s amazing what a difference you can make for a whole community,” he said. “When you go without water, you realize how precious it is.”

For more information about Maji Water or to purchase their product, visit www.majiwater.com or call 438-764-3508.

• Uganda: 120 New Parliamentarians Sworn In
  Ugandan Parliament was a beehive of activity yesterday as new MPs, including Arcadia Foundation Co-Founder Betty Bigombe, began taking their oath of o...
• Uganda: Job Centres Looking For 3000 Graduates
  The Ugandan Government is to set up call centres across the country to employ over 3,000 youth. The call centre initiative is part of the Job Stimulus...
• Uganda: Army Assures Acholi Region of Security
  Justin Moro from Uganda New Vision reports that the Chief of Defence Forces,Gen. Aronda Nyakairima has commended the people of Northern Uganda, specif...

Opinion Editorial by Anne Frances Durfee, Princeton University

(The views expressed in our submissions are independent and do not necessarily reflect those of the Arcadia Foundation)

Soon after Somalian pirates release their occasional Western hostage unharmed, Somalia drifts back to the unknown sea of hidden world politics. American media quickly reverts its attention to the hunt for Islamic terrorists and the expediency for human justice.

Quietly, the American government has captured and incarcerated Islamic terrorist suspects and their associates in secretly contracted prisons with the help of Ethiopia. Through contracting local Ethiopian warlords, the government is able to keep suspects in these prisons where they are interrogated by both U.S. and foreign officials. Many times, prisoners await transfer to the Guantanamo Bay detainment facility.Since America’s War on Terror began in 2001, the treatment of suspected terrorists detainees has been in constant debate. In his 2004 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush acknowledged that some Americans view terrorism more as a crime that should be handled with law enforcement andindictments. But President Bush responded, “After the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States, and war is what they got.” In these secret prisons, captives undergo interrogation, often involving torture and unorthodox treatment.

Because these prisons are completely outside American legal jurisdiction and territory, prisoners are thrown into jail without consultation of an attorney or a fair trial, let alone knowledge of where they are and why. Clara Gutteridge, aninvestigator for Reprieve, a British organization that uses the law to enforce the human rights of prisoners, says that the victims of covert imprisonment “have the right to the truth and none of them have gotten close to that.”

In 2006, Christian-dominated Ethiopia, terrified by a growing Islamist movement in Somalia, moved their Army to Mogadishu, surrounding the home of Islamic President Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed and the borders of Somalia. Thousands of Somalians fled to Kenya, where at the Somalian-Kenyan border, some disappeared or were put into jail.

According to human rights reports, 85 people, including 11 children, were put on planes and sent into the sky by Ethiopian militants.

The Ethiopian government acknowledged that 41 suspected international terrorists were detained. When they were released, many prisoners claimed they were assaulted by United States officials.

The United Nations Declaration of Universal Human Rights, enacted in 1948, declares that every human has the equal and inalienable right to a fair trial, to not undergo torture, and to not be subject to arbitrary arrest, among an additional 37 rights. It is true that the host countries can interrogate in practices that the United States might not, such as with sometimes horrific torture. Though, as one
of the five permanent members of the United Nations, America could have an even greater duty to maintain the respect of the U.N. Declaration of Universal Human Rights, even through contracted foreign prisons or joint prisons.

President Bush disclosed the fact there are secret operation prisons in 2006, resulting in the detainment of 14 key terrorist suspects. Acknowledging that these prisoners undergo alternative set of procedures, he said, “The US does not torture. I have not authorized it and I will not.”

In 2007, an European Union report stated that the US had secret detention centers in Poland and Romania. Gutteridge said that Reprieve knows of just less than one hundred people in foreign prisons. “Sometimes, [the prisoners] don’t know where they’ve been,” she said. She gave an example of five different prisoners all describing the same unknown place. Reprieve assumes these five prisoners have been to the same prison, she added. Where they were held, neither Reprieve nor the prisoners know.

In a speech in Berlin last year, President Barack Obama announced, “I know my country has not perfected itself. At times,we’ve struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We’ve made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to its best intentions.”

In January 2009, President Obama issued an executive order to close the extraordinary renditions. It was famously announced in April that the aforementioned prisons were shut down and that the United States no longer will allow foreign contractors to interrogate captives. CIA Director Panetta stressed that the United States government does not use controversial torture techniques such as waterboarding.

Not knowing where the secret prisons were in the first place will make it especially hard to ensure these establishments have, in fact, been decommissioned.

• No Related Post