Amnesty International - Report - EUR 01/02/99 August 1999 Europe Concerns in Europe - January to June 1999

    AI Index: EUR 01/01/99    Concerns in Europe: July - December 1998
    AI Index: EUR 01/02/98    Concerns in Europe: January - June 1998
    AI Index: EUR 01/01/98    Concerns in Europe: July - December 1997
    AI Index: EUR 01/06/97    Concerns in Europe: January - June 1997
    AI Index: EUR 01/01/97    Concerns in Europe: July - December 1996
    AI Index: EUR 01/02/96    Concerns in Europe: January - June 1996
    

Prisoners of conscience (update to information in AI Index: EUR 01/01/99)

At the end of the period under review at least nine young men remained imprisoned because their conscience led them into conflict with the law that makes military service compulsory for young males, and offers them no civilian alternative. Jehovah's Witness Andranik Kosian was released early from his two-year term, but at least six other Jehovah's Witnesses were convicted between January and June for their conscientious refusal to serve in the army. They included Gagik Ohanian, who in January 1997 had sent a statement of his beliefs, including his willingness to perform a civilian alternative service, to the conscription unit in the Sovetashen district of the capital, Yerevan. He refused his call-up papers, and instead was forcibly conscripted into the army on 8 December 1998 by three men in civilian clothes who called at his home, reportedly without presenting any documents. Gagik Ohanian was sent to military unit No. 70179 in the Vajots region, where he was reportedly severely beaten when he refused to don a military uniform. It is also alleged that officials at the unit wanted to transfer him to the custody of the military police, but the latter refused after seeing signs of beating on his body. Gagik Ohanian was convicted of evading military service under Article 257a of the Armenian Criminal Code on 23 June, and sentenced to three years' imprisonment.
    During the period under review various officials have mentioned moves towards drawing up plans for a civilian alternative service, but Amnesty International is not aware of any concrete proposals or timetabling in parliament. The organization continued to call on the authorities to release immediately and unconditionally anyone already imprisoned for their refusal on conscientious grounds to perform military service, and refrain from imprisoning anyone else as a conscientious objector; to introduce without delay legislative provisions to ensure that a civilian alternative of non-punitive length is available to all those whose religious, ethical, moral, humanitarian, philosophical, political or other conscientiously-held beliefs preclude them from performing military service; to establish independent and impartial decision-making procedures for applying a civilian alternative to military service; and to ensure, after the introduction of a civilian alternative service, that all relevant persons affected by military service, including those already serving in the army, have information available to them about the right to conscientious objection and how to apply for an alternative service.

Allegations of ill-treatment in detention (update to information in AI Index: EUR 01/01/99)

Meeting on 25 February with a group of mothers whose sons had died as a result of violence in the army, President Robert Kocharian strongly condemned brutal hazing in the armed forces and pledged greater efforts to combat such crimes. At the same meeting, the Military Procurator of Armenia gave an assurance that many closed cases would be subject to review, and that 80 officers had been prosecuted the previous year for illegal actions. The following month a presidential advisor reported that these prosecutions included 34 convictions for abuse of power and two for causing suicides. Many families have complained that army deaths attributed to suicide have in fact been as a result of injuries inflicted during hazing, and that army officials and others have colluded in covering up the real cause of death. One of the cases still unresolved during the period under review was that of conscript Artak Petrossian, who was drafted into the army on 13 June 1998 and sent to a military unit at Echmiadzin. He reportedly left the unit without permission on 23 July, and was subsequently detained and sent to a penal battalion at Zvarnots airport outside Yerevan on 12 August. On 17 August Artak Petrossian was found injured at the entrance to the airport: he was said to have been suffering from the effects of a beating, including a broken arm and a fractured skull. He was taken to a hospital in Yerevan's Shengavit district, but died a week later. According to unofficial sources, Artak Petrossian's family had seen multiple cuts on his arms prior to his detention and some members of his penal battalion had alleged that Artak Petrossian had been taken to the local army command post two hours before he was found at the airport. It is further alleged that although Artak Petrossian was conscious when taken to hospital no officials interviewed him before his death, and that law enforcement officials did not actually interview medical staff until two months after Artak Petrossian died.

The death penalty (update to information in AI Index: EUR 01/01/99)

Addressing the UN Human Rights Committee in Geneva in October 1998, Armenia's representative stated that abolition of the death penalty would come into force as of 1 January 1999 when a new criminal code was adopted. However, at the end of the period under review the draft code, which received its first reading in April 1997, had still not received final parliamentary approval. In February, speaking to an Amnesty International delegate in Yerevan, the Interior Minister reported that at that time there were around 30 men on death row.

AUSTRIA

Alleged ill-treatment

In April Amnesty International wrote to the Austrian authorities expressing concern about allegations of ill- treatment by police officers of two detainees. In both of these cases, in addition to being physically ill-treated, the detainees were verbally abused with racist language. In November 1998 a black Austrian citizen, widely referred to in the Austrian media as Dr C, was allegedly ill-treated by two police officers. On the evening of 1 November 1998 Dr C and his family were stopped by a police patrol car. During this incident, witnesses claimed, the police officers pushed Dr C into a bush of thorns and beat him unconscious. While Dr C lay unconscious on the ground the police handcuffed him, but continued to beat him after he regained consciousness. Dr C's wife claims that during the assault one of the police officers shouted to his colleague, “Make him lame until he can no longer walk!” and “Work on his joints so he can no longer walk!” The police officers reportedly abused Dr C with racist language during the incident. As a result of the attack on his joints Dr C spent 11 days in hospital suffering from various injuries.
    Through a combination of press reports and copies of statements made by five eyewitnesses Amnesty International learned of an assault by police officers of a French citizen of African origin, Mohammed Ali Visila. The incident occurred just before midnight on 3 March at the underground station of Schottenring in Vienna. According to the witness statements and the coverage of the incident in the Austrian press, Mohammed Ali Visila was pushed into the control room of the station and assaulted by two police officers. The witnesses claimed to have seen the two policemen punch, kick and beat the man with rubber truncheons while he lay on the floor of the control room. In addition he was sprayed with pepper but only after he had been forced to the ground and beaten. Eventually more policemen arrived and the injured man was carried away on a stretcher to the Lorenz Boehler hospital where he was treated for his injuries. Amnesty International found especially disturbing the use of racist language by the two policemen. Witnesses reported that the police officers verbally abused the victim as “you dirty negro son-of-a-bitch” and “negro son-of-a-bitch".
    Mohammed Ali Visila was brought to trial in April charged with resisting arrest and physically injuring the police officers. Mohammed Ali Visila was sentenced to a nine-month prison sentence, of which eight months were suspended. During the trial Mohammed Ali Visila claimed he could not remember the details of the incident. It was reported that the judge asked him if he had hit the police officers with a wooden sign. He answered “Maybe, I don't know”. When the judge asked him if the police officers beat him so he was in need of hospital treatment he answered “Maybe”. Since his arrest on 3 March the detainee had already spent nearly one month in incarceration in Austria. Shortly after the trial he was allowed to return to Hannover in Germany where he lives and works.

Deaths in police custody

In February Amnesty International wrote to the Minister of the Interior about the death of a Senegalese national, Ahmed Fall, while in police custody. According to the post-mortem the cause of death was a blocked trachea, due to a packet of cocaine swallowed by Ahmed Fall when he was apprehended by the police on 19 January. However, other reports referred to witness testimony that Ahmed Fall had been beaten by a number of plainclothes police officers shortly before his death. Amnesty International asked the authorities whether an independent, impartial investigation had been initiated into the incident and whether any steps had been taken to interview the witness whose account had been reported in the press. In April the Ministry of the Interior informed Amnesty International that it had been unable to locate the person who had witnessed the alleged ill-treatment and reaffirmed the autopsy which indicated that Ahmed Fall had died after suffocating on a small plastic packet of drugs and that no evidence of violence was found.     In April Amnesty International wrote to the Minister of the Interior requesting the results of an investigation he had ordered into the death of an 18-year-old Hungarian citizen, Janos Pongracz, in the custody of Austrian border guards at the border post of Berg. The death had been attributed to suicide, but there appeared to be questions which remained unanswered. On 29 September 1998 Janos Pongracz was arrested with his two companions, Roland Biro and Peter Kis, at the border post of Berg. While in detention Janos Pongracz is alleged to have hanged himself with a belt. According to reports, the man's belt and shoe laces were taken from him before he was placed in the cell. However, Janos Pongracz's mother states that her son never used a belt and at the time of his death was wearing buckled shoes. The parents of Janos Pongracz say that they were told by the local police commander in Berg, through an interpreter, that their son was not charged with any offence. The men with whom he was travelling were allowed to return to Hungary soon after the young man's death. The parents were not informed when the autopsy would be carried out, although they inquired several times and wished to have a representative present. At the end of June Amnesty International had not received a response to the letter.
    In May Amnesty International expressed concern to the Austrian authorities about the death of a 25- year-old Nigerian citizen, Marcus Omofuma, during his deportation from Vienna, Austria, to Nigeria on 1 May. Marcus Omofuma allegedly suffocated on the aeroplane in the presence of three Austrian police officers. He is alleged to have resisted the attempt to deport him and as a result officers bound his arms and legs. On the aeroplane he was put in an empty row of seats. Marcus Omofuma continued his protest verbally. The captain of the aeroplane warned the accompanying police officers that unless the detainee was made to be quiet he would not take them to Sofia. In an attempt to quieten him one of the officers covered Marcus Omofuma's mouth with adhesive tape. Only towards the end of the two-and-a-half hour journey was Marcus Omofuma said to have calmed down. After the aeroplane had landed the officers untied him and removed the adhesive tape from his mouth. At this point they realised that Marcus Omofuma had lost consciousness. By the time a doctor arrived to treat him Marcus Omofuma was dead. Amnesty International expressed concern that Marcus Omofuma may have died as a direct or indirect result of his treatment by the three police officers.

Police shootings

Through a combination of witness statements and press reports Amnesty International learned of the fatal shooting of Franz Wohlfahrt by a special detachment of police officers in the village of Wörterberg in the southern region of Burgenland on 1 June. Franz Wohlfahrt had reportedly lived in the village for many years and was forced to retire early as a result of his deteriorating mental health. His condition is said to have been widely known in the local community and during the time Franz Wohlfahrt had lived in Wörterberg he is not reported to have harmed anybody or have acted violently.
    On 1 June Franz Wohlfahrt is reported to have experienced psychological difficulties and his guardian is reported to have called the gendarmerie. Upon seeing the gendarmes loading their guns Franz Wohlfahrt fled into his bedroom and armed himself with a pitchfork. The gendarmes then called for a special police attachment to deal with the situation. According to witness and press reports a special detachment of about 12 armed police officers broke down the front door of Franz Wohlfahrt's house. As they forced themselves into the house a number of gun shots were heard. During the forced entry Franz Wohlfahrt was shot in the hand and in the thigh. Amnesty International has been informed that more than just two shots were fired during the forced entry and a number of other bullet holes were visible inside the house after the incident. It is reported that Franz Wohlfahrt died on the way to hospital after losing a large amount of blood. Amnesty International is particularly concerned that excessive force may have been used against a man armed only with a pitchfork who had barricaded himself into his house and was not a threat to anybody in his immediate vicinity. The death of Franz Wohlfahrt is also a cause for great concern since apparently very little regard was given to the state of Franz Wohlfahrt's mental health by the police officers.

AZERBAIJAN

Political prisoners and possible prisoners of conscience (update to information in AI Index: EUR 01/01/99)

On 10 February President Heidar Aliyev recommended that a criminal case for slander against his predecessor, Abulfaz Elchibey, should be discontinued. Trial proceedings, which had begun at Baku City Court on 25 January, were halted the following day. Abulfaz Elchibey faced up to six years' imprisonment under Article 188-6 of the Criminal Code, which punishes insult or slander directed against the President of the Azerbaijani Republic (he had accused President Aliyev of involvement in the founding of the Kurdish Workers' Party (PKK) in Turkey during his time as a high ranking official in the former Soviet Union). Amnesty International had expressed concern at the use of this law, and urged that its application not be abused in order to stifle criticism of public officials; to intimidate those who voice legitimate concerns about the actions or practices of public officials; or to punish the legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of expression.
    At the end of the period under review Amnesty International had not received a response from the Azerbaijani authorities about the case of possible prisoner of conscience Rasim Agayev, serving a four-year term for allegedly concealing a crime against the state. Rasim Agayev's supporters alleged that he had been arrested solely because of his political views and his former role as a press secretary for ex-President Ayaz Mutalibov. Rasim Agayev's lawyers have also alleged numerous procedural irregularities in the case, including that he was denied access to a defence lawyer for three days after his detention, and that he confessed only after officials threatened to prosecute his daughter for possessing substances thought to be drugs allegedly found during a search of the Agayevs' apartment. It is alleged that immediately after he confessed, Rasim Agayev was told that the substances found in his daughter's coat were not narcotics. Rasim Agayev later retracted his confession. Amnesty International had urged a comprehensive review of his case.
    Vahid Qurbanov, detained on 12 September last year and subsequently charged with resisting a police officer, was given a two-year suspended sentence at his trial in January. Amnesty International had expressed concern during his detention at allegations that he had been prosecuted for objecting verbally to police actions directed at preventing peaceful demonstrations, and that it was the police who assaulted him rather than vice versa.

Deaths in custody at Gobustan prison

Amnesty International sought further information on an investigation launched after 11 prisoners and two guards died during disorders at Gobustan prison, some 60 kilometres outside the capital city of Baku. According to official reports, the chain of events began with an escape attempt by two prisoners, former General Vahid Musayev and former Colonel Faiq Bakhshaliyev, who were serving lengthy terms after being convicted of attempted terrorist acts. The two men shared a cell, and around 11pm on 7 January they are said to have called for medical assistance. When a guard entered their cell he was knocked unconscious, and one of the prisoners, dressed in the guard's uniform, then disarmed two more guards at a checkpoint. Armed with these weapons the prisoners are said to have opened various cells and encouraged others to join them in an escape attempt.
    The group of prisoners, said to number some 25 to 30 men at that point, attacked a control-observation post. An exchange of fire followed, alerting guards who were able to close the prison's entry and exit points. A stalemate then ensued, with the prisoners trapped in the prison but having reportedly taken hostage 28 guards along with their arms and ammunition. One guard is said to have died subsequently from injuries received in the attack, as did two prisoners.
    Negotiations continued through the night, involving officials from the Procuracy and the Ministries of Justice and Interior, as well as close relatives of the prisoners. The prisoners refused to lay down their arms, and demanded transport and a safe passage out of the prison. According to some reports they also requested safe passage to the disputed Karabakh region. Six of the hostage guards wounded in the exchange of fire were released, although the prisoners are reported to have brought others to the roof of the building they controlled and threatened to shoot them if their demands were not met.
    Eventually on 8 January the prisoners were provided with a minibus (or seized one, reports vary) in which they apparently planned to leave for the airport. However, in circumstances unclear publicly at the time, at around 12.30pm that day armed units from the Ministries of Justice and Internal Affairs opened fire on the bus. One report stated that the bus was leaving the prison premises when the firing occurred . According to the Interior Minister, nine prisoners on the bus are said to have died as a result, as did one of the guards they had taken with them as hostages, and over 20 people were said to have been wounded. The dead prisoners included Vahid Musayev and Faiq Bakhshaliyev.
    Reports at the time, even from official sources, varied about certain aspects of events, including whether or not the prisoners were provided with a minibus by officials; what precipitated the firing as a result of which those on the bus were killed; which forces were involved in the operation and the location of the bus at the time shooting broke out. Given these disputed circumstances Amnesty International regards it as especially important that the inquiry initiated be thorough and impartial, and includes among its aims a public clarification of the circumstances of the custodial deaths, in order to allay allegations by some unofficial sources that these deaths were extrajudicial killings. The organization would also welcome further clarification on whether the families of the deceased and their legal representatives have been informed of, and have access to, any hearing as well as to all information relevant to the investigation; if they have been entitled to present other evidence; and if they have been given the right to have a medical or other qualified representative present at the autopsy. Such provisions are laid down, for example, in the United Nations Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions. Amnesty International would also welcome an assurance that the inquiry will include reference to what measures were taken to ensure that the use of force and firearms was commensurate with the threat posed, in accordance with international standards such as the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the UN Basic Principles on the Use of the Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials.

Alleged ill-treatment in detention (update to information in AI Index: EUR 01/02/98 and EUR 01/01/99)

In February the General Procuracy of Azerbaijan wrote to Amnesty International with detailed information on a number of allegations of ill-treatment in detention which the organization had raised with the authorities, together with material on some cases in which law enforcement officials had been convicted of offences such as physical assault and rape (in the latter case Adyl Ismaylov, then head of the investigation department of Baku City Police Administration, received a three-year sentence in May 1998 for raping the mother of a detainee in his office - the former policeman was released early during the period under review ). In most of the cases raised by Amnesty International, however, criminal proceedings were either not instituted or latter dropped, usually for lack of evidence. The case of Namik Aliyev is an example. A lawyer, he had alleged in March 1998 that he himself was assaulted by law enforcement officials, and then illegally detained, after complaining that his client had arrived for a second meeting that day with visible and fresh injuries sustained in custody. The procuracy reported that although a forensic medical examination had established the presence of light bodily injuries on Namik Aliyev, it had not been possible to establish that they had been caused on the day of the incident. Namik Aliyev's client later reportedly testified to the procuracy that he had not been beaten by police, but had instead received his injuries through his own carelessness, having hit the door of his cell. The case was closed three months later owing to the absence of a corpus delicti.
    Torture and ill-treatment by law enforcement agents continued to be widely alleged, including at least one case in which a detainee was said to have died as a result. The man in question was Bahram Sadiqov, a displaced person originally from the Lachin region of Azerbaijan (currently occupied by ethnic Armenian forces, see below). Bahram Sadiqov, at the time living in Sumgait, was arrested there in January together with five others on suspicion of stealing sheep. He was taken to the Sumgait Police Administration, and died in custody in a temporary detention cell there a week later, on 17 January. Unofficial sources alleged that his death was as a result of a severe beating, and that the five others detained were also beaten. An investigation into Bahram Sadiqov's death has been initiated. The head of the Sumgait City Police is said to have told the TURAN news agency that the suspects had already confessed and so there was no need to pressurize them, a comment made presumably in the light of frequent allegations that law enforcement officials use duress in pre-trial detention to obtain testimony and confessions. A similar remark was reportedly made by an official commenting on allegations that former prime minister Suret Huseynov had been ill-treated in the custody of the Ministry of National Security on 10 and 11 January, saying that it was “not logical” that the defendant should be beaten just before the trial was set to end. Suret Huseynov had told his lawyer when they met on 13 January that he had been put in solitary confinement for three days for reportedly insulting a prison official, and that he had been beaten before and during this time. The lawyer alleged that he could see bruises on his client's stomach and legs at their meeting. Amnesty International had previously raised allegations that Suret Huseynov had been ill-treated in 1997 following his forcible return from Russia to Azerbaijan in March that year. The authorities at that time told the organization that the injuries had been minor, and caused by attempts at suicide. The trial, at which at least one other defendant testified that he had been tortured in order to obtain testimony, ended on 15 February with Suret Huseynov sentenced to life imprisonment for treason, among other charges.

As a result of hostilities the Azerbaijani government is presently unable to exercise de facto control over the disputed Karabakh region, and adjacent territories current under Karabakhi control. Amnesty International addresses authorities in this region as those with such de facto control (and responsibility) over the area, and not as a recognition of their status de jure.

The death penalty

Karabakh retains the judicial death penalty, although this has been abolished by Azerbaijan. As far as Amnesty International is aware there have been no judicial executions in recent years in Karabakh, although courts have continued to pass death sentences. One of the most recent known was that handed down on Azerbaijani citizen Agil Ahmedov, who had been sentenced to death for subversive activities, but was later pardoned on health grounds and released in a prisoner exchange on 9 March.
    Amnesty International has urged the Karabakhi authorities to commute all existing death sentences, as well as any that may be imposed before formal abolition of the death penalty; prepare public opinion for abolition of the death penalty; and prepare and enact legislation to remove the death penalty completely from the criminal code as a possible punishment.

Lack of a civilian alternative to compulsory military service

Amnesty International understands that at present military service is compulsory in Karabakh, with no civilian alternative for those who cannot perform military service because of religious, moral, ethical or other objections. Amnesty International has expressed its concern that young men with a conscientious objection to compulsory military service may face imprisonment for their beliefs in the absence of such a civilian alternative, in violation of international standards. The organization is urging the introduction of a fully civilian alternative service, of non-punitive length, and a fair procedure in law for applying it.

The situation with regard to religious believers

In the past Amnesty International has received several reports alleging harassment of some religious believers in Nagorno-Karabakh. In 1997, for example, the organization sought further information on the situation of a group of people belonging to the Jehovah's Witness religion. It had been reported that on 9 March that year officials from the Nagorno-Karabakh Security Service arrested five members of a Jehovah's Witness congregation, including three women. These were said to have been taken to an investigation prison in Stepanakert, and the two men to an isolator belonging to the security services. A number of searches were also said to have been carried out at the homes of group members and their relatives. One source alleged that members of the Jehovah's Witness congregation were told by law enforcement officials to stop practising their faith or leave Karabakh. No response was received from the Karabakhi authorities.
    In the light of these allegations Amnesty International sought further information on a report during the period under review that the Karabakh Security Services were considering submitting to parliament a bill punishing “ persons guilty of organizing illegal religious groups and sects” with a 30-day administrative detention or fine. The organization sought details on the provisions of this draft bill, as well as any laws currently in force in Karabakh relating to religious groups, and specifically welcomed information on what measures exist to ensure that no one in Karabakh is subjected to imprisonment solely for exercising their internationally recognized right to freedom of conscience and religion.

Arbitrary arrests of peaceful demonstrators, ill-treatment of prisoners, prisoners of conscience

Throughout the first six months of 1999 Amnesty International repeatedly expressed concern about the treatment of members of the opposition in Belarus. In this period opposition groups have staged a number of peaceful protests against President Lukashenka questioning the legitimacy of his tenure in office. Opposition groups set up an electoral commission to organize unofficial presidential elections for 16 May. In both the run up to the election and during the election period itself Amnesty International repeatedly expressed concern about the treatment of members of both the electoral commission and would-be candidates in the election.
    At the beginning of March the chairman of the unofficial electoral commission Viktor Gonchar was sentenced by a Minsk court to 10 days' imprisonment for organizing an unsanctioned meeting in a café with other members of the electoral commission. While in prison he reportedly suffered a heart attack. Amnesty International adopted him asa prisoner of conscience and expressed serious concern about his health and the failure of the prison authorities to provide him with appropriate medical care. In March he was officially charged under Article 190 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus, “Wilful self-conferment of an official title or authority”, which carries a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment or correctional labour. At a press conference of the electoral commission on 19 May Viktor Gonchar confirmed that the charges against him still stood.
    At the end of March the former prime minister of Belarus, Mikhail Chigir, was imprisoned for his active role in Belarus' opposition and for his intention to stand as a presidential candidate in the unofficial presidential elections. Mikhail Chigir was arrested on 30 March and charged with financial impropriety relating to a position he held as head of a bank, “Belagroprombank”. Mikhail Chigir, like Viktor Gonchar, appeared to have been targeted by the authorities solely because of his political beliefs and peaceful opposition activities. Amnesty International considers him a prisoner of conscience. On 2 June a Minsk court rejected Julia Chigir's appeal that her husband be released from jail during the investigation into the charges against him. In the past Amnesty International has expressed concern about the use of corruption charges by the authorities to silence members of the opposition. Andrey Klimov and Vladimir Koudinov, who were imprisoned on charges of bribery and other alleged irregularities in their businesses, were adopted by Amnesty International as prisoners of conscience in 1998 (see Annual Report 1999).
    In the run-up to and during the unofficial elections Amnesty International learned of a number of cases where police officers detained members of the opposition simply for campaigning during this period of protest. On 10 May Amnesty International expressed serious concern for the safety of opposition activist Yury Zakharenko, who failed to return home on the first day of the campaigns. The organization feared that he may have been held in incommunicado detention. Yury Zakharenko is a senior figure in the opposition movement and was believed to be a member of the unofficial electoral commission. His wife believes that he was arrested for his involvement in the unofficial presidential elections. A spokesperson for the Ministry of Internal Affairs is reported to have said that Yury Zakharenko was not being held in Minsk, and that his whereabouts were unknown. Amnesty International is unaware of an investigation being opened into his case by the authorities and has called on the Belarusian authorities to investigate the whereabouts of Yury Zakharenko.
    During the unofficial presidential elections Amnesty International learned about the arrest of Yevgeny Murashko. Yevgeny Murashko is both the chairman of his local Belarusian Helsinki Committee and of the regional electoral commission. In February he reportedly arranged a meeting which Viktor Gonchar the chairman of the central electoral commission attended. On 9 May Yevgeny Murashko was arrested by police officers while returning to his home town of Kalinkovichya in the Gomel Region of Belarus and was sentenced to 10 days' administrative detention. In June he was charged under Article 196 of the Belarusian Criminal Code for the misappropriation of authority relating to his role in the unofficial elections. On 21 June he was given a one-year suspended prison sentence.
    On 11 May one member of the unofficial electoral commission was reportedly given an administrative sentence of 10 days for violating a law about public meetings and demonstrations. Under the Criminal Procedural Code of Belarus a citizen suspected of a crime can be held for a maximum of 10 days without formal charge. Piatro Zosich had been talking to members of the Hlusk Region electoral commission when he was arrested by police officers, who then confiscated ballot papers in his possession. His companion, Valery Hniadzko, was reportedly fined one million Belarusian roubles. On 12 May the vice chairman of Mahileu Region electoral commission, Anatol Fiodaraw, was reportedly sentenced to three days' administrative arrest for failing to appear in court. He and a colleague were detained by police officers on 9 May in the town of Mahileu and told to appear in court on 12 May. The police officers confiscated materials relating to the election. Anatol Fiodaraw claims that illness prevented his appearance in court. Nevertheless, a court in Mahileu proceeded to sentence him.
    On 16 May members of the electoral commission were taken into custody in Hrodna. Police officers detained Ales Barel and Kazimir Lokic at a voting station in the city. Two observers at the voting station, Valiantsin Luchko and Mikola Voran, were also detained and ballot boxes and ballot papers were confiscated by the police. Organizers of the unofficial presidential elections were also detained by police officers in a number of other Belarusian towns, including Slomin, Masty and Zelva, and voting materials were confiscated by the authorities. It was not known how long the police detained the individuals concerned or whether they were given administrative prison sentences. Amnesty International urged President Lukashenka to ensure that all people in Belarus are allowed to peacefully exercise their right to freedom of expression without the fear of being arrested or ill-treated by law enforcement agencies.

Persecution of human rights lawyers

The lawyer Vera Stremkovskaya, who has acted as a defence lawyer in a number of high-profile cases such as that of Vasiliy Starovoitov, came under increasing pressure in 1999 to cease her activities. In 1998 Amnesty International highlighted attempts by the authorities to disbar her from working as a lawyer. Amnesty International has learned that Vera Stremkovskaya is currently being charged under Article 128 (2) of the Belarusian Criminal Code for slandering a public official. The charges carry up to five years imprisonment. Amnesty International has previously called on the authorities to stop the apparent practice of censuring and silencing human rights lawyers in Belarus by taking away their licences (see AI Index: EUR 01/01/99). Amnesty International is calling on the authorities to reinstate all human rights lawyers, including Nadezhda Dudareva and Gary Pogonyailo, who were disbarred solely because of their human rights activities (see AI Index: EUR 49/13/98), and refrain from intimidating lawyers such as Vera Stremkovskaya, who defend individuals opposed to the president.

BELGIUM

Alleged ill-treatment of detained asylum-seekers (update to information given in AI Index: EUR 01/01/99)

In February, pursuing an exchange of correspondence with the Belgian government initiated in September 1998, Amnesty International wrote to the Ministers of Interior and Justice seeking news of any developments in official investigations into the death of Semira Adamu in September 1998. Semira Adamu, a Nigerian national, died within hours of an attempt to deport her forcibly from Brussels-National Airport, during which escorting gendarmes used the so-called “cushion technique”. This method of restraint, authorized by the Belgian authorities at the time of the incidents but since suspended, allowed gendarmes to press a cushion against the mouth, but not the nose, of a recalcitrant deportee, to prevent biting and shouting. A judicial investigation was immediately opened into the circumstances and cause of the death and an initial autopsy report indicated that she died as a result of asphyxia. A disciplinary investigation was also opened, but then suspended pending the outcome of the judicial one.
    In its letter to the Minister of the Interior the organization drew attention to the opinions of the forensic pathologists it had consulted on the use of the “cushion technique” (see AI Index: EUR 01/01/99). It also recalled the concern about the 'technique' expressed by the UN Human Rights Committee in November 1998 and the concern about the gagging of people being forcibly deported which was expressed by the Council of Europe's Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) in 1997. Amnesty International underlined its own opposition to the use of materials or methods which could block the airways of a deportee or any other detainee and stated that it shared, therefore, the great concern of the forensic pathologists over the use of the “cushion technique”.
    The letter commented on several recommendations contained in a report published in January by an independent commission presided over by moral philosopher Professor em. E Vermeersch. In October 1998 the government had announced that the Vermeersch Commission's task was to evaluate the instructions and techniques relating to forcible deportations.
    One of the commission's recommendations was for certain restraint methods to be definitively banned during future forcible deportations, including “in particular, anything obstructing normal respiration (for example, adhesive tape, cushion on the mouth), and all forced administration of pharmacological products (except by doctors in urgent situations which would naturally mean the termination of the attempted deportation).” Amnesty International urged the government to adopt the recommendation in its entirety at the earliest opportunity.
    Another recommendation argued that consideration should be given to the use of “a special plane”, such as a business jet, rather than a regular public flight, to carry out deportations in instances where all other methods to induce recalcitrant deportees to leave the country without resistance have failed. Amnesty International considered that the recommendation required detailed examination and urged the government to carry out in-depth consultations with relevant non-governmental organizations and other experts in the field before taking any decision on implementation. It was concerned, therefore, by reports that deportations by private jet began in March without any such consultations apparently taking place.
    Amnesty International fully endorsed the commission's recommendation that infringements of directives on the use of coercive measures should be dealt with speedily and appropriately sanctioned. However, it noted and shared the concerns expressed by the commission and also by the CPT, the Belgian Permanent Monitoring Committee of Police Services (Committee P) and the UN Human Rights Committee about a lack of transparency and vigour hitherto displayed in the investigation of and reaction to complaints of alleged ill-treatment by law enforcement officers, not only in the specific context of allegations arising out of forcible deportations, but also in the general context of their work. The organization sought clarification of the investigation process, referred to by the Minister of the Interior, which had been used to deal with certain complaints of unnecessary and excessive use of violence by law enforcement officers in the execution of deportations.
    Amnesty International shared the Vermeersch Commission's view of the importance of addressing the question of excessive force and ill-treatment by law enforcement officers in its full context and not only in the context of forcible deportations. It expressed interest in receiving information on any initiatives already taken or envisaged by the government in order to address the concerns expressed by and the recommendations made to the Belgian government in this area by Committee P, the CPT and the UN Human Rights Committee.
    In its February letter Amnesty International also summarized the reports which it had received concerning allegations of ill-treatment made by Fatimata Mohamed, a detained 18-year-old asylum-seeker from Sierra Leone. It sought the government's cooperation in providing information about the steps being taken to investigate fully and impartially the allegations which had been made publicly and via formal complaints lodged with the court. Fatimata Mohamed claimed that she was ill-treated by gendarmes on 30 November or 1 December 1998, while detained at the Sint-Andries Centre for Illegal Aliens in Bruges, and also during an unsuccessful attempt to deport her forcibly to Guinea on 25 January. The organization expressed concern that the deportation attempt took place apparently before any judicial investigation had been completed into a criminal complaint of ill-treatment which she had lodged in December 1998, relating to the Bruges incidents. It invited the Minister of Interior's comments on this and any other aspects of the allegations made by Fatimata Mohamed. Amnesty International also sought assurances from the government that Fatimata Mohamed would not be deported before judicial and administrative investigations into her allegations had been completed and the findings made public.
    In addition Amnesty International drew attention to a criminal complaint of ill-treatment lodged in November 1998 by Blandine Kaniki, a 20-year-old asylum-seeker from the Democratic Republic of Congo. She made the complaint while detained in Steenokkerzeel Detention Centre 127-bis (near Brussels National Airport) with her five-year-old son Christian. She alleged that she and other detainees were subjected to a physical assault by gendarmes in the centre on 31 October 1998. She was three months pregnant at the time of the incidents and claimed that the treatment she received at the centre was the cause of a miscarriage on 24 November 1998. Amnesty International also indicated that it had received copies of statements made by other detainees in the centre who claimed to have been victims of or witnesses to ill-treatment by gendarmes on 31 October 1998. It expressed concern about reported irregularities in the conduct of an internal inquiry opened into the alleged incidents. The organization expressed particular concern at unconfirmed reports which it had received claiming that detainees who were victims or witnesses to the violent incidents of 31 October 1998 had been deported or ordered to leave the country, even though relevant internal and judicial investigations were still under way. Amnesty International sought assurances, therefore, that neither Blandine Kaniki and her son, nor any other alleged victims of or witnesses to the violent incidents of October 1998, would be deported or ordered to leave the country before the judicial investigation into Blandine Kaniki's criminal complaint had been completed.
    Amnesty International sent a copy of its letter to the Minister of Justice, drawing attention to its requests relating to the alleged ill-treatment of Fatimata Mohamed and Blandine Kaniki as well as to the judicial investigation into the death of Semira Adamu.
    In April the Ministry of Justice confirmed that the judicial investigation into the death of Semira Adamu was still under way and that Fatimata Mohamed had been released in March. The Ministry informed Amnesty International that two judicial dossiers had been opened concerning “her violent resistance” (“sa rébellion”) during several attempts to deport her but that the Brussels Public Prosecutor's office had closed the dossiers in April, deciding that no further action should be taken. Amnesty International understands that an order to leave the country which was issued to Fatimata Mohamed cannot be implemented while a suspension on deportations to Guinea of all citizens of Sierra Leone remains in force.
    The Ministry also confirmed that a judicial investigation was still under way into the allegations of ill-treatment made by Blandine Kaniki but said that the relevant judicial authorities had stated that they could give no assurance that she, her son, or any other person involved in the affair would not receive an order to leave the country. Amnesty International was concerned to note that they also indicated that they were taking no steps to prevent this from happening. The organization understands that, although Blandine Kaniki was released from detention in March, she was issued with an order to leave the country. She did not comply and faces the possibility of deportation at any time.
    No response had been received from the Ministry of the Interior by the end of June. The texts of the letters which Amnesty International addressed to the Minister of the Interior in September 1998 and February 1999 were reproduced in full in a document issued in June entitled Belgium - Correspondence with the government concerning the alleged ill-treatment of detained asylum-seekers (AI Index: EUR 14/01/99).

BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA

On 1 January the Presidency of the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina (the Bosniac/Bosnian Croat entity) rotated, with Ivo Andric-Luzanski becoming President of the Federation for the coming year, taking over from Ejup Ganic, who in turn became the new vice-President. In June Bosnian Croat Ante Jelavic took over chairmanship of the Bosnian state Presidency from the Bosnian Serb Presidency member Zivko Radisic, who had held it the previous eight months. At the end of June 1999, more than nine months after general elections in Republika Srpska, no new government had been formed in the Bosnian Serb entity, as no majority vote could be reached in the Bosnian Serb parliament on three different occasions when the appointment of a prime minister was designated. The international community's High Representative, Carlos Westendorp, had on numerous occasions put pressure on the Bosnian Serb authorities to resolve the political impasse causing this political crisis, which culminated in his decision to dismiss Nikola Poplasen from his function as entity President on 5 March (see also below).
    The High Representative also issued similar decisions regarding a number of government officials in the Federation for obstructing implementation of the Dayton Peace Agreement. For example, in February he suspended the Bosniac mayor of Bugojno, Dzevad Mlaco who had used his position to obstruct the return of local Bosnian Croats and who had refused to provide information on the fate and whereabouts of 21 Bosnian Croats who "disappeared" in the area during the war between Bosnian Government forces and the Croatian Defence Council (HVO) in 1993. Dzevad Mlaco resigned from his post a few weeks later.

The continuing obstacles to return

Amnesty International remains concerned about violent, administrative and political obstacles preventing Bosnian refugees and internally displaced persons from exercising their right to return to their pre-war homes in safety and dignity. Following a large number of serious violent attacks on returning Bosniacs in the Stolac municipality in the Herzegovina-Neretva Canton (southern Bosnia) (see AI Index: EUR 01/01/99), the Commissioner of the International Police Task Force (IPTF) launched an investigation into the structure and performance of the Stolac police force. IPTF found that the Croat-dominated police force in the area had failed to carry out its duties to such a degree that it effectively prevented the investigation of incidents of violence during or following minority returns and could be considered complicit in these incidents. As a result, the IPTF Commissioner decided on 3 February to place each member of the Stolac police force on probation for a period of three months. A follow-up report on this subject, released by the United Nations Mission in Bosnia- Herzegovina (UNMIBH) in May stated that, although it noted some improvement, major problems remained in the functioning of the local police , especially with regards to preventive and detective policing in the context of returnee-related violence.
    There were frequent other reports of incidents of violence against minority returnees, mostly damage and destruction of property, throughout the Federation. However, one positive development was the decision by the Herzegovina-Neretva Canton authorities on 20 April to order a renewed investigation into human rights violations that occurred on 10 February 1997 in Mostar. On that day a group of Bosniacs from East Mostar attempting to visit a graveyard in Bosnian-Croat dominated West Mostar on the occasion of Bajram (a Muslim religious holiday) were attacked and shot at by West Mostar (Bosnian Croat) police. Consequently, one elderly Bosniac man died and around 20 others received injuries as a result of police ill-treatment (see AI Index: EUR 01/06/97). So far nobody has been brought to account for these killings or the incidents of ill-treatment. The new investigation team, composed of four Bosnian Croat and four Bosniac police officers is tasked with carrying out a rigorous and impartial investigation, based on the 1997 IPTF report on the case, and to report and submit any new evidence to the Mostar Public Prosecutor.
    Violent attacks against the lives and property of returning refugees and displaced persons, most of them Bosniacs, also occurred in several regions of the Republika Srpska. Some of these incidents took place in the context of extreme nationalist protests at the launch of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) air strikes against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia at the end of March and the ensuing influx of tens of thousands of Serb refugees from Serbia proper and Montenegro into the RS. For example, in May, two serious return-related attacks were reported in the municipality of Novi Grad, one of the so-called cluster areas for inter-entity return of Bosniac displaced persons, now residing in Sanski Most (Federation), who, upon their return to Novi Grad would vacate housing spaces that originally belonged to Bosnian Serbs, who are now in turn displaced in Prijedor (RS). After a house belonging to a Bosniac returnee was blown up on 9 May in Gornji Agici village, a rocket was fired a week later in the direction of Bosniac returnee houses in the village of Suhaca.
    At the end of June at least five people were reportedly injured, two of them seriously, during an attack on a group of around 60 Bosniacs, who were visiting their pre-war village of Tarovici, in the RS municipality of Modrica. Some Serbs now living in Modrica (which houses a large internally displaced Bosnian Serb population) reportedly threw a hand grenade into the group after they had given the returnees an ultimatum of five minutes to leave the village. Minority returns to Modrica in the second half of 1998 were equally frustrated by violent incidents aiming at intimidating returnees (see AI Index: EUR 01/01/99).
    Another remaining obstacle to returns to the RS is the entity's amnesty law which currently does not include the offences of draft evasion, desertion or failure to respond to a call-up order during the armed conflict. This seriously hinders the return of thousands of male refugees who would theoretically face criminal charges for these offences. Although amendments to the existing amnesty law were passed by the RS parliament in February, President Poplasen refused to sign the amended law on 4 March, thereby returning the amendments to parliament for re-adoption.
    On 5 March 1999, the Arbitration Tribunal for Brcko issued its final decision on the Status of the municipality. The Commission turned the municipality into a special district which will function as a single multinational administrative unit under the exclusive sovereignty of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Thus, it does not come under the jurisdiction of either the Federation or the RS entity. The decision was taken mainly to enable the process of two-way returns, which would facilitate the return of pre-war Bosniac and Bosnian-Croat Brcko residents as well as the return of internally displaced Bosnian Serbs now living in the municipality to their original homes. The decision was met by public outrage in the RS. This was expressed by rioting in and around Brcko and the resignation of the acting Prime Minister, Milorad Dodik.

Further information on unfair trials of political prisoners in the RS

On 18 May the RS Supreme Court granted an appeal after a retrial in which three Bosniac men from Srebrenica were convicted for the second time in December 1998 of the murder of four Bosnian Serbs in May 1996. The Supreme Court decided to send the case once more to retrial, which meant that the defendants would have to stand trial for the third time on the same charges. International organizations, including Amnesty International, have severely criticized the investigation procedures, as well as the ensuing legal proceedings conducted by the RS police and judicial authorities for repeated and serious procedural violations of internationally guaranteed standards for fair trials as well as violations of the RS Criminal Code. Although the Supreme Court quashed the verdict of the retrial, arguing that its reasoning was contradictory and not supported by the factual situation as indicated by the available evidence, it did not drop the criminal charges against the defendants, but instead sent the case again for retrial to the first-instance court. The Supreme Court in addition reasoned that the evidence available to the court had not been used in accordance with RS criminal legislation and this situation should be rectified in the (second) retrial. No new evidence was apparently found to justify further criminal prosecution. The three defendants, who had been transferred to a prison in the Federation in an exchange on humanitarian grounds, were released on 10 June to stand renewed trial out of custody.

Update on arrests and prosecutions at the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (Tribunal)

Amnesty International continued its lobbying of states supplying troops to the multi-national Stabilization Forces (SFOR) deployed in Bosnia-Herzegovina. AI called for these states to seek out and arrest those indicted by the Tribunal. On 9 January, SFOR troops killed publicly indicted war crimes suspect Dragan Gagovic in an attempt to arrest him near his home town of Foca in the eastern RS. According to a SFOR spokesperson, French SFOR soldiers opened fire on him in self-defence. Amnesty International has urged that, while the organization welcomes initiatives to apprehend suspects indicted by the Tribunal, these should be conducted according to internationally recognized guidelines regulating the use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials. In the interest of clarity and impartiality, the organization requested that the circumstances in which the shooting occurred be investigated promptly and impartially and that the results of the investigation be published. Amnesty International recommended that the same measures be taken by SFOR after the shooting of another indicted suspect, Simo Drljaca in July 1997.
Two other suspects came into the Tribunal's custody after they had been detained by SFOR. On 7 June Dragan Kulundzija, a Bosnian Serb publicly indicted for war crimes committed in the Keraterm detention camp where he was a guard shift commander, was arrested in Prijedor. Another Bosnian Serb, Radoslav Brdjanin, was arrested on 5 July. He had been the subject of a sealed indictment for crimes against humanity in the Sanski Most and Prijedor regions, in his capacity as the president of the Crisis Committee of the Autonomous Region of Krajina.
    On 7 May the Tribunal found Zlatko Aleksovski, a Bosnian Croat, guilty of violations of the laws or customs of war, which he had committed while in command of the Kaonik detention camp in the Lasva valley in central Bosnia. Zlatko Aleksovski was acquitted of grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. He was sentenced to two and a half years' imprisonment, but immediately released as he had already spent this period in custody. The Tribunal's Prosecutor has appealed against the decision.

Torture and ill-treatment in custody

A group of six Bosnian Serb men, who had been charged in December 1998 with the murder of the Pale deputy police chief Srdjan Knezevic, went on trial before the District Court of “Srpsko Sarajevo” in March 1999. On 28 April 1999 they were acquitted as the judge ruled that there was no evidence that they had committed the murder and that some of the evidence presented in court had been obtained under duress in violation of national and international law. The men, who had been arrested immediately after the murder in early July 1998, and who had subsequently been held in arbitrary detention, along with another seven persons for two weeks, had been subjected to severe torture and ill-treatment during detention. IPTF, who had monitored the police investigation of the murder, recommended that the officers who allegedly ordered and participated in the torture and ill-treatment be investigated and criminally prosecuted. Although the investigating judge at the Sokolac Basic Court is reportedly conducting an investigation into the ill-treatment and other alleged police misconduct during the Knezevic investigation, none of the suspected police officers has yet been brought to justice.
BULGARIA

The UN Committee against Torture meets to consider Bulgaria's second periodic report

At its meetings held in Geneva on 30 April and 3 and 5 May, the Committee against Torture considered Bulgaria's second periodic report submitted under Article 19 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. In its conclusions, the Committee expressed concern on a number of points, including the following:

    "10. The continued reporting from reliable non-governmental organizations on ill-treatment by public officials, particularly the police, especially against persons belonging to ethnic minorities, and;

    11. The deficiencies relating to a prompt and impartial system of investigation of alleged cases of torture and the failure to bring those allegations before a judge or other appropriate judicial authority."

Furthermore, the Committee issued a number of recommendations to the Bulgarian authorities. Amnesty International has written to the Bulgarian authorities requesting information about any future steps and reforms envisaged by the Bulgarian government to implement these recommendations, in particular regarding the Committee's recommendation that Bulgaria should "take effective steps to put an end to practices of ill- treatment by the police which still occur". Amnesty International has proposed to the Bulgarian authorities that the following could significantly further the implementation of these recommendations:

    - information about the Committee's conclusions and recommendations should be widely disseminated;
    - the authorities should initiate a full parliamentary debate on the Committee's conclusions and recommendations, proposing a comprehensive program for the implementation of the Committee's recommendations;
    - in drafting a program for the implementation of the Committee's recommendations, as well as in the course of its realization, the government should work closely with local non-governmental organizations which are concerned with the protection of human rights; the government should also consider extensive recommendations elaborated by Amnesty International in Bulgaria: Shootings, deaths in custody, torture and ill-treatment (AI Index: EUR 15/07/96), a report published in June 1996.

New cases of alleged torture and ill-treatment by police

On 5 April in Sofia, in a café in Sv. Troitsa neighbourhood, police officers arrested Stefan Kostadinov, who had earlier escaped from a psychiatric hospital where he had been held in detention pending the results of a criminal investigation. It is not known where he was subsequently taken by the police, but as a result of allegedly having been beaten Stefan Kostadinov suffered a fractured jaw. He was operated on and treated at the Ministry of Internal Affairs hospital. Reportedly, the investigators into the offence for which he had been held in detention recommended to the Sofia Prosecutor that the investigation should be suspended for lack of evidence.
    Another incident concerns Kalin Kotov who was reportedly beaten by Captain M. in the Regional Police Department in Vratsa while being interrogated regarding the sale of a car on 16 April. Kalin Kotov came in the company of a lawyer and Pavlina Koteva, his mother, and his five-year-old son Iso. However, the lawyer was not allowed to be present during the questioning when Captain M. reportedly punched Kalin Kotov making him fall to the ground, kicked him and hit his head against the wall. The officer reportedly held Kalin Kotov by the neck to try to stop him crying out and shouting for help. After hearing the cries through an open window Pavlina Koteva asked the officer on duty to intervene but he reportedly told her that she should not interfere because she could be charged with hooliganism.
    A complaint about the alleged ill-treatment of Kalin Kotov was filed with the Pleven Military Prosecutor and the Vratsa Regional Department for Internal Affairs. Captain M. had reportedly previously been investigated for ill-treatment of detainees and extortion but had only been subjected to light disciplinary sanctions or reprimands.

Prisoner of conscience released; conscientious objection to military service (update to information in AI Index: EUR 01/01/99)

Krassimir Nikolov Savov was granted a pardon by President Stoyanov and was released from Plovdiv prison in the spring, after serving half of a one-year sentence for failing to respond to call-up. As a Jehovah's Witness Krassimir Nikolov Savov's religious convictions forbid him to carry arms and perform military service.
    Although the right to perform alternative service has been recognized for many years by the Bulgarian Constitution (Article 59, paragraph 2), a law which would enable conscientious objectors to duly address their request to perform alternative service to the competent authorities came into force only on 1 January 1999. It stipulates that alternative service will be double the duration of military national service, which is currently 12 months for conscripts with secondary education and nine months for university graduates. Amnesty International has written to President Stoyanov to express concern that the length of alternative civilian service should not be such as to constitute a punishment for a person's conscientiously held conviction.

CROATIA

Update on government reactions to reports of human rights abuses committed after Operation Storm

Amnesty International remains seriously concerned about the lack of adequate investigations and prosecutions into hundreds of killings committed after the 1995 offensives by Croatian armed forces. In March the Chairman of the Committee for Legal Affairs of the Lower House of the Croatian Parliament replied to Amnesty International members who had been campaigning on this issue. The reply contained information regarding criminal investigations and legal proceedings or the absence thereof in 22 individual cases of killings mentioned by Amnesty International in its report, published in August 1998 (Croatia : Impunity for killings after Storm, AI Index: EUR 64/04/98) or in a list of incidents, reported by international monitors during and after the offensive, appended to the report and sent by Amnesty International to the Justice and Interior Ministries in September 1998 (see AI Index: EUR 01/01/99). However, the information given in the reply appears to be exclusively from county prosecutors' records from 1996 and 1997 and Amnesty International was already aware of it. Indeed some of this information had been published in the external report and the appendix. According to the reply, six men were convicted for murders committed in the aftermath of Operation Storm and sentenced to imprisonment terms ranging from six to eight years. However, it is not known whether these people are currently serving their sentences (Amnesty International had asked the Justice Minister for confirmation of this on several occasions). In one case in which the indicted suspect was acquitted of the murder charges, an appeal against the verdict has been pending before the Croatian Supreme Court for over two years. The reply to Amnesty International did not provide further information on scores of other incidents that were listed in the appendix. Most notably no information was given regarding investigations or criminal proceedings into the extremely well-documented killing of five, possibly six, elderly Croatian Serbs in the Grubori hamlet, in the Plavno valley, in former Sector South.
    In May the Croatian Helsinki Committee published a lengthy report on human rights violations, listing over 400 killings which took place in the aftermath of Operation "Storm". Commenting to the local media on this report, newly-appointed Justice Minister Zvonimir Separovic, stated that there had been individual criminal acts, but rejected the allegations by the Helsinki Committee that serious violations of international humanitarian law had been committed by Croatian forces. According to the Justice Minister, a large number of criminal proceedings (a total of over 5,000) were ongoing into criminal acts committed during and after the operation. However, when giving more specific numbers for ongoing and completed investigations, and ongoing and completed criminal proceedings, Amnesty International noted that he was referring to the same numbers that were presented to the organization in May 1998.
    On the same subject, Interior Minister Ivan Penic told the press that his Ministry had already commented on the majority of cases documented by the Helsinki Committee, in his replies to Amnesty International and Helsinki Watch on earlier occasions. However, as Amnesty International has stated repeatedly, the information provided in these replies fails to address the organization's specific questions and recommendations and underlines the organization's continuing concern of impunity for the human rights violations committed by Croatian security forces during and after Storm.
    At the end of May the trial of six Croats who had been charged with committing criminal acts against Serb civilians in the Pakracka Poljana area in 1991 and 1992 came to a close. Following the confession of one of the defendants in a Croatian newspaper in September 1997 (see AI Index: EUR 01/01/98) in which he alleged to have killed large numbers of Serb civilians in the area as a member of a special unit in the Croatian security forces, an investigation was opened against him and five other former unit members. The Zagreb County Court decided to acquit four of the defendants and to sentence the remaining two to imprisonment sentences of up to 20 months for extortion, house-breaking and illegally detaining and assaulting a Serb villager. The court decided not to pursue the murder charges, as the judge ruled that there was insufficient evidence and that the witness testimonies were inconsistent.

Update on government cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (Tribunal)

Amnesty International remains concerned about the lack of cooperation between the Croatian Government and the Tribunal's Prosecutor's Office. The Croatian President, Franjo Tudjman and various other high-ranking government officials issued statements to the effect that, should the Tribunal Prosecutor decide to indict Croatian military and political leaders for violations of international humanitarian law committed after operations "Flash" and "Storm", Croatia would end all formal cooperation with the Tribunal. Amnesty International has reminded the Croatian authorities that their legal obligation (as a UN member state bound by Security Council Resolution 827 of May 1993) to cooperate effectively with the Tribunal cannot be subject to any current or future conditions.
    Amnesty International welcomes the report that the Zagreb County Court has decided that a publicly indicted war crimes suspect, Vinko Martinovic, may be surrendered to the custody of the Tribunal. He was indicted by the Tribunal in December 1998 for crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and violations of the laws or customs of war committed in the Mostar region in Bosnia- Herzegovina in 1993 and 1994. However, Amnesty International notes that the decision to surrender Vinko Martinovic was made pursuant to extradition procedures before the Zagreb County Court (which is expected to rule at a later stage on the extradition of Mladen Naletilic, who was jointly indicted with Vinko Martinovic). Such procedures are inconsistent with guidelines drawn up by the Registrar of the Tribunal in order to assist states in their duty to cooperate with the Tribunal. These guidelines stipulate that the transfer of an arrested suspect to the custody of the Tribunal should take place without resort to extradition proceedings.

Update on implementation of the program for return

According to Croatian Government sources, over 11,000 Croatian Serbs have returned to the country through the program for return, since the program was adopted in June 1998 until the end of May this year.
    In June the Croatian Foreign Minister, Mate Granic claimed that since 1996 around 60,000 Serbs had returned to the country. This figure was disputed by Croatian Serb representatives who said that only 35,000 had returned in this period, while UNHCR estimated this number to be around 37,000. A small number of Croatian Serbs who had fled to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) also returned to Croatia during the NATO air campaign against FRY from the end of March until 10 June, although it is unclear whether they actually stayed and resettled in their pre-war homes.
    In addition, the Croatian Office for Displaced Persons and Refugees (ODPR) estimated that at the end of June a total of 19,250 internally displaced Croats had returned to eastern Slavonia.
    However, serious problems persisted in the implementation of the program for return. Local political obstruction, in particular the lack of will to evict temporary occupants from accommodation belonging to returning Serbs, reportedly continued throughout the country. Incidents of this kind were most reported in the region of Western Slavonia and Knin where large numbers of Bosnian Croats settled in Croatian Serb accommodation during the war.
    Violent incidents against remaining Serbs continued to be reported in the region of eastern Slavonia. On 16 May Teodor Bogdanovic, a Croatian Serb, was murdered in Marinci village near Vukovar by a Croat from Janjevo in Kosovo (FRY) who had settled in the region before the war. The suspected perpetrator was immediately arrested by local police. At the end of May the local Helsinki Committee organized a press conference during which it expressed serious concern about the security situation in the Vukovar area and said that it had received over 20 reports of violent incidents - most of them arson attacks and physical assaults - against the remaining Serb population. According to the Helsinki Committee all attacks had been reported to the local police who failed to take appropriate action.

Possible prisoners of conscience

At the beginning of June the Zagreb County Court's investigative judge opened an investigation against Ivo Pukanic, editor-in-chief of the independent weekly Nacional, and Robert Bajrusi, a journalist for Nacional, for revealing state secrets (Article 145 of the Croatian Criminal Code). On 2 June and after-wards, Nacional published several reports in which it alleged that the football match deciding on the Croatian league championship had been rigged to the advantage of the favourite club of President Tudjman. The weekly stated that the operation had involved large-scale participation of the secret police forces (Sluzba za zastitu ustavnog poretka - SZUP) which had reportedly tapped the phone lines of a large number of leading football players and sport journalists and blackmailed or bribed key referees. The Croatian Interior Ministry has stated that it will file charges against the two Nacional journalists for revealing state secrets and that an internal investigation in the country's secret police was being conducted in order to find out who had passed the information on to them. On 9 June the former head of the central secret intelligence organization in Croatia (Hrvatske izvjestajne sluzbe - HIS), Miroslav Separovic was arrested and interrogated by police regarding allegations that he had given information about the activities of the secret police to the media.
    Amnesty International believes that the criminal prosecution of Ivo Pukanic and Robert Bajrusi would amount to a violation of their right to freedom of expression. If they were to be convicted and imprisoned on the charges proposed, the organization would consider them to be prisoners of conscience and demand their immediate and unconditional release.

Unfair war crimes trials

On 27 May, a group of five Croatian Serbs from the eastern Slavonian village of Sodolovci were convicted of war crimes against the civilian population from July 1991 until May 1992. They were sentenced to imprisonment terms ranging from eight to 15 years. International monitors expressed serious concerns about the fairness of the judicial proceedings, and asserted that the court had produced insufficient evidence to convict the defendants.
    Amnesty International has expressed similar concerns about the case of five Croatian Serb defendants from Stikovo near Knin who were found guilty of similar charges in first-instance proceedings at the end of March last year (see AI Index: EUR 01/02/98). They were given lengthy imprisonment sentences. No appeal hearings in the case are reported to have started yet.
     Similarly, in the case of Mirko Graorac, who had been sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment for war crimes by the Split County Court in 1996, and whose case had been sent back for retrial by the Supreme Court in February 1998, no renewed proceedings had been initiated by the end of June (see AI Index: EUR 99/01/01 and Croatia: Mirko Graorac. Shortchanging justice - war crimes trials in former Yugoslavia, AI Index: EUR 64/10/98).

CZECH REPUBLIC

Alleged ill-treatment by police officers

On 27 January at 0.40am 15 police officers wearing black uniforms and balaclavas entered U Kavku restaurant in Prague. Stanislav Penc, a member of the Czech Human Rights Committee and who was in the restaurant, queried the reasons why he was asked for his identity card. A plainclothes officer pointed at him and said: "Take that one". Two officers whose balaclavas were not fully drawn over their faces reportedly took Stanislav Penc by his hair and pulled him away from the table, beating him and dragging him outside. Taking him towards the nearby police station at Bartolomeiská street, the officers reportedly held Stanislav Penc by his arms and hair while another officer repeatedly hit him in the ribs with his elbow.

FRANCE

Judicial developments in several cases of ill-treatment and killings by law enforcement officers highlighted Amnesty International's concern that courts feel uneasy about convicting police officers for crimes of violence or excessive force to anything but nominal sentences and that while prosecutors are often too passive in applying the law, some appear to play an active part in perpetuating a situation of effective impunity where police officers are concerned.

Torture case before European Court of Human Rights

Following a decision by the European Commission on Human Rights that Ahmed Selmouni, a man of dual Dutch and Moroccan nationality now serving a prison sentence for drug dealing, had been tortured during a 72-hour period in police custody (see France: Excessive force, AI Index: EUR 21/05/98 and Concerns in Europe: AI Index: EUR 01/02/98), proceedings against France opened on 18 March before the European Court of Human Rights. The case is the subject of the first torture allegations against France to be taken up by the court. A verdict has not yet been delivered. The Commission had found that the injuries inflicted on Ahmed Selmouni at the police station of Bobigny (Seine-Saint-Denis), and which included severe beatings with a truncheon and baseball bat and kickings and beatings as well as alleged forced physical exercises, forced fellatio and rape, were in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture. It stated that the ill-treatment inflicted on the prisoner, who lost the sight of an eye, had been so serious and cruel that it could only be described as torture. The Commission also found France to be in violation of Article 6 of the Convention regarding fair trial within a reasonable time. The arrest of Ahmed Selmouni had taken place in November 1991 but the five officers of the Service départemental de police judiciaire (SDJP), in whose custody he had been held, were not examined by a judge until 1997 and appeared before the tribunal correctionnel of Versailles (Yvelines) in February - only about six weeks before the opening of the case in Strasbourg. The French government accepted that France had been in contravention of Article 6, but the last- minute opening of the trial in Versailles enabled the French authorities to argue that domestic remedies had not been exhausted and that delivery of a European Court judgment on torture would infringe the principle of presumption of innocence.
    The five officers appeared before the Versailles court on charges of committing violence (violences) and of sexual assault (agressions sexuelles) against Ahmed Selmouni and another man, Abdemajid Madi. The defendants denied the charges, suggesting that the two men had injured themselves or had perhaps watched too many films. The prosecution requested that they be sentenced to between two and four years' imprisonment. In March, a few days after the opening of the case in Strasbourg, the court convicted all five officers. Concluding that they had committed acts of “organized and particularly severe violence” which “strike deeply at public order and contravene the most basic principles of the rule of law” and that they had “replied to the victims' declarations with nothing but silence and denials without giving the least explanation for their actions”See footnote 1 ¹ , the court sentenced one officer to an “exemplary” four years' imprisonment, and he was taken at once from the court to the maison d'arrêt of Bois-d'Arcy (Yvelines). Three officers were sentenced to three years' imprisonment and the fifth officer to two years' imprisonment. All immediately appealed. The verdict, the basis for the convictions and the direct imprisonment of one of the officers met with a series of angry protests and demonstrations by members of all the police unions in France. An unusually swift appeal, which took place before the Cour d'appel de Versailles (Yvelines) in May and June, drastically cut the “exemplary” four-year prison term to one of 18 months, of which 15 were suspended, allowing for the immediate release of the officer. The convictions against the four other officers were cut to suspended prison sentences of 15, 12 and ten months' imprisonment. The prosecutor (avocate générale) attached to the appeal court had herself controversially requested that the officers be “returned their honour” and declared not guilty of the offence of sexual assault and that, if they were to remain convicted of violent acts, they should benefit from an amnesty.
    The court upheld the convictions against the officers for violent acts but set aside the conviction for sexual assault. However, it recognized that the officers had committed “particularly degrading treatment” and that their conduct could in no circumstances be justified.

Updates on cases of police shootings

On 27 May the Cour d'assises de Seine-Saint-Denis acquitted a police officer who had been charged with inflicting violence, leading to the death of Etienne Leborgne, in 1996 (Amnesty International Report 1997).
    A few days before his death Etienne Leborgne, a Paris taxi driver born in Guadeloupe, had tried to escape a time-clock check at Roissy airport, in the process injuring a police officer. Three days later a team of three plainclothes police blocked and immobilized his car at Saint-Ouen (Seine-Saint-Denis). Etienne Leborge refused to leave the car. One officer shattered the driver's side window with his foot and held him in a “stranglehold”. Another officer, after firing twice toward the ground, then deliberately shot the driver at close range (within ten centimetres) from the front of the taxi through the face. The officer claimed he had acted in legitimate defence because he saw the driver take something in his hand and feared it was a gun. It was, in fact, a CS gas canister.
    The prosecutor requested that the case be closed on the grounds there was no case to answer (non- lieu). He had argued that even if the fatal shooting appeared with hindsight to be disproportionate to the “aggression” of the driver, the incident at Roissy also had to be taken into account and in the heat of the moment the officer could easily have assumed his life was at risk. However, the investigating judge was concerned about the extremely close quarters from which Etienne Leborge had been shot, combined with eyewitness reports, including that of one of the other officers, that the “black object” (gas canister) in no way resembled a firearm. The case was transferred by the investigating judge to the chambre d'accusation of the Cour d'appel de Paris and the court decided in March 1998 that there was sufficient evidence to transmit the case to the assize court on a manslaughter charge. In its judgment the court stated that it was “incontestable” that the officer's action was disproportionate. Even taking into account the prosecutor's points, it could not reasonably be argued that his life had been endangered. Despite, however, the court's detailed explanation of its decision, the avocat général representing the prosecution at the assize court requested the acquittal of the officer, reportedly commenting that Etienne Leborgne had shown a “suicidal attitude” in refusing to obey police orders.
    There is no appeal on fact from an assize court verdict in France.
    In a separate case, a decision was taken in February by the chambre d'accusation of the Cour d'appel de Versailles (Yvelines) to quash a non-lieu decision taken almost eight years before by a judge investigating the fatal shooting by a police officer at Maintes-la-Jolie of Youssef Khaïf, a young man of Algerian origin. The shooting had taken place in June 1991, when police officers had formed a roadblock to stop a reported “rodeo” of stolen cars driven by several young people from the area of Val-Fourré. In an earlier incident a policewoman had been accidentally killed by a car whose driver had swerved to avoid the roadblock and smashed into a police car. About half an hour later, as Youssef Khaïf drove in the direction of the barrier, another officer shot at him three times and he was killed by a bullet in the nape of the neck.
    The order not to proceed against the officer, who had been assigned administrative tasks after the death of Youssef Khaïf, was made in 1998 by the investigating judge of Versailles. An appeal was lodged by the prosecutor and the family of Youssef Khaïf. When quashing the non-lieu decision the Versailles appeal court ordered a further investigation into the case (supplément d'information).
    Tension between young people and police officers in the area was already high following the death, a few days earlier, of Aïssa Ihich, an 18-year old high school student, and a chronic asthma sufferer, who had died in police custody (garde à vue) at Mantes-la-Jolie. Police had twice refused him access to his medication while in custody and the autopsy report related his death to his asthmatic condition. He had been arrested after disturbances in which a group of youths had attacked cars and thrown stones at police officers and was reportedly beaten with truncheons by law enforcement agents before being taken to the police station, where he was held for about 36 hours until his death (AI Index: EUR 01/02/91, EUR 01/03/92 and EUR 21/02/91and Amnesty International 1992). On 23 June, eight years afterwards, the chambre d'accusation of the Versailles appeal court ordered the trial before a tribunal correctionnel of three police officers and a doctor who had been called to examine Aïssa Ihich. The doctor had been examined by a judge in 1992 in connection with a manslaughter charge (homicide involontaire) based on alleged medical neglect (he had not mentioned Aïssa Ihich's asthma in the medical certificate requested by the youth and gave no instruction to the police relating to the detainee's treatment or conditions of detention). However, the prosecutor had not requested the committal for trial of any police officer and a decision was taken not to proceed against five officers. In 1997, after a long procedural battle by the defence lawyers, this decision was annulled in the case of three of the officers by the chambre d'accusation of Versailles. The three face charges of voluntary assault with weapons (“violences volontaires avec arme par personne dépositaire de l'autorité publique dans l'exercice de ses fonctions”). The court was unable, however, to establish a direct link between the alleged assault on Aïssa Ihich and his death which, if found, would have warranted transmission of the case to the assize court.
    The controversy surrounding the fact that Aïssa Ihich had been denied access to medication reportedly led, in 1993, to a reform of the conditions of garde à vue, which authorizes a visit from a doctor at the outset of police custody.

Paris prosecutor admits as “massacre” events of 17 October 1961

A legal suit for defamation brought by former Paris prefect Maurice Papon against the writer Jean-Luc Einaudi in connection with allegations the latter had made about the repression of a demonstration held by the Algerian Front de Libération Nationale in Paris on 17 October 1961, resulted in an official acknowledgment by a public prosecutor, in February, that the repression had indeed been a “massacre”. It is reported to be the first time since 1961 that a French state representative has admitted that the events amounted to a massacre, involving undisciplined, uniformed police officers “blinded by hatred”, against whom no action had ever been taken.See footnote 2 ²
    Jean-Luc Einaudi who, in 1991, had published a book called La Bataille de Paris (The Battle of Paris) about the repression of the demonstration, also wrote an article in the French evening paper Le Monde in 1998, in which he stated that the demonstration was a “massacre” perpetrated by “the police forces operating under the orders of Maurice Papon” and put the number of deaths caused by the police at over 200. In 1997 Interior Minister Jean-Pierre Chèvenement had referred in a report to the “very severe repression” of the demonstrators and stated that the number killed could have amounted to 32. In court in February public prosecutor Vincent Lesclous stated that the identity of the “very large number” of people who died would for the most part remain unknown. He stated that “some of the killers wore uniform” but that blame should also be laid at the door of police officers who were present at the scene but lodged no complaints and made no arrests.
    The FLN demonstration was organized to protest about the imposition on Algerians of a curfew, preventing them from entering the centre of Paris during the evening. It took place before Algeria gained independence, at a time when there had been many attacks on police officers. At the time the deaths were blamed by the Paris prefect on rivalry between Algerian factions. The events surrounding the massacre, commemorated in Algeria as Immigration Day, have rarely been openly discussed in France.

GEORGIA

Allegations of ill-treatment in detention (update to information in AI Index: EUR 56/02/98 and EUR 01/01/99)

Issues of alleged ill-treatment remained topical during the period under review. In January the General Procurator's Office is said to have reported that during the previous year 700 employees of the law enforcement agencies were disciplined for violations, and that 14 criminal cases had been initiated against police officers for beating detainees under investigation. Unofficial sources have continued to complain, however, that often the prosecution refuses to initiate proceedings, or if they do then such proceedings rarely result in the cases being brought to trial. Giorgi Shiukashvili, for example, alleges that following his arrest in January 1998 on suspicion of stealing wheels he was severely beaten over a period of 15 days in Gldani district police station, Tbilisi, until he signed a confession to that and several other crimes he did not commit. He was then transferred to an investigation prison and was reportedly virtually unable to move for the first two weeks, a condition observed by 18 other detainees in his cell. When his case came to trial in January this year Giorgi Shiukashvili was acquitted and released from custody in the courtroom, reportedly in part because of the allegations of torture. Although a criminal case was said to have been opened against two police officers for physically assaulting him, relatives allege that there have been no vigorous efforts to pursue the prosecution of the officers concerned. They further allege that Giorgi Shiukashvili was briefly detained on 25 May at Mtatsminda district police station, and that an officer there threatened to force him out of Tbilisi unless “he stopped fighting against the police”.
    On 21 September 1998 three members of the Liberty Institute, a non-governmental organization involved in human rights monitoring, were reportedly beaten in Tbilisi by members of the Special Police Unit (SPU) of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Two journalists named Gogi Kavtaradze and Kote Vardzelashvili, were said to have been physically assaulted, verbally abused and threatened with rape while being transported in an SPU van to Chugureti District Police Station. At the station Kote Vardzelashvili is said to have been assaulted again by the head of the SPU. A third colleague, Sandro Zhuruli, is said to have been beaten by SPU officers after he arrived at the police station seeking information on those detained. Members of the Liberty Institute complained to the prosecutor's office, but no prosecutions were forthcoming as two police officers said to have been in the van denied the allegations. On 10 November 1998 the same SPU head was said to have involved in the beating of another journalist, Aleko Tskitishvili, in front of several bystanders after the reporter tried to enter the Supreme Court building where a major political trial was concluding. In February it was reported that the Mtatsminda district procurator's office had concluded their investigation into the allegations in this case, and that no criminal charges would be brought against the SPU head owing to a lack of evidence.
    Among the further allegations of ill-treatment received during the period under review was that six men detained in connection with a robbery near Kutaisi had been ill-treated in police custody in order to obtain confessions. “Political prisoners for Human Rights”, a non-governmental (NGO) organization investigating the allegations, named five of the men as Temur Khaburzania, Ramaz Khantadze, Kvantaliani, Giorgadze, Lipartiani (first names of the last three are not known). According to the NGO, on the evening of 24 January 1999 a man was robbed near Kutaisi. He reported the incident to the regional police department of Kutaisi and shortly afterwards policemen from this department, along with colleagues from Tskhaltubo, detained two groups of three men and brought them to the Kutaisi regional police station. When the NGO, alerted by the lawyer of one of the men, arrived in Tskhaltubo on 28 January, two of the men, Ramaz Khantadze and Temur Khaburzania had been released by the court there. They had swellings around their eyes and blood on their clothes and appeared to have been beaten.
    In an interview with a correspondent from the newspaper Resonance, Ramaz Khantadze reported that while in custody police officers slapped him in the face, causing his nose to bleed, and beat him in the ribs and shins. He claimed that the investigating officer dictated a confession to him. Temur Khaburzania reported that he had been beaten by police officers in order to force him to confess to the robbery. The NGO asked to see at least one of the other men still detained. Kvantaliani emerged, but was completely covered up, wearing a hat and scarf and long sleeves. He refused to stay to speak to the NGO representative or his lawyer, although in an earlier interview with his lawyer he had stated that he had been brutally beaten on the legs and feet by a named police officer and had displayed wounds on his legs consistent with this allegation. The police claimed that none of the detainees wished to speak to the NGO or their lawyers. The police deny that any ill- treatment took place, claiming that the men's injuries were caused in a fight among themselves which took place prior to the robbery.

Failure to implement law on civilian alternative to military service (update to information in AI Index: EUR 01/01/99)

Amnesty International again approached the Georgian authorities about their failure to implement the law on alternative service, which should have come into force from 1 January 1998. It is reported, for example, the Georgian authorities have yet to establish any decision-making procedures for applying the civilian alternative to compulsory military service. Amnesty International also expressed concern about other aspects of the law itself, which appear not to conform to recommendations by international bodies of which Georgia is a member. The organization understands, for example, that the new legislation does not make absolutely clear that any alternative service should be completely civilian in nature and separate from military structures. In Chapter 3, Article 18, for example, the law stipulates that “after demobilization from alternative non-military labour service citizens are enlisted in the reserve until 50 years of age”, suggesting that they may be liable to subsequent mobilization within the military.
    Amnesty International also understands that although the law provides for the possibility for those performing alternative service to transfer to military service, there is no corresponding provision for those performing military service to transfer to an alternative civilian one (for example should they develop a conscientious objection following conscription).
    In addition the organization is concerned that the length of alternative labour service, at 36 months, is a year longer than the 24 months set for compulsory military service - the law already stipulates that “the nature of the alternative non-military labour service must conform with the difficulties of the general military service” (Chapter 1, Article 2). Amnesty International sought clarification on the reasons why alternative labour service is 12 months longer, including what measures were taken to ensure that this length is not punitive.

Fair trial concerns - Guram Absandze

Amnesty International approached the Georgian authorities about the case of Guram Absandze, a minister in the government of former President Zviad Gamsakhurdia, who was forcibly returned to Georgia from Russia on 19 March 1998 (the organization had opposed his return, see AI Index: EUR 01/02/98, Russia entry). The charges against him reportedly include embezzlement, relating to his previous term as a minister in the Gamsakhurdia government, as well as treason and banditry in connection with the attempted assassination of President Eduard Shevardnadze on 9 February 1998 and events in the west of Georgia in 1992 and 1993.
    During the period under review the prosecution completed the case against Guram Absandze, and 12 co-defendants, and passed a reported 71 volumes of material on the case to the Supreme Court on 14 May 1999 for a trial date to be set. However, Guram Absandze's defence lawyer claimed that he and his client had time to review properly only 10 of those 71 volumes before the expiry of a time limit of 12 April. The lawyer, Malykhaz Dzhangirashvili, also alleged that his requests for an extension of the time limit were turned down three times, and that on 4 May he was excluded from taking a further part in the investigation by the official heading it.

On 3 or 4 April the crew of a Georgian fishing boat named Alioni, from the port of Poti, were detained by Abkhazian border guards for allegedly “violating the sea border of Abkhazia”, and taken to Sukhumi. The only female member, Nato Kvirkvelia, was released on or around 15 April, but the remaining nine crew members were still in detention at the end of the period under review. According to reports received by Amnesty International, the captain and the chief mechanic of the Alioni were to be charged with illegally entering Abkhazian waters, and the remaining crew with fishing illegally in a conservation area. It was unclear, however, when and what formal charges were laid, if any. Moreover, officials from the Abkhazian side were quoted as saying that the crew members could be released without any further legal proceedings, in exchange for four Abkhazian civilians said to have been captured in the Gali region by Georgian irregular armed forces.
    In approaching the Abkhazians, Amnesty International sought further details on what provisions had been made to ensure that the men detained had been informed promptly and in a language which they understood of the nature and cause of the charges against them, and whether they had been granted access to a defence lawyer of their own choice. The organization's main concern, however, was that if the nine crew members were indeed being held without formal charge, with their release conditional on an exchange for others, then in effect they were being held in the capacity of hostages. International standards prohibit the taking or holding of hostages in all circumstances.

Alleged ill-treatment

During the period under review Amnesty International also raised several cases in which it was alleged that Abkhazian forces had been involved in the ill-treatment, robbery or deaths of ethnic Georgians. The organization stressed it was aware that many reports on events from the Gali district, for example, could be extremely polarized, and welcomed any assessment or clarification of these events from the Abkhaz side including, if the reports were accurate, what steps were being taken to ensure comprehensive and impartial investigations, with the results made public and those responsible brought to justice.
    Allegations received included the following. Two Georgian families, that of Revaz Djakhia in the village of Saberio and that of Djaniko Markhulia in Parto Nokhori, Gali district, were said to have been robbed and beaten on 7 January by Abkhazian gunmen. At around the same time the residents of Charcha village reported that they were threatened with deportation unless they provided regular food and a monthly payment to Abkhazian forces. On 6 May 1999 it was reported that Abkhaz forces had arrested brothers Mamuka and Manuchar Darsania, who had travelled from Zugdidi to the village of Mziuri in the Gali district, as well as two other men related to them who were named as Omar Gvagvalia and Raul Badzaghua. The four men were said to have been taken to Sukhumi remand prison, where Mamuka Darsania was reportedly ill-treated during questioning about his alleged involvement with Georgian irregular armed forces.

During the period under review Amnesty International again approached the Georgian authorities about concerns relating to the activity of illegal Georgian armed formations in and around Abkhazia.
    Such formations are said to have been responsible for the abduction of Abkhazian service personnel and civilians, and for holding them as hostages. For example it was reported that the bodies of three Abkhazian civilians named as Eduard, Shota and Arutan Gvaramia were said to have been found on 18 January this year. The three men, from the village of Bedia in Tqvarcheli district, were said to have been taken hostage in December 1998 in the village of Churburkhinji, Gali district. The Abkhazian authorities claimed Georgian illegal armed groups were responsible, and that at that time three Abkhazian servicemen from the Gali Commandant's Office were still being held as hostages by such groups. There were also reports of four Abkhazian civilians said to have been abducted by Georgian illegal armed groups in the Gali district and to be held by them as hostages in Georgian-controlled territory, whose release the Abkhazians were reportedly seeking in exchange for the crew of the fishing vessel Alioni (see above). The Abkhazian side further alleged that the details of these four men are known to the Georgian State Commission for Prisoner Exchanges, who had proposed their exchange for three ethnic Georgians sentenced to 13 years' imprisonment in Abkhazia.
    Amnesty International is aware that the Georgian authorities have repeatedly denied any links with or support, financial or otherwise, to illegal armed groups. The organization is also aware of the difficulties in identifying members of semi-clandestine, illegal armed formations, and many measures being taken may, for security reasons, remain secret. However, beyond a simple denial of any connections between the government and armed formations, Amnesty International has received no indication of substantive measures being taken to investigate the alleged complicity of some of those in authority in Georgia in the arming and operation of these groups, or of concrete steps being taken to apprehend known individuals who have claimed involvement. The organization has again urged that all appropriate steps be taken to ensure that anyone within Georgian jurisdiction responsible for human rights abuses in Abkhazia is apprehended and brought to justice.

The return of the civilian population (update to information in AI Index: EUR 56/02/98)

The security situation remained tense, in part as a result of the activities of irregular armed groups - including mine laying - and of general lawlessness. On 1 March the Abkhazian side unilaterally began implementation of a refugee return programme to the Gali district, but this was regarded with reservations by the international community and the Georgian side owing to the perceived lack of guarantees for the safety and security of the returnees. In a statement on 7 May, the United Nations Security Council demanded that both sides put a stop to the activities of armed groups and establish a climate of confidence allowing refugees and displaced persons to return. The Council reaffirmed the imprescriptible right of all refugees and displaced persons affected by the conflict to return to their homes in secure conditions.

Ratifications

On 22 March 1999 Georgia acceded to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aimed at abolition of the death penalty
    On 17 June Georgia signed Protocol Six of the European Convention on Human Rights, which outlaws the death penalty.

Death during deportation

Amnesty International learned of the death of a 30-year-old Sudanese national, Aamir Ageeb, during his forced deportation from Frankfurt airport to Khartoum via Cairo on 28 May. Amnesty International wrote to the German authorities expressing the concern that the actions of the officers of the federal border police (Bundesgrenzschutz) may have contributed to his death. It has been reported that before the departure Aamir Ageeb's arms and legs were bound by the federal border police when he resisted deportation and that a helmet was placed over his head. On the aeroplane the police officers are alleged to have forced the detainee's head between his knees and to have kept him in this position until after the aeroplane had taken off. After take-off Aamir Ageeb stopped struggling and was pushed upright by the police officers. When the helmet was removed from his head the police officers noticed that he had stopped breathing. Amnesty International expressed concern to the German authorities about the restraint techniques used by the federal border police and asked to be informed what guidelines existed relating to the use of various restraint techniques. It welcomed the news that an investigation would be held into the circumstances surrounding the death and asked to be informed of the findings of the investigation.

Excessive force during forcible deportations and danger of refoulement

There were a number of allegations that some foreigners being forcibly deported were physically assaulted by police officers. In April Amnesty International wrote to the German authorities about two incidents of alleged ill-treatment by officers of the federal border police of a Sudanese national, Fathelrahman Abdallah, which reportedly took place at Frankfurt airport on 27 October 1998 and 12 November 1998. During these attempted deportations Fathelrahman Abdallah alleges he was physically assaulted by the police officers. On the second occasion a hood was placed over his head and the lack of oxygen caused him to panic and almost faint. One officer tried to force him into a seat and when he resisted the police officer punched him in the genitals. As a result of the blow Abdallah struggled so alarmingly for breath the police officers took him off the plane to the airport clinic. After being brought back to the detention centre in Nuremberg Fathelrahman Abdallah was in a state of severe shock. A medical report stated that Fathelrahman Abdallah's experience of attempted deportation at Frankfurt airport and his treatment by the police had caused severe re-traumatisation in the victim indicating that he had been previously tortured. Fathelrahman Abdallah had always claimed that he was a victim of electroshock torture in Sudan for being an active member of Sudan's opposition but this claim was initially rejected by the authorities.
    It was with great concern that Amnesty International learned that Fathelrahman Abdallah was to be deported from Germany by the Bavarian authorities on 31 May. In the original letter Amnesty International urged the German government to allow Fathelrahman Abdallah to remain in the country so that a thorough and independent investigation into his claims of ill-treatment could take place. On 28 May Amnesty International wrote to the Minister of the Interior re-iterating its concerns and stressing that the medical evidence supporting Fathelrahman Abdallah's original claim that he was tortured in Sudan had apparently not been taken into consideration when assessing his case. The deportation of Fathelrahman Abdallah did not take place due to the death of Aamir Ageeb (see above) and the subsequent decision of the Ministry of the Interior that federal border police could temporarily not be used in deportations where resistance was anticipated.
    During the temporary ban Amnesty International learned that authorities in Bavaria planned to deport Fathelrahman Abdallah using their own police. Although the threat was not eventually implemented Amnesty International was informed that Fathelrahman Abdallah would be deported on 19 June. On 15 and 16 June Amnesty International wrote to both the Minister of the Interior and the authorities in Bavaria citing new evidence that Fathelrahman Abdallah had been an active member of the Democratic Union Party of Sudan and there was a serious danger of refoulement if he were deported. The urgency of the case and the lack of response from the German authorities to any of Amnesty International's letters led the organization to initiate urgent membership action on Fathelrahman Abdallah's behalf. On 30 June 1999 Amnesty International was informed that the Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) in Karlsruhe had referred Fathelrahman Abdallah to another appeal at the administrative court (Verwaltungsgericht).
    In April Amnesty International learned of another serious case of alleged ill-treatment by police officers during deportation. The Guinean national, Ibrahim Kourouma, alleges he was ill-treated by police officers at the Köpenick detention centre for asylum-seekers and by officers of the federal border police at Schönefeld airport in Berlin on 7 April. Ibrahim Kourouma alleges that when he refused to board the vehicle to the airport at Köpenick detention centre he was forced into it by six or seven police officers. During his forced removal he alleges he suffered blows to his head and body. One officer is said to have grabbed him by the neck and violently hit his head against the vehicle. At the airport Ibrahim Kourouma alleged worse treatment after he refused to board the aeroplane.
    Among the ill-treatment he suffered Ibrahim Kourouma maintains that inside a police vehicle officers punched him in the face and body and kicked him while he was handcuffed. Inside an airport building he said he was grabbed by his shoulders and dragged at least 20 metres across the floor of the building, even though he stated he was both able and willing to walk. At this time his upper body was bare. He was then placed in a room furnished with a table approximately one metre wide and laid on his back across the table with his hands and feet fastened with handcuffs to the table. Ibrahim Kourouma's lower back rested on the edge of the table causing him pain. He alleges that he spent around three hours in this position with his back arched backwards. Furthermore, one officer placed a wet T-shirt over Ibrahim Kourouma's head causing him breathing difficulties. Only by continually moving his head was he able to remove the T-shirt from his face.
    On 12 May Amnesty International wrote to the German authorities asking to be informed of any investigation into the incident and the steps the Berlin authorities are taking to prevent recurrences of such ill- treatment by officials. A doctor who treated him in Berlin on the 10 April stated that Ibrahim Kourouma had a number of injuries and the injuries sustained by Ibrahim Kourouma are explainable by the events he described at Schönefeld airport on 7 April. The organization urged that Ibrahim Kourouma be allowed to remain in the country while the case of alleged ill-treatment was being investigated. On 5 July Amnesty International received a reply from Senator of the Interior (Senator für Inneres) in Berlin stating that an investigation into the allegations had been initiated but had not been completed at the time of writing.

Alleged ill-treatment of prisoners

During the period under review Amnesty International learned of the alleged ill-treatment of an Austrian national by prison officers while in detention in Germany. The detainee also maintained that prison officers injected him with medication against his will. Gerhard Fidler was taken into custody on 10 November 1998 after allegedly giving a false witness statement at a district court hearing (Amtsgericht) in Traunstein, Bavaria. He spent three days in custody from 10 November to 13 November 1998 for his alleged perjury. During his detention he reportedly suffered two nervous attacks. The second reportedly occurred on 13 November 1998 at a detention centre in Traunstein (Justizvollzugsanstalt Traunstein). During the daily exercise period in the detention centre yard on the morning of 13 November he says he suffered a nervous attack and fell to the ground. Instead of providing him with medical assistance, Gerhard Fidler has stated that he was carried to a room by four or five prison officers where they allegedly hit him. He says the prison officers injected him with drugs against his will in his right arm and right thigh causing some injury in the process. He maintains he lost consciousness and woke up about two hours later tied to a bed in a medical room, still feeling heavily disorientated and dazed through the effects of the drugs. At about 2pm the same day he alleges he was released from the detention centre. Amnesty International urged the German authorities to investigate this incident of alleged ill-treatment of a detainee by prison officers and asked to be informed of the findings. The organization also requested to be informed of prison guidelines regulating the forcible use of medication and to what extent prison officers are trained to dispense such medication. It asked to be informed of the guidelines in place for the treatment of detainees suffering from mental health problems.

HUNGARY

New cases of alleged ill-treatment of Roma

There was a series of reported police ill-treatment incidents in Hajdúhadház (see AI Index: EUR 27/01/99). Most victims were Roma, and at least two minors were apparently not awarded the special protection due under Hungarian law. On 11 January, at around 8pm in Hajdúhadház, Attila Rezes, a 16-year-old Romani youth, and D.B., a 17 or 18-year-old Rom, were stopped by two police officers who reportedly kicked them and beat them with rubber truncheons. The youths were then interrogated in the Hajdúhadház police station about the breakage of a shop window. Officers reportedly struck Attila Rezes with their fists and with truncheons on his head, legs and shins. At around 12.30am Attila Rezes was released from the police station without being charged with any criminal offence.
    On 13 January Attila Rezes lost consciousness and was hospitalised with an intra-cranial haematoma. He was immediately operated on and remained in hospital for 11 or 12 days. Responding to Amnesty International appeals in June, the Deputy Chief Procurator advised that after an investigation, on 28 May four police officers were charged with various degrees of assault on Attila Rezes and D.B. and one civilian was charged with perjury.
    Another report of police ill-treatment in Hajdúhadház concerns three men and a boy who were interrogated four times between 6 and 10 March. Twenty-one-year-old K.M., his 19-year-old brother F.M., and G.D., their 15-year-old cousin, were detained on the morning of 6 March, following a police search of their homes. M.P., who is 19, voluntarily went to the police station shortly afterwards. During successive, individual interrogations lasting from about 15 minutes to half an hour, concerning a break-in the previous night, all four detainees, three of whom are Roma, were reportedly beaten and racially insulted by three police officers.
    The detained youths were released without charge, and were questioned again on 8, 9 and 10 March. On 8 March, G.D.'s father came to th