Since the release of Homelessness Counts: Changes in Homelessness from 2005 to 2007, the Alliance has chronicled changes in the levels of homelessness in the nation and in individual states and communities to chart our progress toward the goal of ending homelessness. This comprehensive examination not only reveals national and state level homeless counts, but also delves into economic indicators and demographic drivers – taking an in-depth look at risk factors for homelessness. Built upon the most recent nationally available data from the federal Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Justice, and other public information sources, this report analyzes the effect the recession has had on homelessness and how it has contributed to an increased risk of homelessness for many Americans.

The State of Homelessness in America report consists of four major sections. Chapter 1 chronicles annual changes in overall homelessness and homelessness among families and other subpopulations. Chapter 2 demonstrates how economic risk factors, including unemployment, have increased during the recent economic recession. Chapter 3 identifies some specific populations, including doubled-up people and youth aging out of foster care, that are at increased risk of homelessness and documents trends in the sizes of those populations. Chapter 4 identifies a series of states, including California, Florida, and Nevada, that face multiple risk factors for worsening homelessness. Key findings for each of those sections are presented here.

Major Findings

Key findings of the report on homelessness:

• The nation’s homeless population increased by approximately 20,000 people from 2008 to 2009 (3 percent increase). There were also increased numbers of people experiencing homelessness in each of the subpopulations examined in this report: families, individuals, chronic, unsheltered.

• A majority – 31 of 50 states and the District of Columbia - had increases in their homeless counts. The largest increase was in Louisiana, where the homeless population doubled.

• Among subpopulations, the largest percentage increase was in the number of family households, which increased by over 3,200 households (4 percent increase). Also, the number of persons in families increased by more than 6,000 people (3 percent increase). In Mississippi, the number of people in homeless families increased by 260 percent.

• After population reductions from 2005 to 2008, the number of chronically homeless people in the country remained stagnant from 2008 to 2009, despite an 11 percent increase in the number of permanent supportive housing units.

• While most people experiencing homelessness are sheltered, nearly 4 in 10 were living on the street, in a car, or in another place not intended for human habitation. In Wisconsin, twice as many people experienced homelessness without shelter in 2009 as did in 2008.

• It is widely agreed upon that there is a vast undercount of the number of young people experiencing homelessness. Underscoring this is the fact that 35 percent of all communities reported that there were no homeless youth in their communities in 2009.

Economic Indicators

In recognition of the reality that homelessness is most often caused by job loss and other economic factors, this report explores economic indicators for homeless people and people at risk of homelessness. The economic indicators examined in this report point to worsening conditions across the nation and all states. Using data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and RealtyTrac, this report chronicles the changes in four economic indicators from 2008 to 2009.

Key findings of the report on economic indicators:

• Conditions worsened among all four economic indicators examined in this report: housing affordability for poor people, unemployment, poor workers’ income, and foreclosure status.

• From 2008 to 2009, the number of unemployed people in America increased by 60 percent from 8.9 to 14.3 million. Every state and the District of Columbia had an increase in the number of unemployed people. The number of unemployed people in Wyoming doubled.

• Nearly three-quarters of all U.S. households with incomes below the federal poverty line spend over 50 percent of monthly household income on rent. Over 80 percent of households below the federal poverty line in Florida, Nevada, and California spend more than 50 percent of income on rent. Forty states saw an increase in the number of poor households experiencing severe housing cost burden from 2008 to 2009.

• While real income among all U.S. workers decreased by 1 percent in 2009, poor workers’ income decreased even more, dropping by 2 percent to $9,151. Poor workers in Alaska, the District of Columbia, Maine, and Rhode Island saw their incomes decrease by more than 10 percent.

• Foreclosure affected nearly half a million more households in 2009 than in 2008, a 21 percent increase for a total of 2.8 million foreclosed units in 2009. The number of foreclosed units more than doubled in Alabama, Hawaii, Idaho, Mississippi, and West Virginia.

Demographic Drivers

While homelessness affects people of all ages, races, ethnicities, and geographies, there are groups of people at increased risk of homelessness. The demographic indicators examined in this report focus on four populations at increased risk of homelessness: people living in doubled up situations, people discharged from prison, young adults aged out of foster care, and uninsured people. Using data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and the Department of Health and Human Services, this report chronicles the changes from 2008 to 2009 in demographic drivers of homelessness.

Key findings of the report on demographic drivers:

• The doubled up population (people living with family or friends for economic reasons) increased by 12 percent to more than 6 million people from 2008 to 2009. In Rhode Island the number increased by 90 percent; in South Dakota the number more than doubled.

• In the course of a year, the estimated odds of experiencing homelessness for a doubled up person are 1 in 10.

• In the course of a year, the estimated odds of experiencing homelessness for a released prisoner are 1 in 11.

• In the course of a year, the estimated odds of experiencing homelessness for a young adult who ages out of foster care are 1 in 6.

• While the national number of uninsured people remained relatively constant, 33 states saw an increase in the number of uninsured people.

States with Multiple Risk Factors

One of the unique features of The State of Homelessness in America is the simultaneous examination of homeless counts and associated economic and demographic indicators. This affords a unique opportunity to identify states facing multiple economic and demographic risk factors for worsening homelessness.

Key findings of the report on states with multiple risk factors:

Half of all states have multiple risk factors for increased homelessness; that is, they have rates worse than the national average on at least two of five indicators (unemployment, foreclosure, doubled up, housing cost burden, lack of health insurance).

• The presence of multiple economic and demographic risk factors is associated with higher rates of homelessness. In particular, states with high rates of cost burden among poor households exhibit higher rates of homelessness. Ten of the fourteen states with rates of homelessness greater than the national rate also have levels of cost burden greater than the national average.

• California, Florida, and Nevada – states known to have been disproportionately impacted by the recent housing crisis – have both high rates of homelessness and high levels of unemployment, foreclosure, housing cost burden, lack of insurance, and doubling up.

Moving Forward

These findings project a disquieting picture of what depressed wages, stagnant unemployment, unrelenting housing cost burden, and the lagging pace of the economic recovery could bring about: increases in homelessness and heightened risk of homelessness for more and more Americans. As the new Congress and the Administration consider steps to revitalize the American economy with jobs, extension of benefits, and access to health care, it would be prudent to take note of these increased risk factors and incorporate homeless interventions into their recovery strategy.

Luckily, there are a number of strategies that can be administered effectively and efficiently:

• Federal support of local efforts: To date, over 270 communities have adapted and adopted the Alliance’s Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness. In July 2010, these communities found a federal partner; the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness released Opening Doors, a national, cooperative, interagency approach to end homelessness. Working together, communities – with the assistance of federal agencies, services, and resources - can achieve the goal of ending homelessness in America.

• Examine state institutions: Discharge from state institutions – including foster care, incarceration, and health facilities – contributes to the number of people experiencing homelessness, but with the proper interventions and transition support, this is a problem that can be remedied. Prevention efforts to curb homelessness before it occurs are one critical way to reduce homelessness.

• Strategic use of federal resources: This report shows that the need for homeless assistance programs is both abundant and critical - but federal resources are increasingly scarce. Ongoing federal initiatives to prevent and end homelessness must be implemented strategically to maximize their impact and efficacy.

2011

http://progress.unwomen.org/

10 groundbreaking cases that have changed women’s lives

Alongside political lobbying and mobilizing social movements, strategic litigation is a tactic that advocates have used to challenge gender discrimination and raise awareness of women’s rights.
Where it is successful, strategic litigation can have groundbreaking results. These 10 cases have increased women’s access to justice in countries all over the world.

Brazil: Maria Da Penha drives change

Fernandes v Brazil

Maria da Penha, March 2011, Brazil.

In May 1983, Maria da Penha Fernandes, was shot by her husband. Just two weeks after she returned from the hospital, her husband attempted to electrocute her.
The case languished in the criminal justice system for two decades and when Maria’s husband was finally convicted, he served just two years in prison. Maria took her case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and as a result, in 2006, the Government of Brazil enacted the Maria da Penha Law on Domestic and Family Violence. Maria Da Penha continues to campaign for thorough implementation of the law.

Austria: Governments must implement laws on domestic violence

Şahide Goekce (deceased) v Austria and Fatma Yildirim (deceased) v Austria

Şahide Goekce and Fatma Yildirim were both murdered by their husbands following years of brutal abuse. Despite reporting the violence to the police and obtaining protection orders, the Austrian authorities repeatedly failed to ensure the women’s safety.
The 2007 decision of the CEDAW Committee under the Optional Protocol was of global significance because it was found that Austria had failed to implement the law and therefore failed in their duty to provide ‘due diligence.’

Botswana: Women have equal citizenship rights

The Attorney General of The Republic of Botswana v Unity Dow

Unity Dow, speaking at the 2nd UniSA Nelson Mandela Lecture in 2009.

Despite being a citizen born and raised in Botswana, the law stated that because Unity Dow had married a foreigner, their two children required residence permits and were denied their rights as citizens.
In challenging the Government, Unity Dow said: “the time that women were treated as chattels or were there to obey the whims and wishes of males is long past”. The landmark 2001 case confirmed that the guarantee of equality under the constitution applied to citizenship rights.

Colombia: Abortion must be available in certain circumstances

Judgment of the Constitutional Court of Colombia

Women’s Link Worldwide, a women’s legal NGO, took this case on behalf of Martha Solay, who was two months pregnant when she was diagnosed with cancer. Colombia’s laws prohibited doctors from performing an abortion to enable her to receive life-saving chemotherapy. The Court held that the ban violated women’s fundamental rights and affirmed that abortion must be accessible in certain cases.

India: The right to work free from sexual harassment

Vishaka v State of Rajasthan

Bhanwari Devi in her house in a village near Jaipur, India in 2007.

Bhanwari Devi was gang-raped by local men while doing her job as a social worker in a village in Rajasthan. She took the case to the Supreme Court in 1997, where it was decided that the Government had an obligation to provide legal protection against sexual harassment in the workplace.
The case has also inspired a similar case in Bangladesh and law reform in Pakistan, so that today, almost 500 million working women in these three countries alone can carry out their work free from harassment and abuse.

Nepal: When a husband rapes his wife, it is a crime

Meera Dhungana on behalf of FWLD v HMG

In Nepal, until 2002, the law exempted men from being prosecuted for the rape of their wives. A case was brought by the Forum for Women, Law and Development (FWLD) and the Supreme Court ordered Parliament to amend the rape law.
This and other similar cases have signaled sweeping changes in the assumption that a wife implicitly consents to all sexual activity. To date at least 52 States now have explicitly outlawed marital rape in their criminal codes.

Canada: Indigenous women’s rights must be protected

Lovelace v Canada

Newly elected Senator Sandra Lovelace in Canada’s Fredricton Legislature in 2005.

Sandra Lovelace, an Aboriginal Maliseet woman, wanted to return to live on her reservation after her divorce. However, she had been stripped of her rights because she had married a non-Aboriginal.
In this groundbreaking 1981 decision, the United Nations Human Rights Committee decided that the Canadian Indian Act amounted to a violation of Canada’s human rights obligations, and interfered with Sandra’s cultural rights. The Government amended the law, to eliminate gender discrimination in determining ‘Indian status’.

South Africa: Customary laws must uphold gender equality

Bhe v Khayelitsha Magistrate

When Nonkuleleko and Anelisa Bhe’s father died, under customary law their house became the property of their grandfather. The Constitutional Court of South Africa declared in 2004 that the rule of primogeniture and the customary law was unconstitutional, because it violated women’s rights to equality and dignity.

Mexico: Reparations should be transformative

Gonzalez and others (“Cotton Field”) v Mexico

The mothers of murdered young women in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico in 2004.

Hundreds of women have been sexually assaulted, tortured and murdered in Ciudad Juárez in Mexico over the past 16 years. In November 2001, eight bodies were discovered in a cotton field.
In 2009, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights established that these cases were part of a pattern of systematic violence based on gender, age and social class.
The Court called upon the Government to provide a range of reparation measures, ‘oriented to identify and eliminate the structural factors of discrimination’ to transform the underlying gender inequalities that gave rise to the violence.

An end to impunity for sexual violence in conflict

Prosecutor v Tadic, Prosecutor v Furundžija, and Prosecutor v Kunarac, Kovac & Vukovic. (Kunarac); and Prosecutor v Akayesu

The statutes of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) were the first to establish rape as a crime against humanity.
The Akayesu case in the ICTR produced the first convictions on charges of rape and sexual violence in the Tribunals, confirming that rape can constitute torture and an act of genocide.
The most significant legacy of these cases was their influence on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the first such court with the authority to punish crimes in armed conflicts.

Key Facts

At least 52 countries have passed laws to explicitly criminalize marital rape.
But, more than 2.6 billion women live in countries without this legal protection.

ARCHIVES

DECEMBER 2010 STORY

Summary

This report documents a pattern of grave abuses by India’s Border Security Force (BSF) against both Bangladeshi and Indian nationals in the border area along India’s 2,000 kilometer long international fontier with Bangladesh in West Bengal state. The abuses include cases of indiscriminate killing and torture.

Most of the abuses documented in this report are related to efforts by the Indian government to deal with cross-border smuggling, particularly cattle-rustling. However, as this report shows, the abusive methods used by the BSF are disproportionate to the problems that the Indian government faces on its eastern border. Numerous ordinary Indian and Bangladeshi citizens resident in the border area end up as the victims of BSF abuses, which range from verbal abuse and intimidation to torture, beatings, and killings. Furthermore, because of the near total absence of effective accountability mechanisms for abuses carried out by members of the BSF, even the most serious abuses by border guards go unpunished. This sends a clear message that the Indian government finds such abuses acceptable.

The border area between India and Bangladesh is heavily populated and acutely poor. Many farmers on both sides of the border have also lost their farms and livelihoods to river erosion. Illegal cross-border activities, such as cattle-rustling, and trafficking in persons and narcotics, have flourished. In several of the cases documented in this report, victims were beaten up or killed while smuggling cattle across the border at night. Others were tortured or killed merely on suspicion of being involved in cattle-rustling. Children, reportedly employed by smugglers to reduce the risk of detection, are among the victims whose cases are documented below.

Several survivors and eyewitnesses of attacks allege that the BSF engaged in indiscriminate shooting without warning. Seventeen-year-old Bangladeshi Shyamol Karmokar sneaked into India to visit relatives. On January 26, 2010, he decided to return to Bangladesh with the assistance of cattle-rustlers. Mohammad Zahid, who had agreed to bring Shyamol back to Bangladesh, said that they were detected by the BSF close to the border. Instead of attempting to arrest them, BSF officers immediately opened fire. Shyamol was killed.

Torture is also rife. On January 25, 2010, Motiar Rahman, a Bangladeshi national strayed across the border while cutting grass, a common mistake since there are no clear markers. According to Motiar Rahman, he was captured by two BSF soldiers:

They blindfolded me and took me to the BSF camp. I thought that the BSF were going to kill me. After reaching the camp, the BSF personnel removed the blindfold and tied me to a tree. They left me there for over 15 hours, until 11 p.m. at night. Then they gave me some food.But once I had had finished my meal, the BSF started torturing me. I was beaten severely with a bamboo stick on my back and feet by the same soldier who brought me the food. I was kicked several times and as a result started bleeding from my penis. Another soldier started beating me on my head with a bamboo stick. This went on for at least 45 minutes… The BSF men jumped on my chest, and kicked me on my head and face with their boots.

Indian villagers residing in the border areas also accuse the BSF of not just indiscriminate shooting, but unprovoked beatings. Indian national Halima Bibi said her 12-year-old daughter was slapped and beaten by three BSF personnel on September 5, 2009 outside their home close to the border with Bangladesh. When Halima Bibi protested, she was verbally abused with sexual insults.

Nirsingha Mondal, from India’s Murshidabad district, said that on May 10, 2009, he had gone out as usual in the morning to collect firewood for cooking. He was dragged into a nearby BSF camp by two soldiers, who beat him up and accused him of stealing flowers from their garden.

The Indian government says it is seeking to contain the smuggling and mass economic migration from Bangladesh. In recent years, India has also alleged that separatist militants in its northeastern states find sanctuary in Bangladesh and cross into India to perpetrate terrorist attacks. However few of those killed by the BSF have ever been shown to have been involved in terrorism. In an effort to secure the border the Indian government is constructing a large 3,200 kilometer fence. But in densely populated areas of the border, where land is cultivated right up to the international boundary, the border fence is already exacerbating the problems faced by residents of the border areas.

The BSF justifies the killing of suspected smugglers by claiming that they were evading arrest, or that its personnel had to fire in self-defense. But suspicion of a crime or evasion of arrest cannot alone justify the use of lethal force. In fact, even India’s domestic laws which allow “all means necessary” in case a person attempts to use force to resist arrest, specifically forbid causing the death of a person who is not accused of an offense punishable by death or a life term.

In all the cases we investigated, the alleged criminals were either unarmed or armed with only sickles, sticks, and knives, which suggest that in shooting victims, the border guards are likely to have used excessive force. In a number of cases, the victims were shot in the back, suggesting that they were running away. In others, injuries indicate the person was shot at close range, with witnesses often alleging that the person was tortured and killed in BSF custody. Other victims appear to have fallen victim to bullets because they were too close to the border.

When someone is killed during a BSF operation, the BSF is required to file a report with the police. In such cases the BSF usually justifies the killing by accusing the victim of obstructing a public servant while performing his duties, unlawful assembly, or attempted murder. In none of the cases investigated by Human Rights Watch did the BSF show that it had recovered lethal weapons or explosives that could pose an imminent threat of death or serious injury that might justify killings in self-defense.

The Bangladeshi authorities have repeatedly complained about the rampant killing of its nationals by the BSF, as have human rights groups in both countries. Odhikar has documented cases of nearly a 1000 Bangladeshi nationals that have been killed by BSF over the last decade. Describing the BSF as “trigger happy,” Bangladesh Home Minister, Sahara Khatun, said in May 2010 that she would again ask New Delhi to stop these incidents.

Despite these strong comments from Khatun, the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR), which is responsible for guarding the border from the Bangladeshi side and reports to the Bangladeshi Home Ministry, often fails to defend the rights of Bangladeshi citizens. The BDR is deployed to contain the smuggling of weapons, explosives, and narcotic substances including Phensedyl, a cough syrup that is banned in Bangladesh, but commonly used as a recreational drug. However, the Indian border authorities complain that their Bangladeshi counterparts do not do enough to prevent illegal cross-border smuggling.

In researching this report, the Bangladeshi human rights organization Odhikar and Human Rights Watch interviewed several BDR officials about Bangladeshi victims. In most cases, if the BSF presented evidence of smuggling, the BDR did not complain about Bangladeshi nationals being killed. For instance, with respect to the killing of Shyamol Karmokar, the BDR Camp Commander at Wahedpur border, Subedar Sirajul Islam, said that while his death was “unfortunate and sad,” the BSF had opened fire believing him to be a cattle trader because he was with a group of rustlers. “Thus there was nothing wrong with the fact that the BSF has shot him.”

In March 2010, BDR chief Maj. Gen. Mainul Islam, explaining that there was a history of “people and cattle trafficking during darkness,” said of the killings: “We should not be worried about such incidents…. We have discussed the matter and will ensure that no innocent people will be killed.” During an official visit to Bangladesh in September 2010, Raman Srivastava, Director General of the BSF, responded to Bandgladesh’s complaints that the BSF were killing “innocent, unarmed” Bangladeshi civilians by saying: “We fire at criminals who violate the border norms. The deaths have occurred in Indian territory and mostly during night, so how can they be innocent?”

These comments suggest that officials of both governments believe that it is legal to use lethal force against those suspected of being engaged in smuggling or other illegal activities. This amounts to a de facto shoot-to-kill policy for smugglers, and violates both national and international standards on the right to life and the presumption of innocence which are applicable in India and Bangladesh.

The BDR raises serious concerns with the BSF only when cases of indiscriminate firing lead to the death of villagers not involved in smuggling. For instance, on March 13, 2009, a BSF trooper got into an argument with a boy fishing in a lake, barely 20 meters from the international border. According to eyewitnesses, when the altercation became heated, the soldier opened fire, hitting two boys who were grazing their buffaloes nearby. Thirteen-year-old Abdur Rakib was shot in the chest and died instantly. Mohammad Omar Faruq, 15, was injured and later described the indiscriminate firing. A flag meeting was held between the BDR and the BSF the next day to discuss the incident. The BSF initially tried to insist that the victims were illegal cattle traders, but the BDR personnel presented witness accounts countering this version. Some villagers who were present during the flag meeting said that the BSF eventually apologized and promised that the soldier responsible would be punished. It is not clear if any disciplinary action was taken.

Members of the BSF are described by local residents as unsympathetic, aggressive, and violent. This may be explained by the fact that many are deployed to the region after difficult and tense tours of duty on the India-Pakistan border in Kashmir. Human Rights Watch researchers witnessed BSF troopers shouting at villagers, calling them names, and often making them wait for hours as each person was searched and signed as they crossed BSF outposts, to reach their fields or homes which adjoin the border.

To prevent the accidental shooting of villagers, an informal curfew is imposed on both sides of the border at night. But the restriction of movement after dark causes numerous difficulties. In India, the BSF patrols are deployed in posts a few kilometers inside Indian territory. They restrict access to areas beyond the outposts, effectively cutting people off from their farms or markets. To prevent infiltration by Bangladeshi nationals, the BSF require residents to surrender their identity or citizenship cards when they cross the border outposts and to claim them on return. Mithoo Sheikh, a young man in Murshidabad, said that there are long queues as the BSF checks each identity:

Sometimes by the time we get to the field it is noon. And we have stop work by 4 p.m. because they stop us from returning after dark. The BSF does not understand cultivation problems. We cannot water our fields at noon. Sometimes we only get water at night, but they will not let us remain in the field. If we disobey, we get beatings or they file false charges… We are treated as outsiders in our country.

The police are unwilling to lodge complaints against the BSF. When Tutan Sheikh, an Indian national, complained to the police that he and his brothers were subjected to unprovoked beatings by the BSF, he was told by the police officer on duty that the BSF trooper had committed no crime since the BSF was there to “beat the people.” In another case, after Indian national Noor Hossain was killed by the BSF, police told family members who wanted to lodge a complaint: “Why do you bother? What will happen to the BSF? Nothing can happen to the BSF. The BSF will say that the … border area is under their control.”

The Indian NGO Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha (MASUM), one of Human Rights Watch’s partners in researching this report, has repeatedly approached the courts, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), the National Minorities Commission, the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as well as the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, to hold abusers accountable. None of the cases raised have been brought to a satisfactory conclusion. According to Kirity Roy, who heads MASUM, “As the de facto complainant, we were never summoned to appear or depose before any inquiry conducted by the BSF. However, we are aware that in some cases, family members or victims did appear before the BSF court of inquiry.” No verdicts were made public.

According to the Bangladeshi authorities, India has never provided details of any BSF personnel who have been prosecuted for human rights violations. Until India ends its legal protection of security forces and civilian officials implicated in criminal offenses, a culture of impunity will prevail and abuses will continue.

The BSF, which has a long record of severe human rights abuses and members of India’s other security forces, are exempt from criminal prosecution unless specific approval is granted by the Indian government to undertake a prosecution in a particular case. This legally sanctioned impunity is even included in a new bill to prohibit torture under consideration in the Indian parliament. The bill, as presently drafted, will require approval from the central or a state government for a court to have jurisdiction over an offense committed by a public servant.

BSF personnel are in theory liable to be produced before an internal court for making false accusations, or for “disgraceful conduct of a cruel, indecent or unnatural kind.” Although the BSF claims that these courts are routinely used to prosecute those that commit crimes or violate the Border Security Force Act, there are no publicly known cases in which a BSF member was convicted of a crime for a human rights abuse at the India-Bangladesh border. It is time for the Indian government, which claims to follow the rule of law and respect basic rights, to take strong steps to end abuses and hold those responsible to account.

Key Recommendations

The Indian government should publicly order the Border Security Force (BSF) and other security forces to abide by the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. This requires officials to apply, as far as possible, non-violent means before resorting to the use of force and firearms. Even in self-defense, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life. International law also requires security forces to give a clear warning of their intent to use firearms, and sufficient time to surrender.
Given the continuing failure of the BSF’s internal justice system to prosecute its own members for human rights abuses, personnel of all ranks implicated in serious rights abuses should be investigated by civilian authorities and prosecuted in civilian courts. In cases of abuses against Indian and Bangladeshi nationals, the police must register complaints filed against the BSF. Guidelines as laid down by the National Human Rights Commission to investigate all cases of deaths in armed encounters should be applied to the BSF.
The Indian government should establish an independent and impartial commission of inquiry into serious violations of international human rights law by the BSF. The government should invite both Indian and Bangladeshi nationals to submit evidence and bring complaints to such a commission. The inquiry should be time bound and transparent, and should have the ability to provide protection to witnesses.
The Indian government should repeal all legal provisions that require approval of the executive branch for prosecutions against members of the security forces to proceed, including in article 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Similar provisions in the Indian Prevention of Torture Bill currently in front of the Indian parliament should be deleted. Such provisions provide effective immunity to the security forces and violate the principles of equality under the law enshrined in both the Indian Constitution and international law.
The UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations should inform the Indian government that those BSF personnel responsible for human rights violations should be excluded from peacekeeping duties.
The Government of India and Bangladesh should agree upon the request of the special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, and arbitrary executions to visit the country, pending since 2000 for India and since 2006 for Bangladesh. The Special Rapporteur should also include in his program, visits the border areas between India and Bangladesh.

NOVEMBER 2010 STORY

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/presents/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7IxGGfpSWk&playnext=1&list=PL2A0969134E90A570&index=26

By Jim Polk

CNN Senior Producer

http://edition1.cnn.com/2008/US/11/12/jonestown.cyanide/index.html#cnnSTCText

JONESTOWN, Guyana (CNN) -- Cyanide was being bought and shipped to the Rev. Jim Jones' jungle compound in South America for at least two years before 909 Americans died there at the command of their cult leader, CNN has learned.

Sources in Guyana said the Jonestown camp began obtaining shipments of cyanide -- about a quarter to a half-pound of the deadly poison each month -- as early as 1976, well before most of Jones' followers made the move there.

CNN's Soledad O'Brien tells the story of the last hours of Jonestown -- and the few who did survive out of desperation and daring -- as CNN Presents "Escape from Jonestown."

Jones led his followers to their death after his gunmen killed a visiting congressman, Rep. Leo Ryan, and four others, including an NBC News correspondent and his cameraman, on November 18, 1978.

Jones told the members of his Peoples Temple church that the Guyanese Army would invade their settlement after the murders. He demanded that parents kill their children first, then take their own lives, rather than face the authorities because of what Jones had done.

Of the 909 who died, 303 were children -- from teens to toddlers. Many were killed by Jones' loyalists, who used syringes to squirt cyanide down their throats. Jones stockpiled cyanide »

CNN was told Jones obtained a jeweler's license to buy cyanide. The chemical can be used to clean gold. But there was no jeweler's operation in Jonestown.

Escape from Jonestown

Thirty years ago, more than 900 died by murder and suicide. Only 33 survived. Soledad O'Brien reports on their untold stories.

Thursday, 9 p.m. ET

see full schedule »

Six months before Ryan arrived on a one-man investigative mission, the settlement's doctor wrote in a memo to Jones:

"Cyanide is one of the most rapidly acting poisons. ... I would like to give about two grams to a large pig to see how effective our batch is."

The purchases are "strong evidence that the Rev. Jim Jones had been plotting the death of his followers long before that fateful day," O'Brien reports.

Ryan, the only U.S. representative assassinated in office, was shot at a nearby airstrip as he tried to leave with 15 church members who told him Jones was holding people captive in the remote jungle encampment.

"That was literally a jungle prison," said Gerald Parks, whose wife, Patricia, was shot to death in the airport attack. How did he escape death? »

Four other members of his family survived, including two young daughters who were lost in the jungle for three days after running away from the airstrip to hide from the killers. Woman returns to scene for first time »

"It was a dictatorship," said Vernon Gosney, who was badly wounded in the airport shootings. "It was supposed to be socialism, but it really was fascism."

Don't Miss

Jonestown survivors

Inside the Jonestown massacre

'Slavery of Faith': Survivor recounts escape

CNN Presents

Jones was a phony faith healer who moved his Indiana church to northern California in the mid-'60s in search of a safe place to survive the possibility of nuclear warfare. In the mid-'70s, when a magazine raised questions about church beatings and financial abuses, Jones moved his flock to Guyana, in South America, to the jungle settlement he called his "beautiful promised land."

"It was a slave camp run by a madman," said Leslie Wilson, a young mother then only 21, who began walking away from Jonestown early on the day that ended in the suicides and murder.

She and 10 others trudged almost 30 miles through the jungle to another town. Wilson carried her 3-year-old son on her back. "It was a freedom walk," she said. "It was a walk to freedom."

Tim Carter, a Jones aide, stayed in the camp almost to the end and saw his wife and his 1-year-old son die before he was sent away on an errand.

Authorities made him return two days later to help identify bodies. Carter saw Jones lying with a bullet hole in the side of his head.

"I remember thinking the son of a bitch didn't even die the way everybody else died," Carter said.

OCTOBER 2010 STORY

December 9, 2010

Originally from CNN.com

Following article is from:

Sentencing Law and Policy
A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

October 25, 2010
"Youngest Guantanamo detainee pleads guilty"
The title of this post is the headline of this CNN report, which raises a lot of interesting issues about plea and sentencing procedures and outcomes in a very high-profile setting. Here is are excerpts:
Guantanamo Bay detainee Omar Khadr pleaded guilty to charges against him Monday, the Pentagon said, in the first military commission trial there since Barack Obama became president. Khadr, 24, was accused of throwing a grenade during a 2002 firefight in Afghanistan that resulted in the death of Army Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer, a Special Forces medic.
Khadr, the youngest detainee at Guantanamo Bay, was 15 at the time. He faced a maximum sentence of life in prison. He pleaded guilty to murder in violation of the laws of war, attempted murder in violation of the laws of war, conspiracy, two counts of providing material support for terrorism and spying in the United States, a Canadian diplomat said.
Canada -- where Khadr was born -- has been closely involved in negotiations with the United States over his plea. Discussions have included the possibility that he could serve part of his sentence in Canada, sources said last week.
Pentagon spokesman Col. Dave Lapan said he expects the sentencing phase of Khadr's trial to start Tuesday, adding that it probably will finish this week. Details of the plea agreement are not made public, Lapan said, because the seven military officers on the jury "get the case without any knowledge of the pretrial agreement. They will issue a sentence for the record, and after that -- if the judge allows it -- the pretrial agreement can be revealed."
If the jury's sentence is different from the plea agreement, the shorter sentence will be imposed, Lapan said.
The military court in August viewed a 30-minute video that the government said shows Khadr helping assemble and plant roadside bombs targeting American troops in Afghanistan.... One of Khadr's Canadian attorneys indicated last week that he was open to a plea deal. "He is anxious to avoid a trial before that kangaroo court," Nate Whitling said in reference to the U.S. military commission at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility....
One source close to the negotiations said, "Khadr will have to decide" whether to sign onto a tentative deal negotiated by prosecution and defense lawyers. That arrangement calls for Khadr to be sentenced to eight years -- one year to be served in U.S. custody and seven years in Canadian custody.
October 25, 2010 at 12:47 PM Permalink

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e2013488751247970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Youngest Guantanamo detainee pleads guilty":

Investments/Leadership/Coach/Humanitarian/Artist

WORLD NEWS- ENDING POVERTY & HUNGER -2011