XXX words - Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law ...

UNITED 

NATIONS 

A 

General Assembly 

Distr. 

GENERAL 

A/HRC/7/28/Add.1 

5 March 2008 

ENGLISH/FRENCH/SPANISH 

Only 

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL 

Seventh session 

Agenda item 3 

Report submitted by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General 

on the situation of human rights defenders, Hina Jilani 

Addendum 

Summary of cases transmitted to Governments and replies received ∗ 

∗ The present document is being circulated in the languages of submission only, as it greatly exceeds the word 

limitations currently imposed by the relevant General Assembly resolutions. 

GE.08-11444


Page 2 

CONTENTS 

Paragraphs 

Page 

Introduction............................................................................... 1-3 4 

Algeria....................................................................................... 4-9 4 

Angola ...................................................................................... 10-16 5 

Argentina .................................................................................. 17-58 7 

Bahrain ..................................................................................... 59-69 19 

Bangladesh ............................................................................... 70-131 22 

Bolivia ...................................................................................... 132-135 36 

Brazil ........................................................................................ 136-168 36 

Cambodia ................................................................................. 169-197 44 

Cameroon ................................................................................. 198-220 49 

Central African Republic ......................................................... 221-227 53 

Chile ......................................................................................... 228-238 54 

China (People’s Republic of) ................................................... 239-436 57 

Colombia .................................................................................. 537-679 98 

Congo ....................................................................................... 680-683 140 

Cuba ......................................................................................... 684-708 141 

Democratic Republic of Congo ............................................... 709-734 145 

Djibouti .................................................................................... 734-141 148 

Dominican Republic ................................................................ 742-746 149 

Ecuador .................................................................................... 747-769 150 

Egypt ........................................................................................ 770-787 154 

El Salvador ............................................................................... 788-799 157 

Ethiopia .................................................................................... 800-818 159 

Fiji ............................................................................................ 819-835 164 

Finland ..................................................................................... 836-844 167 

France ....................................................................................... 845-859 169 

Gambia ..................................................................................... 860-863 171 

Georgia ..................................................................................... 864-874 172 

Guatemala ................................................................................ 875-987 174 

Greece ...................................................................................... 988-1001 191 

Haiti .......................................................................................... 1002-1006 193 

Honduras .................................................................................. 1007-1048 194 

India .......................................................................................... 1049-1108 203 

Indonesia .................................................................................. 1109-1135 216 

Islamic Republic of Iran ........................................................... 1136-1220 222 

Iraq ........................................................................................... 1221-1227 239 

Israel ......................................................................................... 1228-1251 240 

Ivory Coast................................................................................ 1252-1256 245 

Jordan ....................................................................................... 1257-1263 246 

Kenya ....................................................................................... 1264-1267 247 

Kyrgyzstan ............................................................................... 1268-1279 248 

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya ........................................................... 1280-1285 250 

Malaysia ................................................................................... 1286-1296 251 

...................................................................................................


Page 3 

Mexico ..................................................................................... 1297-1406 253 

Moldova (Republic of) ............................................................. 1407-1410 272 

Montenegro............................................................................... 1411-1417 273 

Morocco ................................................................................... 1418-1443 274 

Myanmar .................................................................................. 1444-1478 279 

Nepal ........................................................................................ 1479-1518 287 

New Zealand ............................................................................. 1519-1527 295 

Nigeria ...................................................................................... 1528-1536 297 

Pakistan .................................................................................... 1537-1569 299 

Peru .......................................................................................... 1570-1586 306 

Philippines ................................................................................ 1587-0658 310 

Poland ...................................................................................... 1659-1661 325 

Russian Federation.................................................................... 1662-1725 325 

Rwanda .................................................................................... 1726-1737 340 

Saudi Arabia ............................................................................. 1738-1750 342 

Serbia ....................................................................................... 1751-1753 345 

Somalia .................................................................................... 1754-1756 345 

South Africa ............................................................................. 1757-1759 346 

Sri Lanka .................................................................................. 1760-1783 347 

Sudan ........................................................................................ 1784-1801 351 

Syrian Arab Republic ............................................................... 1802-1827 355 

Tanzania (United Republic of).................................................. 1828-1831 360 

Thailand ................................................................................... 1832-1846 361 

Tonga ....................................................................................... 1847-1851 364 

Tunisia ...................................................................................... 1852-1893 366 

Turkey ...................................................................................... 1894-1901 376 

United Arab Emirates .............................................................. 1902-1906 378 

Uganda ..................................................................................... 1907-1909 379 

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland .......... 1910-1916 380 

Uzbekistan ................................................................................ 1917-2001 381 

Venezuela ................................................................................. 2002-2014 401 

Viet Nam .................................................................................. 2015-2042 403 

Yemen ...................................................................................... 2043-2049 409 

Zimbabwe ................................................................................ 2050-2091 411


Page 4 

Introduction 

1. The present document is submitted by the Special Representative of the 

Secretary General on the situation of human rights defenders, Ms Hina Jilani, to the 

Human Rights Council pursuant to resolution 2003/64 of the Commission on Human 

Rights and resolution 5/1 of the Human rights Council. The document provides 

summaries of the communications on specific cases addressed by the Special 

Representative to Governments, as well as summaries of the replies by Governments 

that she has received and her observations thereon. 

2. The cases raised by the Special Representative in this addendum include 

communications sent from 2 December 2006 to 10 December 2007. The addendum 

contains summaries of responses received from Governments until 10 February 2008. 

Although received before 10 February 2008, few replies are not included in the 

present report because translation is awaited. Most of the responses by Governments 

refer to cases raised by the Special Representative during the period December 2006 

to December 2007; however, some of the responses are to cases addressed by her in 

earlier reporting periods. While the summaries of these responses are included in this 

report, the summaries of the cases to which they refer will be found in the Special 

Representative’s reports from preceding years (see A/HRC/4/37/Add.1, 

E/CN.4/2006/95/Add.1, and E/CN.4/2005/101/Add.1, covering the previous three 

years). 

3. For ease of reference, cases have been grouped by country, with countries 

listed alphabetically according to their names in English. 

Lettre d’allégations 

Algeria 

4. Le 6 mars 2007, la Représentante spéciale, conjointement avec la Rapporteuse 

spéciale chargée de la question de la violence contre les femmes, y compris ses causes 

et ses conséquences et le Rapporteur spécial sur la promotion et la protection du droit 

à la liberté d’opinion et d’expression, a envoyé une lettre d’allégations sur 

l’interdiction d’un séminaire sur les disparitions forcées à Alger. Selon les 

informations reçues : 

5. Le 7 février 2007, le séminaire « Pour la Vérité, la Paix et la Conciliation », 

organisé par le Collectif des familles de disparus en Algérie, SOS Disparus, 

Djazairouna, l’Association nationale des familles de disparus et Somoud, n’aurait pu 

se tenir en raison de l’intervention des forces de l’ordre alors même que les autorités 

algériennes auraient été informées et invitées à ce séminaire et que celles-ci n’auraient 

pas manifesté leur opposition à sa tenue. Les forces de l’ordre, venues en grand 

nombre, auraient empêché l’accès à la salle de conférence située dans un hôtel 

d’Alger et auraient également fait couper l’alimentation électrique. Les conférenciers 

déjà présents dans la salle se seraient alors installés à la tribune à la lueur des bougies, 

mais les forces de l’ordre auraient fait évacuer entièrement la salle. 

6. La Rapporteuse Spéciale chargée de la question de la violence contre les 

femmes avait, à plusieurs reprises, appelé le Gouvernement à autoriser la tenue de ce


Page 5 

séminaire, notamment lors d’une réunion avec le Ministre de l’Intérieur le 27 janvier 

2007. 

7. De vives préoccupations ont été exprimées que l’interdiction de ce séminaire, 

au lendemain de la signature par l’Algérie de la Convention sur les disparitions 

forcées à Paris, aurait visé à empêcher les organisations non-gouvernementales 

susmentionnées de poursuivre leurs activités de défense des droits de l’homme en 

matière de disparitions forcées. 

Réponse du Gouvernement à une communication antérieure 

8. Le 26 juin 2007, le Gouvernement a répondu à la lettre d’allégations du 5 

octobre 2006 envoyée par la Représentante spéciale, conjointement avec le 

Rapporteur spécial sur l’indépendance des juges et des avocats, sur la situation de 

MM. Amine Sidhoum et Hassiba Boumerdassi. Le Gouvernement informe que 

MM. Amine Sidhoum et Hassiba Boumerdassi ont été poursuivis le 1 er août 2006 par 

le Parquet de la République du tribunal de Bab el oued pour avoir, dans des conditions 

illégales, fait parvenir des objets non-autorisés à des détenus, faits prévus et réprimés 

par l’article 166 du code de l’administration pénitentiaire et de la réinsertion. 

L’information judiciaire terminée, les deux prévenus ont été renvoyés devant le 

tribunal pour y être jugés. Le 25 avril 2007, MM. Amine Sidhoum et Hassiba 

Boumerdassi ont été relaxés par le tribunal. 

Observations 

9. La Représentante spéciale remercie le Gouvernement de sa réponse et salue la 

relaxe de MM. Amine Sidhoum et Hassiba Boumerdassi. Elle regrette néanmoins 

l’absence de réponse à ce jour à sa lettre d’allégations envoyée le 6 mars 2007 et 

demande au Gouvernement de répondre aux craintes exprimées dans celle-ci. 

Letter of allegations 

Angola 

10. On 6 March 2007, the Special Representative, together with the Special 

Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and 

expression, sent a letter of allegations to the Government of Angola concerning Ms 

Sarah Wykes, a human rights activist working for Global Witness, a non- 

Governmental organization dealing with environmental issues and campaigning 

against corruption. According to the information received, on 18 February 2007, Ms 

Wykes was arrested by the Angolan police in Cabinda, following her meetings with 

representatives of the human rights organization Mpalabanda to discuss revenue 

transparency issues related to oil resources. On 19 February, Ms Wykes was presented 

to the Provincial Public Prosecutor of Cabinda for the first official hearing and was 

accused of espionage. She was released on bail, but she was not allowed to leave the 

country. In the course of the hearing, Ms Wykes was reportedly denied access to the 

lawyer of her choice, Mr David Mendes, a prominent human rights lawyer and leader 

of the human rights organization Mãos Livres and the newly established Angolan 

Council for Human Rights Coordination. Concern was expressed that the arrest and


Page 6 

detention of Ms Wykes might be related to her peaceful activities in defence of human 

rights. 

Response from the Government 

11. In a letter dated 14 March 2007, the Government of Angola responded to the 

letter of allegations of 6 March 2007. The Government emphasized that the case did 

not fall within the purview of the executive, but rather the judiciary, and noted that 

that the case was still being dealt with by the court and that the verdict had yet to be 

released. It was stated that Ms Wykes was apprehended by local police on 18 

February, while photographing strategic military and civilian facilities. The 

Government informed that three Angolan lawyers had been assigned to Ms Wykes. 

As one of them, Mr David Mendes, was accompanying the defendant from Luanda 

and his name was referred in the process, the prosecutor barred him from the defence 

team. The other two lawyers then walked out of the courtroom in a show of solidarity. 

The Government further informed that the British Embassy in Angola was following 

the case closely. 


12. On 14 August 2007, the Special Representative sent a letter of allegations to 

the Government of Angola concerning comments made by Mr Pedro Walipi 

Calenga, Director General of Unidade Técnica de Coordenação da Assistência 

Humanitária (UTCAH), the Governmental body in charge of the coordination of 

humanitarian affairs. UTCAH also claims coordination of non-Governmental 

organizations (NGOs) in Angola. 

13. According to the information received, on 11 July 2007, the newspaper Jornal 

de Angola published a statement made by Mr Calenga accusing the following human 

rights organizations of undertaking illegal activities: Open Society, Mãos Libres, SOS 

Habitat, and Justice, Peace and Democracy Assosiation. The original reads: "Há 

organizações, e todos nós conhecemos, porque actuam de dia, que incitam muitas 

vezes as populações a não abandonarem as áreas onde construíram de forma 

anárquica. Refiro-me concretamente à Associação Mãos Livres, à Associação SOS- 

Habitat, à Associação Justiça Paz e Democracia e à Open Socity, constituída também 

por angolanos, pode ser de origem americana, mas constituída integralmente em 

Angola... Quanto às ONG internacionais, disse, "tendem a desenvolver acções que no 

contexto da legislação angolana deveriam ser desenvolvidas por partidos políticos e 

não por organizações não governamentais". Entre as ONG que desenvolvem acções à 

margem da lei o director da UTCAH citou o Instituto Republicano Internacional e o 

Instituto Nacional Democrático, ambos de origem americana e a Search for Common 

Ground de origem belga... essas, organizações alegam "violação dos direitos dos 

cidadãos" para justificarem a sua actividade, mas, segundo o director da UTCAH, 

essas ONG "desenvolvem acções contrárias à lei, de desobediência ao Governo e às 

instituições... Essas ONG, sobretudo as nacionais, no dizer de Calenga, "muitas vezes 

incitam a população a reagir em alguns casos até de forma violenta contra as 

instituições e contra as autoridades" (There are organizations, known to all of us 

because they act openly which often incite populations not to abandon the areas where 

they built in an anarchic way. I am referring concretely to Mãos Livres Association, 

SOS-Habitat Association, Justice, Peace and Democracy Association, and Open


Page 7 

Society, constituted also by Angolans, the origin can be American, but they are 

Angolan associations… International NGOs tend to develop actions, which in the 

context of the Angolan legislation, should be done by political parties and not by 

NGOs. These are the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic 

Institute, both from America and Search for Common Ground from Belgium. Those 

organizations allege “violation of citizens’ rights” to justify their activity but, they 

develop actions against the law, disobedience to the Government and institutions… 

Those NGOs, mainly the national ones, have often been inciting the population to 

react, in some cases in a violent manner, against the institutions and authorities). 

14. On 30 April 2007, Mr Calenga repeatedly threatened to close these NGOs 

down. He stated to Agência Lusa “O governo angolano pretende encerrar parte das 

mais de cinco centenas de organizações não governamentais existentes no país cujos 

projectos não têm impacto junto das populações, The Angolan Government intends to 

close some of more than 500 NGOs in the country whose projects do not have an 

impact on the population. It is reported that as of today, none of the aforementioned 

NGOs has received any official or formal notification stating that their activities are 

illegal and should be ceased consequently. 

15. It was expressed that it is legitimate to question the legality of activities of 

NGOs if there are any contraventions of the applicable laws, but concern was 

expressed that the statements of Mr Calenga might undermine their peaceful and 

legitimate work for the promotion and protection of human rights in Angola, by 

generating uncertainty and insecurity. 

Observations 

16. The Special representative thanks the Government for its response of 14 

March 2007. However, the Special Representative regrets that at the time of the 

finalization of this report, the Government had not transmitted a reply to her 

communication of 14 August 2007. She considers response to her communications as 

an important part of the cooperation of Governments with her mandate, and urges the 

Government to respond to the concerns raised by her. 

Llamamiento urgente 

Argentina 

17. El 12 de diciembre de 2006 la Representante Especial, señaló a la atención 

urgente del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con amenazas en contra de 

las Señoras Maria Luz Piérola, Maria Cristina Saborido y sus hijas, y Maria Eva 

Arroyo. Todas están involucradas en la búsqueda por justicia para las personas 

“desaparecidas” y las que sufrieron violaciones de derechos humanos bajo el gobierno 

militar (1976 – 1983). La Sra. Martina (“Tula”) Saborido y su novio fueron los sujetos 

de una comunicación conjunta dirigida al Gobierno con fecha de 10 de noviembre de 

2006, del Relator Especial sobre la promoción del derecho a la libertad de opinión y 

de expresión y de la Representante Especial del Secretario-General para los 

defensores de los derechos humanos. De acuerdo con la información recibida, el 9 de 

noviembre de 2006, vecinos y parientes de la Sra. Maria Luz Piérola habrían afirmado 

que dos vehículos se quedaron aparcados durante horas delante de su casa, situada en


Page 8 

la ciudad de Paraná, provincia de Entre Ríos. Uno de los coches le habría seguido a la 

Sra. Piérola cuando volvió a su casa después de trabajar. Además, el 20 de noviembre 

de 2006, se habrían encontrado unas notas anónimas en los lugares que ella frecuenta, 

con el mensaje “Maria Luz Piérola Q.E.P.D.”. Según los informes las autoridades no 

han proporcionado medidas protectivas a la Sra. Piérola a pesar de haber denunciado 

los actos de hostigamiento ante la Secretaria de Justicia, Seguridad y Derechos 

Humanos de la provincia y ante el juez federal de la ciudad. Además, las familiares de 

la Sra. Maria Cristina Saborido habrían sido victimas de otros actos de intimidación. 

18. El 5 de noviembre, el novio de Martina esperaba al autobús cuando dos 

desconocidos que circulaban en motocicleta, pararon ante de él y le mostraron una 

fotografía del Sr. Jorge Julio López, ex detenido-desaparecido a manos del gobierno 

militar y principal testigo y querellante en una causa judicial en contra del Sr. Miguel 

Osvaldo Etchecolatz, ex director de investigaciones de la Policía de Buenos Aires 

durante la dictadura militar que ha desaparecido el 17 de septiembre de 2006. 

Supuestamente, se ha asignado protección policial a la vivienda de la Sra. Saborido. 

El 14 de noviembre de 2006, varias amistades de la Sra. Maria Eva Arroyo habrían 

recibido una llamada telefónica de un desconocido diciendo, “Dígale a Eva que 

Lezcano esta mandando gente para hacerle algo”. 

19. Lezcano era el dirigente de una comisaría en la provincia de Jujuy durante el 

régimen militar y supuestamente fue responsable de abusos de derechos humanos 

durante aquella época. La Sra. Arroyo recibe protección policial desde que denunció 

las amenazas ante la policía federal. Se expresó preocupación por la seguridad de las 

Sras. Maria Eva Arroyo, Sra. Maria Luz Piérola y la familia Saborido porque se temía 

que los incidentes descritos pueden estar relacionados con sus actividades en defensa 

de los derechos humanos, en particular la defensa de los derechos de las victimas del 

régimen militar. Además se expresó temor de que las medidas de protección que las 

autoridades han tomado no parecen adecuadas a la luz de las amenazas descritas. 

Respuesta del Gobierno 

20. Mediante cartas fechadas 9 de febrero de 2007, 5 de marzo de 2007 y 14 de 

junio de 2007 el Gobierno de Argentina transmitió la siguiente información en 

relación con el llamamiento urgente de 12 de diciembre de 2006: 

21. Caso Sra. María Eva Arroyo: Existe una denuncia al respecto formulada ante 

el Juzgado Federal N 2 de Jujuy, el día 14 de noviembre de 2006. Respecto a las 

investigaciones iniciadas en relación al caso, y ante un dato aportado por la 

denunciante, se libró orden de allanamiento del lugar donde funcionaba la agencia de 

seguridad “Génesis”, desde donde posiblemente se habrían originado los llamados 

telefónicos. Al momento de realizarse el allanamiento se comprobó que el presunto 

responsable de dicha agencia – Jose Amerito Lezcano – se había mudado días antes 

llevándose todas las pertenencias. Hasta el momento se desconoce su paradero. En 

relación con las diligencias judiciales practicadas, ésas mismas siguen siendo 

investigadas en el ámbito de la Justicia Federal y, en la faz administrativa, se procedió 

a implementar la custodia correspondiente para con la denunciante a fin de 

salvaguardar su integridad física. Posteriormente, y tras la solicitud de la damnificada, 

la custodia personal fue extendida a su hija, quien convive con la Sra. Arroyo en el 

mismo domicilio. Respecto a las medidas protectivas otorgadas a la Sra. Arroyo, se


Page 9 

implantó un servicio especial de dos hombres vestidos de civil y un vehiculo no 

identificable durante las veinticuatro horas del día, que acompañaban a todos los 

lugares donde se desplazan tanto la denunciante como su hija, brindándoles así la 

correspondiente seguridad. 

22. Casos relativos a la Sra. María Christina Saborido y sus familiares: En 

relación con las amenazas sufridas por familiares y allegados de la Sra. María 

Christina Saborido, cabe destacar que – según obra en el Departamento Judicial de 

Lomas de Zamora – la Sra. Augustina Tula Saborido (hija de María Christina, ex 

detenida y desaparecida en el pozo de Banfield en 1977) recibió el 8 de octubre de 

2006 una amenaza por correo electrónico. La denuncia de ese hecho fue presentado en 

la Unidad Funcional de investigación N 19 del Departamento Judicial de Lomas de 

Zamora por Augustina Saborido. La mencionada U.F.I. dispuso la presencia de un 

móvil policial en el domicilio de la denunciante. En el mes de noviembre de 2006, la 

Dirección de Asistencia Directa a Personas y Grupos Vulnerables, de la Secretaria de 

Derechos Humanos de la Nación, recibió una solicitud de asistencia y 

acompañamiento para la Sra. María Christina Saborido y sus dos hijas. En función de 

eso, se realizaron gestiones en la Dirección con la intervención del jefe de Servicio de 

Salud Mental del Hospital Gutiérrez de La Planta al efecto de generar las condiciones 

convenientes para el acompañamiento profesional. 

23. Caso de la Sra. Maia Luz Pierola: Respecto a los hechos tratados en el 

llamamiento, cabe destacar que los mismos fueron confirmados por un informe 

elaborado por el comisario Oscar Fenocchio, jefe de la delegación de Delitos federales 

y Complejos de la ciudad de Paraná el 28 de diciembre de 2006. En dicho informe se 

afirma a su vez, que la Sra. María Luz Pierola posee una custodia policial permanente 

desde el 13 de noviembre de 2006, cuya cobertura la realiza la Policía de Entre Ríos. 

24. Medidas adoptadas por el Poder Ejecutivo de la nación para proteger las 

personas amenazadas: La Secretaria de Derechos Humanos del Ministerio de justicia 

y Derechos Humanos de la Nación adoptó el “Plan Nacional de Acompañamiento y 

Asistencia Integral a los Querellantes y Testigos Victimas del Terrorismo del Estado”, 

el cual será implementado por la mencionada Secretaria coordinando sus acciones con 

los respectivos organismos de derechos humanos de las Provincias y de la ciudad 

Autónoma de Buenos Aires. Asimismo, cabe destacar que con motivo de la 

desaparición de Jorge Julio López en septiembre de 2006, el Consejo Federal de 

Derechos Humanos dispuso a por unanimidad adherir al mencionado “Plan Nacional 

de Acompañamiento y Asistencia Integral a los Querellantes y Testigos Victimas del 

Terrorismo del Estado”. El 23 de abril de 2007, el Ministerio de Justicia y Derechos 

humanos dictó una resolución en virtud de la cual se establece que la Dirección 

nacional del Programa nacional de Protección a Testigos e Imputados de la Secretaria 

de Política Criminal y Asuntos penitenciarios de ese Ministerio brindará protección a 

las personas individualizadas por requerimiento de magistrado de la Justicia Nacional 

o del Ministerio Publico Nacional, en el marco de procesos judiciales vinculados a 

violaciones a los derechos humanos cometidos durante el último periodo dictatorial. 

Dicha resolución tendrá vigencia hasta que se instrumente la creación de un programa 

u organismo en el que se coordinen las actividades que en la materia presten los 

distintos ministerios nacionales involucrados.


Page 10 

25. Mediante la carta fechada 5 de marzo de 2007 se incluyó: 1. Sinopsis del 

Contenido del Primer Informe de la Unidad de Asistencia para causas por violaciones 

a los derechos humanos durante el Terrorismo de Estado (Ministerio de Relaciones 

Exteriores, Comercio Internacional y Culto). 2. Plan Nacional de Acompañamiento y 

Asistencia a los Querellantes y Victimas del Terrorismo de Estado (Ministerio de 

Justicia y Derechos Humanos. 


26. El 23 de febrero de 2007 la Representante Especial señaló a la atención 

urgente del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con el Sr. Horacio 

Meguira, abogado laboralista y miembro del Comité de Acción Jurídica (CAJ) en 

Buenos Aires. Además, el Sr. Meguira es Director del Departamento Jurídico de la 

Central de Trabajadores de la Argentina (CTA). De acuerdo con la información 

recibida, el 18 de febrero de 2007, el consultorio jurídico del Sr. Meguira habría sido 

allanado por personas desconocidas. Según se alega, estos desconocidos habrían 

entrado violentamente en el consultorio arrasando la puerta de ingreso y dirigiéndose 

directamente al despacho del Sr. Meguira y se habrían apropiado del disco duro del 

ordenador del Sr. Meguira y del fax que contiene la memoria de todos los 

intercambios de documentos enviados y recibidos. Se informa que no se habría 

sustraído ningún otro artículo de valor, y que no se habría allanado ningún otro 

despacho. Se expresó temores de que susodichos incidentes puedan estar relacionados 

con las actividades del Sr. Meguira en defensa de los derechos humanos, en particular 

los derechos humanos en el campo laboral. 


27. Mediante comunicación de 28 de Junio de 2007, el Gobierno proporcionó 

información con respecto al llamamiento enviado el 12 de enero de 2007. El Gobierno 

informó que de acuerdo al llamamiento en referencia, la Secretaria del Interior 

informa que la Comisaría No. 4 acudió el día 18 de febrero a la sede donde funciona 

la oficina de asesoría legal en temas laborales de la CTA. Se constató que 

desconocidos forzaron la puerta principal. Faltaba el CPU de la computadora 

conteniendo información de la actividad laboral que desarrolla. Se presentó al lugar la 

división “Rastros”, se tomó la declaración de los damnificados y se hizo un plano a 

mano alzada. 


28. El 13 de marzo de 2007 la Representante Especial, señaló a la atención 

urgente del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con el Sr. Juan Carlos 

González Leiva, Dirigente del Movimiento de Trabajadores Desocupados (MTD) del 

Distrito de Lanús, en la provincia de Buenos Aires. Según la información recibida, el 

2 de marzo de 2007, cuando el Sr. Leiva se dirigía a una reunión de delegados del 

MTD Frente Popular ‘Diario Santillán’ en la zona de Constitución, Buenos Aires, fue 

secuestrado por tres individuos que lo habrían subido por la fuerza a un coche con 

vidrios polarizados. El Sr. Leiva fue mantenido cautivo durante un periodo de siete 

horas, durante el cual fue atado a una silla e interrogado sobre sus actividades 

políticas, por los "jefes" de su organización y los "responsables" de las 

movilizaciones. Además, le habrían amenazado con matarle haciendo referencia a un


Page 11 

joven militante asesinado en la estación de Avellaneda, compañero de militancia del 

Sr. Leiva. Durante el interrogatorio los secuestradores habrían demostrado conocer 

datos de los movimientos del Sr. Leiva durante los días antes del secuestro. Tras un 

largo interrogatorio y la falta de respuestas, uno de los secuestradores habría forzado 

al Sr. Leiva a ponerse de rodillas diciéndole que iba a ser el segundo desaparecido y 

apretaba reiteradamente el gatillo de un arma descargada sobre su cabeza. Poco 

después, el Sr. Leiva fue subido al coche y tras varios minutos le habrían arrojado en 

las cercanías de la Villa 21 de Barracas. 

29. Según los informes, el 26 de febrero de 2007, durante la última movilización 

del MTD, el Sr. Leiva habría discutido con dos individuos identificados como 

policiales vestidos de civil, que supuestamente habrían integrado en la reunión. Al 

preguntarles su identidad y el motivo de su presencia las dos personas se habrían 

alejado con un gesto amenazante. Se expresó temor de que estos eventos puedan estar 

relacionados con la actividad en defensa de los derechos humanos del Movimiento de 

Trabajadores Desocupados (MTD) dirigido por el Sr. Leiva y se expresa profunda 

preocupación por su seguridad e integridad física así como la del resto de miembros 

de dicha organización. 


30. El 18 de abril de 2007 la Representante Especial, junto con el Relator Especial 

sobre la independencia de magistrados y abogados señalaron a la atención urgente del 

Gobierno la información recibida en relación con el Sr. Pablo Gabriel Salinas, 

abogado defensor de derechos humanos en la provincia de Mendoza. El Sr. Salinas ha 

trabajado en defensa de víctimas de brutalidad policial, de ejecuciones extrajudiciales 

y de otras violaciones de derechos humanos cometidas durante la dictadura militar en 

la Argentina. El Sr. Salinas ya ha sido objeto de un llamamiento urgente enviado el 27 

de diciembre de 2005 por el Relator Especial sobre la independencia de magistrados y 

abogados y la Representante Especial del Secretario-General para los defensores de 

los derechos humanos. 

31. De acuerdo con la información recibida, el 9 de abril de 2007, el Sr. Salinas 

habría recibido una carta anónima amenazándole a él y a su familia con que algo les 

sucedería si no dejaba su actividad. Al día siguiente se habría presentado la denuncia 

de la amenaza anónima ante la Unidad Fiscal de Delitos Complejos de la Primera 

Circunscripción Judicial de Mendoza. Asimismo, a través de una petición presentada 

ante la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, se habrían solicitado medidas 

cautelares para proteger al Sr. Salinas y a su familia. De acuerdo a lo informado, el Sr. 

Salinas habría sido víctima de reiterados actos de hostigamiento y amenazas. En el 

2005 el Sr. Salinas habría recibido llamadas telefónicas amenazantes y su oficina 

apareció cubierta de graffitis. Se expresaron temor de que estos eventos pudieran estar 

relacionados con la actividad en defensa de los derechos humanos del Sr. Pablo 

Gabriel Salinas y se expresa profunda preocupación por su seguridad e integridad 

física así como la de su familia. 


32. Mediante comunicación de 4 de julio de 2007, el Gobierno de Argentina 

proporcionó información con respecto al llamamiento enviado. El Gobierno


Page 12 

proporcionó información sumistrada por la Subsecretaria de Justicia del Ministerio de 

Gobierno de la Provincia de Mendoza: El Sr. Subsecretario se comunicó 

personalmente con el Dr. Pablo Salinas poniéndose a su disposición y ofreciéndole las 

medidas protectoras que creyera convenientes. Se le prepuso protección policial 

provincial y se le indicó la posibilidad de requerir el auxilio de protección de la 

policía federal si lo estimara pertinente. Ante la negativa del Sr. Salinas al respecto, se 

le comunicaron los teléfonos celulares de las maximas autoridades provinciales en 

materia de seguridad y se le solicitó que tante el como su familia informaran cualquier 

movimiento sospechoso que entendieran que podría implicar peligro potencial o real. 

A pesar del ofrecimiento de colaboración del gobierno provincial, el Dr. Salinas no ha 

puesto en conocimiento del mismo, la existencia de nuevas amenazas telefónicas o 

intimidaciones. El Gobierno informó de que las medidas protectoras aludidas o 

cualquier otra que se considere conveniente, se encuentran a disposición del Dr. 

Salinas. 


33. El 3 de Mayo de 2007, la Representante Especial, junto con el Relator 

Especial sobre la independencia de magistrados y abogados señalaron a la atención 

urgente del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con el aumento de actos de 

hostigamiento y amenazas en contra de jueces, fiscales y abogados vinculados a la 

defensa de los derechos humanos, sobre todo aquellos que han participado en los 

procesos judiciales contra integrantes de la dictadura militar argentina por delitos de 

lesa humanidad cometidos entre los años 1976 y 1983.Entre ellos se destacaron: 

34. I – Las amenazas dirigidas a dos jueces del Tribunal Oral que condenó a 

Miguel Etchecolatz, el Sr. Norberto Lorenzo y el Sr. Horacio Insaurralde, así como 

al despacho del juez Arnaldo Corazza y del fiscal Sergio Franco, ambos 

pertenecientes al Tribunal Federal de Primera Instancia de la Plata y a cargo de la 

instrucción de causas contra ex represores. Asimismo, el juez Carlos Rozansky, 

presidente del Tribunal Oral que condenó a Miguel Etchecolatz a reclusión perpetua, 

recibió dos llamados telefónicos amenazantes provenientes del Servicio Penitenciario 

Federal: uno de la Unidad 2 de Devoto y otro de la Unidad 27 femenino, realizados 

desde teléfonos que utiliza el personal a los que los internos no tienen acceso. 

35. II - La escalada de amenazas y actos intimidatorios que desde marzo de 2005 

vienen sufriendo en la ciudad de Córdoba, los abogados querellantes, la representante 

del Ministerio Público y los activistas de derechos humanos en el marco de las causas 

judiciales que tramita la justicia federal con asiento en esa ciudad, en donde se trata 

de esclarecer las violaciones a los derechos humanos ocurridas en la última dictadura 

militar, bajo la jurisdicción del 3º Cuerpo del Ejército. Particularmente, la amenaza 

realizada el 11 de marzo de 2005 contra el Sr. Juan Martín Fresneda, integrante de 

la agrupación H.I.J.O.S. y abogado querellante en las causas que tramita el Juzgado 

Federal Nº 3 de la ciudad de Córdoba, donde representa a familiares de desaparecidos 

por razones políticas de la última dictadura militar. En dicha ocasión tres personas se 

dirigieron al estudio jurídico del Sr. Fresneda y advirtieron a un vecino que colocarían 

una bomba allí si el Sr. Fresneda seguía actuando en causas judiciales contra ex 

represores. El hecho ocurrió al día siguiente de la detención de Arnaldo José López,


Page 13 

acusado de gravísimas violaciones a los derechos humanos. Fresneda es el abogado 

querellante en esas causas. A raíz de estas amenazas, se efectuó una denuncia judicial 

pero la misma se encontraría paralizada en la Fiscalía Federal Nº 2 de Córdoba. 

Las intimidaciones contra abogados y fiscales en la ciudad de Córdoba se 

intensificaron en el año 2006. El 4 de junio de 2006 se envió un correo electrónico al 

periodista Mariano Saravia, de parte de un supuesto policía en actividad, en el que se 

advertía que se estaría preparando un atentado mortal contra la vida del abogado 

Claudio Orosz (abogado de las organizaciones Familiares de Desaparecidos- 

Detenidos por Razones Políticas de Cordoba, e H.I.J.O.S. y querellante en las causas 

de violaciones a los Derechos Humanos). El mensaje indicaba una serie de detalles de 

personas, vehículos y domicilios, los cuales habrían sido constatados como veraces 

por el Fiscal Federal Nº1, Sr. Enrique Senestrari. El 26 de junio de 2006 se recibió 

una nueva amenaza contra el Sr. Orosz, esta vez en el contestador automático de su 

estudio jurídico, donde se le advierte: “te vamos a matar, los voy a matar”. Asimismo, 

el 18 de junio, en el correo electrónico del periodista Saravia se recibió otra 

intimidación, en este caso dirigida a la Fiscal del Juzgado Federal Nº 3, Sra. López de 

Filoñuk, quien lleva adelante causas de derechos humanos en la provincia de 

Córdoba. Por otra parte, desconocidos ingresaron al estudio del abogado Juan Carlos 

Vega, el 23 de junio, y sustrajeron una computadora portátil con material relativo a la 

causa judicial “Mackentor”. Posteriormente, el 29 de junio, la abogada de la 

asociación Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo Córdoba, Sra. María Teresa Sánchez, recibió 

una nota en su estudio jurídico en la que se advertía que harían volar su auto cuando 

ella se encontrara manejando. Su socia, la Sra. Mariana Paramio, fue golpeada y 

amenazada por un individuo que entró y destruyó el estudio de ambas. Todos estos 

actos intimidatorios fueron denunciados en la Fiscalía Federal Nº 1 de Córdoba. 

36. III – En la ciudad de Mar del Plata, el Sr. César Sivo, abogado de las causas 

penales y de los Juicios por la verdad que se están desarrollando en Tandil, Las 

Flores, Azul, Olavaria y Mar del Plata, fue perseguido e intimidado en reiteradas 

oportunidades. También fueron interceptadas sus llamadas telefónicas y recibió en su 

estudio visitas de personas que se presentan como clientes y luego le informan haber 

participado de la dictadura militar y le advierten que emplearán con él los mismos 

métodos. Asimismo, recibe a diario llamadas intimidatorios de todo tenor, que van 

desde las amenazas directas, el silencio prolongado y la reproducción de marchas 

militares hasta la información de cuestiones de su vida privada y la reproducción de 

conversaciones sostenidas con otras personas. En muchas ocasiones, se advierten 

vehículos no identificados en la puerta de su estudio o gente sacando fotos al estudio o 

al abogado. También se registraron ingresos forzados en su estudio jurídico. Otro 

tanto ocurre con personas allegadas al Sr. Sivo, a las que se ha llegado a ofrecer 

dinero y servicios profesionales para que inicien juicios contra el abogado o hablen en 

su contra. 

37. IV - En la provincia de Tucumán, la Sra. Laura Figueroa, abogada del Colegio 

de Abogados de Tucumán y querellante en las causas de Familiares de Desaparecidos 

en la Justicia Federal de Tucumán, ha sufrido amenazas con anterioridad y 

posterioridad al Caso Julio López, a consecuencia de su activa intervención en las 

causas vinculadas con la violación de derechos humanos durante la dictadura militar. 

El 20 de octubre del 2002, mientras se encontraba sola en su domicilio particular, 

ingresó un comando armado que la redujo violentamente, revolvió todo, le hizo saber 

que sus conversaciones eran escuchadas, y le efectuaron amenazas de muerte si


Page 14 

continuaba con las causas. En el mismo mes ingresaron nuevamente a su domicilio 

particular, mientras ella no se encontraba, rompiendo y revolviendo toda la casa. 

Durante el mismo año 2002, también sufrieron actos de persecución una de las 

auxiliares del GIAAT (Grupo Interdisciplinario de Arqueología y Antropología de 

Tucumán) y el Fiscal de la Causa del Pozo de Vargas. Se presume que estas 

amenazas, ataques y persecuciones estuvieron vinculadas a la profundización en la 

investigación de la causa judicial del “Pozo de Vargas” en el año 2002. Desde el año 

2003 la Sra. Laura Figueroa tiene una guardia permanente en su domicilio particular. 

En Enero del 2006, dejaron una amenaza en el contestador telefónico de su estudio 

jurídico. La investigación de esta amenaza está en curso. En Octubre del 2006, recibió 

un nuevo mensaje en el contestador telefónico que decía “ya no te llamaremos más...” 

Por su parte, el Fiscal Federal Nº1 de Tucumán, Sr. Emilio E. Ferrer, interviniente en 

causas por violaciones a los derechos humanos, recibió amenazas anónimas por carta 

en la que se le advierte que será juzgado por un tribunal particularmente imparcial y 

que volverán a comunicarse con él. 

38. V – La Sra. Ana María Figueroa, abogada defensora de los derechos humanos, 

miembro de la Asamblea Permanente por los Derechos Humanos y actual Directora 

General de Jurídicos de la Secretaría de Derechos Humanos de la Nación recibió 

amenazas contra su vida y la de sus hijos. 

39. VI – El Sr. Ciro Annicchiarico, abogado y miembro de la Comisión de Política 

Criminal de la Asociación de Abogados de Buenos Aires fue amenazado y su esposa, 

Nora Cerviño, fue atacada y golpeada por un sujeto que le dijo “esto es para Ciro”. 

Asimismo, en dos oportunidades aparecieron inscripciones intimidatorias dentro de su 

domicilio. También los miembros de la Comisión de Derechos Humanos de la 

Asociación de Abogados de Buenos Aires, Sr. Manuel Justo Gaggero y Sra. Liliana 

Beli, recibieron llamados y mensajes en sus contestadores telefónicos en los que se 

escuchaban marchas militares que solían difundirse con frecuencia durante la 

dictadura militar. 

40. VII – El Fiscal Federal del Chaco, Sr. Jorge Auat, quien interviene en varias 

causas por violaciones a los derechos humanos durante la última dictadura militar, 

entre ellas la investigación de la causa Margarita Belén, recibió una carta amenazante 

en su oficina por su actuación en la investigación de crímenes de lesa humanidad. 

41. VIII – En la provincia de Neuquén, el abogado del Centro de Profesionales 

por los Derechos Humanos (CEPRODH), Sr. Leopoldo Denaday, fue detenido sin 

causa por efectivos de la policía neuquina cuando participaba pacíficamente de un 

evento cultural. Fue llevado a la Comisaría 1º y mantenido en un calabozo durante 

varias horas en las que a sus abogados se les impidió acceder a información alguna 

sobre su situación. 

42. XIX - El juez Marcos Quinteros y el Fiscal Neri Roberto López de la 

provincia de Formosa, recibieron cartas intimidatiorias tras la desaparición del testigo 

Jorge Julio López. 

43. XX - En la provincia de San Luis, el defensor de derechos humanos y 

representante de víctimas de la dictadura, Sr. Enrique Ponce, recibió un mensaje 

telefónico intimidatorio. El Relator Especial y la Representante Especial expresaron


Page 15 

temores de que las sucesivas amenazas e intimidaciones de diversa índole dirigidas 

contra jueces, fiscales y abogados en diferentes regiones del país estén directamente 

vinculadas al ejercicio de su profesión por el esclarecimiento de la verdad y la 

búsqueda de justicia, en particular en los casos en los que se investigan las violaciones 

a los derechos humanos durante la dictadura militar. 


44. El 20 de julio de 2007 la Representante Especial, señaló a la atención urgente 

del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con los supuestos actos de 

hostigamiento en contra del Comité de Defensa de la Salud, la Ética Profesional y 

los Derechos Humanos (CODESEDH) y el Centro de Profesionales Por Derechos 

Humanos (CEPRODH), organizaciones no gubernamentales que se dedican a los 

casos de las violaciones de derechos humanos cometidas durante la última dictadura 

militar en Argentina. 

45. De acuerdo con la información recibida, el 26 de junio de 2007, hacia las 

20.00 horas, dos personas armadas habrían entrado en la Comisión directiva del 

CODESEDH en Buenos Aires, con la aparente finalidad de realizar robo con 

violencia contra tres profesionales que se encontraban allí presentes. Una vez que los 

ladrones se fueron, se habría constatado el robo de una computadora de la Secretaría 

de programas de la institución que contenía pruebas y archivos relevantes para los 

juicios contra la dictadura que se están llevando a cabo actualmente en Argentina. El 2 

de junio de 2007, otro acto de hostigamiento habría ocurrido en contra del 

COPREDEH. Cruces svásticas habrían sido pintadas en la oficina. Esas pintadas 

serían prácticamente idénticas a las aparecidas en la Iglesia Santa Cruz donde fueron 

secuestradas las fundadoras de Madres de Plaza de Mayo durante la dictadura. Se 

expresó temor de que el robo de la oficina del CODESEDH y el acto de intimidación 

contra el COPREDEH están relacionado con el trabajo en defensa de los derechos 

humanos. Me preocupa que estos hechos ocurran en el marco de juicios contra los 

crímenes de la dictadura donde los testigos y los profesionales que luchan contra la 

impunidad siguen siendo víctimas de hostigamiento y de desaparición Asimismo se 

expresa profunda preocupación por la seguridad e integridad física de los miembros 

de las mencionadas organizaciones. 


46. Mediante comunicación de 15 de octubre de 2007, el Gobierno de Argentina 

proporcionó información con respecto al llamamiento enviado. El Gobierno informó 

de lo siguiente: 1. Con fecha 26 de junio de 2007, se labraron actuaciones sumariales 

en la Comisión 6ta. Caratuladas: Robo a mano armada y privaciones ilegales de la 

libertad, con intervención No. 10 a cargo del Dr. Marcelo Roma, Secretaria No. 1 del 

Dr. Juan José Taboada Areu, en un hecho que ocurriera a las 20 hs, donde dos 

personas armadas habrían entrado a las oficinas correspondientes a la Comisión 

directiva del CODESEDEH situadas en la calle Pte. Luis Saenz Pena 611 de esta 

Ciudad Autonoma con la aparente finalidad de realizar un robo con violencia contra 

tres profesionales que se hallaban alli presentes. Una vez que se fueron los 

delincuentes se comprobó los faltanes de una cpu con programas, pruebas, y archivos 

de juicios contra la dictadura. Con fecha 2 de junio de 2007 se instruyeron actuaciones 

sumariales en jurisdicción de la Comisaría (va. Caratuladas: Dano, con la intervención


Page 16 

de la Fiscalía Correccional No. 1 a cargo del Dr. Ranole, por ante la Secretaria del Dr. 

Sole, donde se investiga el hecho de hostigamiento ocurrido en contra del 

COPREDEH sito en la calle Jujuy 550 también de esta Ciudad Autonoma, tratándose 

de pintadas en la oficina con cruces esvásticas y otros mensajes intimidarlos. 2. De los 

registros obrantes en el Departamento Unidad de Investigaciones Antiterroristas no 

surge que se halla presentado queja alguna. 3. Se desconocen informes o resultados de 

las investigaciones a cabo. 

Seguimiento de comunicaciones transmitidas previamente 


47. Mediante comunicaciónes con fecha de 9 de enero de 2007, 14 de febrero de 

2007, y 5 de marzo de 2007, el Gobierno de Argentina proporcionó información con 

respecto al llamamiento enviado el 10 de noviembre de 2006 en relación con aumento 

de actos de hostagamiento en contra defensores de derechos humanos desde el inicio 

del proceso contra Miguel Osvaldo Etchecolatz, ex director de investigaciones de la 

Policia de Buenos Aires durante la dictadura militar, y de manera particular, desde la 

desaparecion del Sr. Jorge López, ex detenido - desaparecido a manos del gobierno 

militar y principal testigo y querellante en dicha causa judicial. El Gobierno informó 

de lo siguiente: 

48. Caso Julio Jorge López: A partir del momento en que se conocieron los 

hechos, se comenzaron a articular las acciones dentro del Gobierno de la Provincia de 

Buenos Aires. Después de radicar la denuncia, desde el Ministerio de Seguridad de la 

Provincia de Buenos Aires se recabaron testimonios de las personas allegadas y 

vecinos que pudieron haberlo visto en los momentos previos a su desaparición. Se han 

puesto varias fuerzas en la búsqueda del señor Julio Jorge López. El mismo día en que 

se conocieron los hechos se solicitó cooperación a los periódicos y a varios hospitales. 

Se realizaron, y se continúan llevando a cabo, amplios rastrillajes por parte de 

efectivos de las Policías de Seguridad, de Investigaciones en Función Judicial y de 

Información para la prevención del Delito en la zona de Los Hornos. Se coordina el 

trabajo con todas las fuerzas de seguridad nacionales. El Gobernador de la Provincia 

de Buenos Aires ofreció recompensa pública a quien aporte datos que permitan dar 

con el paradero de López. Se llevó a cabo una reunión especial del C.A.I.C.O (Comité 

de Análisis de Información sobre el Crimen Organizado) que fue presentada por el 

Ministro de Seguridad de la Provincia de Buenos Aires. El Secretario de Derechos 

Humanos se reunió con organizaciones sociales y de derechos humanos para articular 

acciones de búsqueda. Se ha analizado el armado de una red de solidaridad y 

protección de aquellos que pudieran estar amenazados, para que los futuros testigos de 

juicios se desenvuelvan en un clima de seguridad. A través de la Superintendencia de 

investigaciones de Delitos Complejos y Crimen Organizado y de la Superintendencia 

de Información para la Prevención del Delito del Ministerio de Seguridad de Buenos 

Aires se trabaja con los sistemas VAIC e 1-2. Se analiza información relacionada con 

causas penales vinculadas con personas desaparecidas, con pedidos de capturas 

pendientes. Se recuperaron testimonios en causas judiciales de los nombres de sujetos 

implicados en hechos de tortura denunciados por López. 

49. Diligencias judiciales y administrativas practicadas: La denuncia por la 

desaparición Jorge Julio López fue presentada en la Comisaría 3 de la cuidad de la


Page 17 

Plata, capital de la Provincia de Buenos Aires. A partir de la presentación de la 

denuncia se inició la investigación judicial ante la justicia penal de la Provincia de 

Buenos Aires, la cual, originalmente tramitó ante el Juzgado de Garantías N 4 del 

Departamento Judicial de La Plata a cargo de la Dra. Garmendia, con intervención de 

la Unidad Funcional de Instrucción N 3 a carga del Dr Marcelo Martín. Sin embargo, 

ante el incidente de inhibitoria promovido por la jueza a cargo de la investigación ante 

la Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación, este Tribunal resolvió el 14 de diciembre 

de 2006, que la justicia federal era competente para intervenir en la investigación por 

la desaparición de Jorge Julio López, en tanto ante ese fuero se sustancian los juicios 

por violaciones a los derechos humanos cometidas por agentes del Estado durante la 

última dictadura militar. Al día de hoy no existen personas imputadas en la causa 

judicial mencionada. 

50. Medidas adoptadas para proteger a las personas amenazadas: El Gobernador 

de la Provincia de Buenos Aíres aprobó el “programa de Vigilancia y Atención de 

Testigos en Grados de Exposición”, implementado a partir del convenio suscripto 

entre la Provincia de Buenos Aires y el Ministerio del Interior de la Nación. Por su 

parte, la Secretaria de Derechos Humanos del Ministerio de Justicia y Derechos 

Humanos de la Nación aprobó por Resolución el “Plan Nacional de Acompañamiento 

y Asistencia Integral a los Querellantes y Testigos del Terrorismo de Estado”, el cual 

será implementado por la mencionada Secretaria coordinando sus acciones con los 

respectivos organismos de derechos humanos de las Provincias y de la Ciudad 

Autónoma. 

51. Caso hermanos Montes: En relación con los actos de hostigamiento y 

amenazas sufridas por los hermanos Ariel Gustavo y María Liz Cecilia Montes el día 

9 de octubre de 2006, y tomando nota de un informe al respecto elaborado por la 

Policía Federal Argentina, cabe destacar que aquellos se produjeron a raíz de la 

detención de Francisco Luis Ramírez por parte de personal de la Comisaría Alte. 

Brown 5, involucrado en un hecho caratulado “robo calificado de mercadería en 

tránsito”. El mencionado Ramírez es conocido de los hermanos Montes, por lo que 

estos salieron en su defensa, exigiendo la liberación del detenido, provocándose un 

altercado con personal policía agredido físicamente. Tras dichos episodios, los 

hermanos Montes fueron detenidos por “resistencia a la autoridad” con intervención 

de la Unidad Funcional de Investigaciones N 2 del Departamento Judicial de Lomas 

de Zamora. Se les realizó el correspondiente reconocimiento médico, y una vez que se 

les tomó declaración, fueron dejados en libertad. Los hechos fueron denunciados en la 

Fiscalía N3 del Juzgado de Lomas de Zamora. Se inició una investigación por parte 

del Departamento de Asuntos Internos del Ministerio de Seguridad de la Provincia de 

Buenos Aires. Hasta el momento continúan las investigaciones judiciales iniciadas en 

le Unidad Funcional de Investigaciones N 3, del Juzgado de Lomas de Zamora, y por 

parte del Departamento de Asuntos Internos del Ministerio de Seguridad de la 

provincia de Buenos Aires, no conociéndose los resultados de la investigación. 

52. Casos relativos a la Sra. María Cristina Saborido y sus familiares. En relación 

con las amenazas sufridas por familiares y allegados de la Sra. María Christina 

Saborido, la Sra. Augustina Tula Saborido recibió el 8 de octubre de 2006 una 

amenaza por correo electrónico. La denuncia de ese hecho fue presentada en la 

Unidad Funcional de Investigación (UFI) N 19 del Departamento Judicial de Lomas


Page 18 

de Zamora por Augustina Saborido. UFI dispuso la presencia de un móvil policial en 

el domicilio de la denunciante. 

53. Casos relativos a amenazas a magistrados: Respecto a las amenazas sufridas 

por los magistrados del Tribunal Oral N 1, los Dres. Norberto Lorenzo y Horacio 

Insaurralde, y las sufridas por el presidente de ese Tribunal, el Dr. Carlos Rosansky, 

existen denuncias al respecto en el Juzgado Federal N3. Respecto a las presuntas 

amenazas sufridas por el juez Amaldo Corazza y el fiscal Sergio Franco, no se 

conocen denuncias. En la denuncia efectuada por el juez Rosansky, éste hizo alusión a 

que recepcionó en su despacho amenazas telefónicas. En tal sentido, el juzgado a 

cargo de la investigación ordenó la intervención de los teléfonos correspondientes al 

Tribunal aludido, a la vez que se envió un oficio al Ministerio del Interior para que se 

disponga una amplia investigación en el área de su competencia con el objeto de 

esclarecer las amenazas recibidas por el presidente del Tribunal Oral N 1. Según el 

informe remitido por el Ministerio del Interior, es inexacta la información que obra en 

el llamamiento, relativa a las amenazas que el Dr. Rozanzky habría recibido 

provenientes del Servicio penitenciario federal. 

54. Caso Eloy: Respecto al caso de la Sra. Nilda Eloy, el Juzgado federal N3 

dispuso custodia durante las 24 horas del día en su domicilio desde el 21 de 

septiembre de 2006. 

55. Casos Sra. Demiryi y Sabai de Castro/Universidad de Quilmes: Entre los días 

28 de septiembre de 2006 y 30 de noviembre del mismo año, la comisaría N 8 de 

Quilmes y el juzgado Federal de esa localidad han recibido denuncias sobre amenazas 

telefónicas que indicaban que en la Universidad nacional de Quilmes (UNqui) habrían 

artefactos explosivos. Sin perjuicio de ello, tales amenazas fueron desestimadas 

debido a que no se han hallado tales artefactos explosivos. Con respecto a las Sras 

Milagros Demiryi y Argentina Sabaj de Castro, las mismas realizaron denuncias sobre 

tales amenazas en la Comisaría que le compete a la Universidad. Cabe señalar que 

según información proporcionada por la UNqui, tal establecimiento se encuentra por 

seguridad privada. 

56. Caso Razzeti: En relación con el graffiti con mensajes amenazadores que 

apareció el 14 de octubre de 2006 en la casa del ex desaparecido Carlos Razzeti, 

existe una denuncia al respecto ante el Juzgado Federal N3 de los Tribunales 

Federales de Rosario, Santa Fe. Asimismo, el denunciante, Carlos Razzeti, reclamó el 

inmediato esclarecimiento de los hechos ante autoridades del Ministerio de Gobierno 

y a la Subsecretaria de derechos Humanos del Gobierno de la Provincia de Santa Fe, 

que intervinieron en el caso. Actualmente, la cause se encuentra en el Juzgado en lo 

Penal de instrucción de la 12. Tal juzgado inició las investigaciones correspondientes, 

las cuales se encuentran en su etapa de instrucción. Con respecto a las diligencias 

judiciales que vienen practicando referente al hecho, hasta el momento no hay 

personas u organizaciones a las que se les pueda atribuir el hecho. Tampoco se han 

adoptado hasta el momento sanciones de carácter penal o disciplinario. Por 

disposición del juzgado interventor, el Sr. Razzeti posee custodia personal. Mediante 

carta fechada 5 de marzo de 2007 se proporcionó información elaborada por el 

ministerio público fiscal de la nación y por la secretaría de derechos humanos de la 

nación que complementa la enviada de 9 de enero de 2007 y de 17 de febrero de 2007. 

Se incluyó: 1. Sinopsis del Contenido del Primer Informe de la Unidad de Asistencia 

para causas por violaciones a los derechos humanos durante el Terrorismo de Estado


Page 19 

(Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, Comercio Internacional y Culto). 2. Plan 

Nacional de Acompañamiento y Asistencia a los Querellantes y Victimas del 

Terrorismo de Estado (Ministerio de Justicia y Derechos Humanos). 


57. El 13 de febrero de 2006 la Representante Especial, junto con el Relator 

Especial sobre la promoción del derecho de la libertad de opinión y de expresión, 

había enviado un llamamiento urgente en relación al supuesto reiterado acoso y 

repetidas amenazas recibidas por parte del Sr. Mariano Saravia desde la publicación 

de su libro “La Sombra Azul” en marzo de 2005, en el cual denuncio diversos casos 

de tortura por parte de la policía provincial durante y después del régimen militar. 

Mediante carta fechada 31 de enero de 2007 el Gobierno de Argentina proporcionó 

información en relación con el llamamiento urgente. El Gobierno remitió una carta del 

Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, Comercio Internacional y Culto dirigida al Sr. 

Gobernador de la provincia de Córdoba en la cual se pide información sobre el caso 

mencionado. Asimismo se remitió una respuesta del secretario de inspección del 

tribunal de conducta policial de Córdoba el la cual se señala que a la fecha el caso se 

encuentra en etapa investigativa. 

Observaciones 

58. La Representante Especial agradece la información proporcionada por el 

Gobierno de Argentina en relación con cuatro de sus comunicaciones. Sin embargo, 

lamenta no haber recibido respuesta a su comunicación de 13 de marzo de 2007 y 3 de 

Mayo de 2007 en el momento de finalización del presente informe. La Representante 

Especial expresa preocupación por varios casos de supuestas amenazas dirigidas en 

contra de defensores cuyo trabajo esta enfocado en violaciones a los derechos 

humanos durante la dictadura militar, especialmente el esclarecimiento de la verdad y 

la búsqueda de justicia. 

Urgent appeal 

Bahrain 

59. On 2 February 2007, the Special Representative, together with the 

Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, sent a letter of 

allegations concerning Mr Abdulhadi Alkhawaja, President of the Bahrain Center 

for Human Rights, and Mr Hassan Mushaima, Secretary-General of the Haq 

Democracy Movement, reportedly a movement seeking greater rights for the Shiite 

Muslims as well as further democratic reform. 

60. According to the information received, on Mr Abdulhadi Alkhawaja and Mr 

Hassan Mushaima were arrested on 2 February 2007 in Manama by members of the 

security services in two separate police raids. The exact reasons for their detention are 

not yet known. Mr Alkhawaja was previously arrested in September 2004 after he 

gave a public lecture in which he criticized the Government. Concern was expressed 

that the arrest of Mr Alkhawaja and Mr Mushaima may be related to their legitimate 

and peaceful activities in defence of human rights.


Page 20 


61. In letters dated 15 February 2007 and 7 March 2007, the Government of 

Bahrain responded to the urgent appeal of 2 February 2007. On 15 May 2007 the 

Government sent a letter containing additional information to the case. In the 

mentioned communications, the Government stated that Hassan Ali Mohammed 

Mushaima, Abd al-Hadi Abdullah Habil al-Khawajah and Shakir Mohammed Abd al- 

Husain Abd al-Al delivered statements and talks in public places, and that the talks 

contained propaganda aimed at overthrowing and changing the political regime of the 

State, publicly inciting hatred and contempt for the Government, spreading false 

reports and information, disseminating seditious messages and inciting public 

disobedience of the law. They also expressed contempt for the King. Mr Abdulhadi 

Alkhawaja and Mr. Hassan Mushaima were arrested on 2 February 2007, pursuant to 

an investigation by the public prosecutor pointing to crimes of hatred, spreading of 

deliberate and malicious falsehoods and incitement to break the law, contrary to 

specific articles of the 1976 Penal Code. Mr. Hassan Mushaima confirmed that he had 

made a statement as referred in the investigation report. He said that it was his 

constitutional right to express his opinion. Mr. Hassan Mushaima was also questioned 

in the presence of two lawyers. He denied the charges against him. The public 

prosecutor’s office took testimony from witnesses who confirmed the findings of the 

investigation report. The public prosecutor’s office concluded its investigations and 

ordered the release of the two men on bail. Mr. Hassan Mushaima and Mr. Abd al- 

Hadi al-Khawajah and Shakir Mohammed Abd al-Husain Abd al-Al were charged 

with publicly inciting hatred and contempt for the Government, in a public place in 

Bahrain. They were also charged with deliberately spreading false and tendentious 

information and propaganda and with disseminating seditious messages about the 

country’s internal situation with a view to disrupting public security and damaging the 

public interest. In addition, they were charged with inciting public disobedience, 

resistance of the authorities and the organization of illegal demonstrations and protests 

in a public place. The Government maintained that they were not arrested for 

expressing their opinion, but rather for committing offences that are punishable under 

the Criminal Code. The arrest of the two individuals was not connected with any 

human rights activities they may undertake. The Government objected to the use of 

the term “victims” in the communication from the Special representative, and 

affirmed that all aspects of the arrest, detention and subsequent proceedings involving 

to these individuals had been legal. No complaint has been lodged by or on behalf of 

either individual in relation to the case (including as to their arrest, detention or court 

appearances). The Government urged the Special Representative to be aware of 

claims emanating from Mr Al-Khawaja, and referred to other communications from 

the Government where it has been stated that Mr Al-Khawaja is seeking to instigate 

confrontation, and for attempting to engage international human rights bodies for 

political purposes. 


62. On 25 October 2007 the Special Representative, together with the Special 


expression and the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and 

consequences, sent a letter of allegations concerning Ms Ghada Jamsheer, a 

women's rights activist and president of the Bahrain Women's Petition.


Page 21 

63. According to the information received, in early October 2007, a formal 

Governmental decision had been revealed concerning a prohibition for Ms. Jamsheer 

to appear in the Bahraini press, including radio, television and all local newspapers. 

Allegedly, this prohibition may be related to a letter that she sent to His Highness the 

King of Bahrain calling for the dissolution of the Supreme Council for Women, which 

is chaired by Her Highness Sheikha Sabika Bint Ibrahim Al Khalifa. Ms. Jamsheer 

has already faced charges in the past related to her professional activities. In 2005, she 

was criminally prosecuted for allegedly criticizing family judges. These proceedings 

were later discontinued. 

64. This case was the subject of a joint Urgent Appeal sent on 13 June 2005 by the 

Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion 

and expression, the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and 

consequences and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation 

of human rights defenders. Since 2006, Ms. Jamsheer has allegedly been placed under 

surveillance, having her activities and movements monitored by security officials. 

65. Concern was expressed that the ban imposed on Ms. Jamsheer might be 

directly linked to her non-violent activities in defence of women's rights in the 

Kingdom of Bahrain. 

Responses from the Government to communications sent before 2 December 

2006 

66. In a letter dated 13 June 2007, the Government of Bahrain submitted 

additional information in regard to the urgent appeal sent 1 October 2004 by the 

Special Representative, together with the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working 

Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and 

protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the Special 

Rapporteur on the question of torture, regarding the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights 

(BCHR) and its executive director Abdul-Hadi Al-Khawaja. Concern had been 

expressed that Abdul-Hadi Al-Khawaja might have been detained as a direct result of 

his human rights work with BCHR and in particular his criticism, during the 

symposium, of Government policy on poverty in Bahrain. In view of his alleged 

incommunicado detention, concern was expressed that he might be at risk of torture or 

other forms of ill-treatment. Further concern was been expressed for all members of 

the BCHR following reports that the Ministry of Labour was leading an effort aimed 

at “taking legal and punitive actions against the BCHR” and which could lead to the 

organization’s closure. The Government has previously responded to the letter of 

allegations in communications dated 6 October 2004 and 1 December 2004. 

67. The Government informed that Mr. Abd al-Hadi al-Khawaja delivered a 

statement 12 June 2007 at a session of the Human Rights Council. The Government of 

Bahrain refutes the thrust of the statement that Mr. Abd al-Hadi al-Khawaja made. 

The Government maintained that there is no secret about the extensive contribution 

that His Highness Sheikh Khalifa Bin Salman Al Khalifa, the distinguished Prime 

Minister, has made to the achievement of progress and development, in the housing, 

economic and social domains, in Bahrain. Nor is there any secret about his role in 

alleviating the burden of poverty and providing decent homes for the poor and the


Page 22 

needy. It was also informed that Mr. Abd al-Hadi al-Khawaja does not represent any 

official, human rights, or civil society, organization. 

Observations 

68. The Special Representative thanks the Government for its detailed replies to 

the urgent appeal of 2 February 2007. However, in its replies, the Government did not 

indicate how the legal basis of the arrests was compatible with international norms 

and standards. The Special Representative would be grateful for information on the 

outcome of the case, and how the measures were compatible with international norms 

and standards. She reiterates her concern that the charges are related to Mr Abdulhadi 

Alkhawaja and Mr Hassan Mushaima’s legitimate and peaceful activities in defence 

of human rights. The Special Representative regrets that at the time of her finalization 

of this report, she did not received a response from the Government to her 

communication of 25 October 2007. 

69. The Special Representative wishes to refer to the fundamental principles set 

forth in the Declaration on human rights defenders, and in particular articles 1 and 2 

which state that everyone has the right individually or in association with others, to 

promote and to strive for the protection and realization of human rights and 

fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels. She would like to 

remind the Government that article 5 of the Declaration, especially points b) and c) 

which provides that for the purpose of promoting and protecting human rights and 

fundamental freedoms, everyone has the right to form, join and participate in non- 

Governmental organizations, associations or groups, and to communicate with non- 

Governmental or interGovernmental organizations. 

Urgent appeal 

Bangladesh 

70. On 5 February 2007, the Special Representative, together with the Special 

Rapporteur on the question of torture and the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working 

Group on Arbitrary Detention, sent an urgent appeal to the Government the 

concerning Mr Shahidul Islam, Executive Director of Uttaran, a non-Governmental 

organization which promotes the rights of landless people in the Satkhira region. Mr 

Islam has also been involved in campaigning against the Khulna Jessore Drainage 

Rehabilitation Project (KJDRP) project, funded by the Asian Development Bank 

(ADB). 

71. According to the information received, on 27 January 2007, Mr Islam was 

apprehended by military personnel at the Uttaran training centre in Tala Upazilla. He 

was then escorted to a joint forces interrogation cell where he was beaten all over his 

body before being transferred to the local Tala Police Station later that afternoon. As a 

result of the beating, he suffered a broken toe and might also have suffered injury to 

internal organs. Subsequently he was taken to a prison hospital and later transferred to 

a general hospital in Satkhira district town. On 28 January 2007, he was ordered to 

remain in detention for one month under the Special Powers Act which provides for 

the detention of individuals who might commit prejudicial acts against the State.


Page 23 

However, no official charges have been brought against him. Mr Shahidul Islam has 

not had access to his family or lawyers since his arrest. 

72. Concerns were expressed that the aforementioned events might be an attempt 

to prevent Mr Shahidul Islam from carrying out his legitimate activities in defence of 

human rights, in particular the land rights of the people in the Satkhira area. Further 

concern was expressed with regard to the physical and mental integrity of Mr Islam in 

view of his incommunicado detention and the alleged state of his health. 


73. In letters dated 6 February 2007 and 14 May 2007, the Permanent Mission of 

Bangladesh to the United Nations Office and Other International Organizations in 

Geneva replied to the communication sent by the Special Representative. The letter 

informed that Mr Shahidul Islam had been working with the impoverished population 

of Tala Upazilla under Satkhira District in various social projects on poverty 

alleviation. “Ensuring People Access and Rights to Resoruces in Southwest 

Bangladesh” was one of such projects. The NGO had organized local landless people 

and patronized to hold meetings and processions against local administration. This is 

in sharp contrast to the principles and objectives of an NGO working in the social 

field. Mr. Islam instigated the landless people to be violent, and this created 

disturbances in the local environment. On 27 January 2007, Mr Islam was arrested by 

the security joint forces on specific information of his link with party activity, which 

is currently banned under Emergency Ordinance promulgated by the Caretaker 

Government. After apprehension, Mr. Islam was taken to the Tala Joint Forces Camp. 

He was interrogated according to existing procedure and subsequently handed over to 

the Tala Police Station. The allegation of torture was thoroughly rejected. As some of 

Mr. Islam’s activities went against the interest of the public safety, security and 

peaceful environment, the Court of Satkhira ordered one-month detention according 

to the Special Power Act 1974 since the date of his apprehension. The case is now 

under investigation and Mr. Islam has full access to seek legal recourse. 

Urgent appeal 



expression and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and 

fundamental freedoms of indigenous people sent an urgent appeal to the Government 

concerning Mr Ranglai Mro, an indigenous leader of the Mro indigenous community 

from Bandarban, in the Chittagong Hill Tracts. Mr Ranglai Mro is the elected 

Chairman of the Suolak Union Parishad, a district leader of the Bangladesh Awami 

League, and the Bandarban unit president of the Land Rights Protection Committee. 

75. According to the information received, on 23 February 2007, in the early 

morning, Mr Ranglai Mro, aged 38, was forcefully taken away from his residence in 

Bandarb town by army lead-security forces. He was allegedly subject to torture in 

Bandarban Cantonment and handed over to the police station of Bandarban Sadar 

Thana. He was accused of possession of illegal weapons and of illegal grabbing of 

public and private lands.


Page 24 

76. Mr Ranglai Mro was admitted to the Bandarban Sadar Hospital on the same 

day, to receive treatment for his injuries sustained through torture, and was 

subsequently transferred to the Chittagong Medical College Hospital. 

77. Concern was expressed that Mr Ranglai Mro’s alleged detention and torture 

could be linked to his activities in defence of human rights of the Mro indigenous 

people, including his efforts in claiming land rights for the indigenous communities 

and protesting against the taking away of their lands. In particular, there was concern 

that Mr Ranglai Mro’s detention could be linked to his vocal role in opposing the 

establishment of an Artillery Training Center in Sualok Union of Bandardan, which 

reportedly led to the uprooting of 400 indigenous families in 2005, and to his 

opposition against ongoing plans to create a training centre for the Bangladesh Air 

Force in Sualok Union, which would reportedly lead to further displacements. 


78. In a letter dated 12 March 2007, the Permanent Mission of Bangladesh to the 

United Nations Office and Other International Organizations in Geneva 

acknowledged receipt of the communication sent by the Special Representative and 

reiterated the full support of the Government of Bangladesh the mandates and work of 

the Special Procedures. By letter dated 26 April 2007 the Government provided 

information on the arrest of Ranglai Mro. 

79. The Government reported that Ranglai Mro was apprehended in the morning 

of 23 March 2007. According to the Government, a large quantity of arms and 

ammunitions were found in his house. As he was unable to produce valid documents 

regarding these arms and ammunitions, the Joint Forces arrested him and logged a 

case against him under the Arms Act, according to which the unauthorized possession 

of arms and ammunitions is a punishable crime. During interrogation, Mr. Mro 

complained about his chest pain. He was then sent to Bandarban Sadar Hospital for 

treatment, and, on the advice of a local physician, he was subsequently shifted to 

Chittagong Medical College Hospital for better treatment. Law enforcement agencies 

denied any kind of torture during their custody. Mr. Mro was subsequently sent to the 

Special Tribunal Judge, Chittagong Hill Tracts, for trial. At the time that the 

communication from the Government was sent, he was in custody at the Chittagong 

Jail. 

Urgent appeal 

80. On 20 April 2007, the Special Representative, together with the Special 

Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, sent an urgent appeal to the 

Government concerning Mr Aminul Islam and Mr Abdul Kashem Palash, Director 

and Chairperson of the Association of Development Agencies in Bangladesh 

(ADAB). 

81. According to the information received, on 12 January 2007, Mr Palash and Mr 

Islam were arrested from their respective homes in Dhaka city, by members of the 

Rapid Action Battalion (RAB). The RAB failed to produce a warrant for either arrest. 

The arrests were carried out the day after a state of emergency was declared. 

According to reports, both men were transferred to Dhaka Central Prison, where they


Page 25 

were issued with a 30 day preventive detention under Section 3(1) of the Special 

Powers Act 1974 for "prejudicial acts". On 20 January 2007, Mr Palash and Mr Islam 

received a document from the Home Ministry which outlined reasons for their arrests 

under Section 8 of the Special Powers Act-1974. Under the Act they were considered 

as posing a threat to State Security. On 5 February 2007, in an order signed by the 

Senior Assistant Secretary of the Home Ministry's Security Cell-3, Mr Palash and Mr 

Islam had their sentence extended by a further 30 days. On 26 February 2007 the High 

Court Bench of the Supreme Court ordered the immediate release of Mr Palash and 

Mr Islam claiming that their detention was unlawful. However on 28 February, 

following an application by the Government, the Appellate Division passed an order 

staying the High Court judgment. On 12 March 2007 the order of stay was extended 

until 29 March with the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court having granted the 

Government of Bangladesh leave to appeal and requested that an appeal be prepared 

by 3 May 2007. Mr Palash and Mr Islam are due to have their cases reviewed by the 

Advisory Board, comprising of two sitting High Court judges and a Government 

official, on 19th April 2007. This process of review by the Board is carried out 

pursuant to Section 10 of the Special Powers Act 1974. Mr Palash and Mr Islam are 

currently being detained at Dhaka Central Prison, and both men are being denied 

access to legal representation. 

82. Concern was expressed that the apparent arbitrary arrest and detention of Mr 

Palash and Mr Islam might be related to their legitimate work in the defence of human 

rights and may form part of an ongoing pattern to silence human rights defenders in 

Bangladesh. Further concern was expressed regarding reports received indicating that 

Mr Palash and Mr Islam had not been granted neither a fair trial nor access to a legal 

representative. 


83. On 5 October 2007, the Permanent Mission of Bangladesh in Geneva replied 

to the urgent appeal sent 20 April 2007. The letter stated that Mr. Aminul Islam was 

arrested and brought before the court on 12 January 2007 because of his involvement 

in acts subversive to the State. According to the information from the Government, 

Mr. Islam had organized local slum dwellers and other people in the Dhanmondi area 

and tried to create hostility between people. He supported acts of violence, which 

endangered public safety and security in the Dhanmondi area. This led to accusations 

in four cases. Of the four, one case ended in framing prima-facie charge against Mr. 

Islam and others on completion of investigation, while the rest of the cases are still 

under investigation as evidences are impeding. After the arrest, Mr. Islam was initially 

given one-month detention under the Special Power Act. Later on it was extended for 

another month. However, he challenged the verdict in the High Court. The High Court 

ruled in his favour and he was freed form Dhaka Central Jail on 27 April 2007. 

84. Mr. Abul Kashem Polash is the central coordinator of Proshika. He played a 

vital role in bringing forth people for political programmes of the Awami League. He 

was arrested on the 12 January 2007 by the Joint Forces for his alleged role in 

utilizing the NGO activists for anti-state activity and creating unrest in the society. He 

was arrested by Rapid Action Battalion (RAB)-2. Later on, he was handed over to the 

Mohammadpur Thana Police. There was one general diary and two cases against him 

at Mohammadpur Police Station and one case at Dhanmondi Police Station. Charge


Page 26 

sheet was given against him on 7 July 2005 in the case filed with Dhanmondi Police 

Station. Mr Abul Kashem was sent to jail for one month’s detention under the Special 

Power Act. It was extended for another three months up to 11 May 2007. However, 

Mr Abul Kashem challenged the decition in the High Court. After the hearing the 

High Court ordered him to be released on bail. On 23 May 2007 he was released 

85. Mr Aminul Islam and Mr Abul Kashem Polash were arrested for their alleged 

role in creating unrest in the society. They violated the law of the country as NGO 

representatives and got involved in internal political activities, which were subversive 

to the State. However, they were given proper opportunity to fight their cases in the 

court. 

86. The Permanent Mission reiterates its full support and cooperation of the 

Government of Bangladesh to the work of the human rights special procedures and 

wishes to reassure that the cases in reference would proceed according to the law of 

the land. The legal proceedings against Mr Abul Kashem Polash and Mr. Abul 

Kashem Polash respectively will be conducted impartially and their rights to a fair 

trail and due process of law will be respected. 

Urgent appeal 


Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous 

people, sent an urgent appeal to the Government bringing attention to allegations 

received from the Government regarding the situation of Mr. Bikram Marma and 

other indigenous activists in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, in south-eastern Bangladesh. 

The situation of members of indigenous communities in the Chittagong Hill Tracts 

has been the subject of previous communications sent by the Special Rapporteur on 

the situation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people on 4 

September 2004 (AL BGD 17/2004), 20 April 2006 (UA G/SO 214 (42-3) G/SO 214 

(69-15) G/SO 214 (89-11) BGD 4/2006) and 8 March 2007 (UA G/SO 214 (67-14) 

G/SO 214 (107-6) Indigenous (2001-5) BGD 7/2007). 

88. According to the information received, the Joint Forces, consisting of the 

military, the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR), the police 

and intelligence servicemen, have been given special power to control corruption and 

crimes in the country, in the context of the state of emergency that was declared by 

the President on 11 January 2007, under articles 141A (1), (2), (3), 141B, 141C (1), 

(2) and (3) of the Constitution. It has been reported that the Joint Forces are allegedly 

taking advantage of the state of emergency to carry out suppressive actions against the 

indigenous Jumma people in the Chittagong Hill Tracts and that indigenous political 

leaders have been especially targeted for political motives. Particularly, the Joint 

Forces have been arresting activists from the PCJSS (Parbartya Chattagram Jana 

Samhati Samiti, the political organization representing the indigenous people of the 

Chittagong Hill Tracts), and the PCP (Hill Students’ Council), allegedly charging 

them with false accusations in connection with criminal activities. 

89. In this context, reports have been received regarding the alleged arrest of at 

least eleven indigenous activists. According to these reports, on 4 February 2007, at 

mid-night, members of the army and the police (the Joint Forces) arrested Mr. Bikram


Page 27 

Marma, President of the Kaptai upazila branch of the PCJSS, at his home in the 

Chandraghona Christian Missionary Hospital area under Rangunia upazila in the 

Chittagong district. He was accused of illegal possession of weapons and led to the 

Chandraghona police station. He was brought before the magistrate court in 

Rangamati district and sent to the Rangamati prison. 

90. On 6 February 2007, around 4:00 p.m., Mr. Sumit Chakma, Assistant 

General Secretary of the Rangamati district branch of the Hill Students Council from 

Dhaka, was arrested by the Joint Forces, along with another Jumma youth from the 

Ghachichar area under Saver in Dhaka district. They were allegedly subject to torture 

during army custody. They were brought before the magistrate court in Rangamati 

district and sent to the Rangamati prison. 

91. On 11 February 2007, at midnight, Mr. Saimong Marma, Organising 

Secretary of the Kaptai branch of the PCJSS was arrested by the Joint Forces at his 

home in the Raikhali of Chandraghona area under Kaptai upazila in Rangamati 

district. He was allegedly subject to torture during army custody. A case of illegal 

possession of weapons was presented against him at the Chandraghona police station. 

He was brought before the Magistrates’ Court in the Rangamati district and sent to the 

Rangamati prison. 

92. On 18 February 2007, at around 4:30 a.m. Mr. Satyabir Dewan, General 

Secretary of the PCJSS, was arrested at his home by the Joint Forces led by Lt. Kazi 

Mustafizur Rahman of the Rangamati army region and Md. Osman Goni, PSI of the 

Kotowali police station of the Rangamati district. A country-made pipe-gun was 

allegedly placed under the bed of Mr. Satyabir Dewans’ son, Mr. Polo Dewan. During 

the same night, the military forces arrested four other PCJSS leaders from Jurachari 

upazila in the Rangamati district: Mr. Bimal Kanti Chakma, Central Member of the 

PCJSS from Jurachari, Mr. Ranjit Kumar Dewan, President of the Jurachari branch of 

the PCJSS, Mr. Udayjoy Chakma, General Secretary of the Jurachari branch of the 

PCJSS and Mr. Mayachan Chakma, Organising Secretary of the Jurachari branch of 

the PCJSS. The five members of the PCJSS were placed in custody for three days at 

the Rangamati police station on 24 February 2007. They were allegedly brought 

before the Court on 28 February 2007 after completing custody and were charged for 

possession of illegal weapons, extortion and in connection with the killing of Kina 

Mohan Chakma, a supporter of the organization Sama Odhikar Andolan. The Court 

ordered three additional days of custody. Mr. Satyibar Dewam was brought again 

before the Magistrates’ Court on 1 March 2007, and was placed again in two days 

custody. It is alleged that he was not supplied adequate food, was interrogated 

continuously, and was prevented from sleeping during his detention. Mr. Satyabir 

Dewan and his colleagues have been assisted by a group of lawyers led by Fani 

Bhusdan Das, former President of the Rangmati Bar Association. On 28 February 

2007, before Mr. Satyabir Dewan was brought to court for the first time, a major from 

the Rangmati army zone allegedly met with the magistrate in charge of the case with 

whom he talked alone for half an hour. All visitors were driven out of the courtroom 

before Mr. Satyabir Dewan was sentenced. Moreover, on 25 February 2007, the joint 

forces along with a magistrate searched the house of Satyabir Dewan and allegedly 

seized bank account documents of Mr. Satyabir Dewan, his son Mr. Polo Dewan and 

his wife, as well as other personal belongings.


Page 28 

93. On 5 March 2007, the Joint Forces reportedly arrested Mr. Balabhadra 

Chakma and Mr. Manubha Ranjan Chakma. Mr. Balabhadra Chakma, Vice 

President of the Dighinala upazila branch of the PCJSS was arrested at the house of 

Ms. Jarita Chakma (Central Member of the PCJSS) at Mahajan Para in the 

Khagrachari municipality, where he had been staying for treatment he underwent after 

a kidney stone operation. He was first taken into the Khagrachari army zone and then 

handed over to the Khagrachari police station. He was allegedly not given any 

medicine while in army and police custody. Mr. Manubha Ranjan Chakma, President 

of the Baghaichari upazila branch of the PCJSS was arrested at Baghaichari upazila in 

the Rangamati district after being called by the BDR (Bangladesh Rifles) zone 

commander to meet at his zone office on that day. On the next day (6 March 2007) he 

was handed over to Baghaihat army zone under Dighinala cantonment in the 

Khagrachari district, where he was allegedly subject to torture. He was brought before 

the Magistrate Court in the Khagrachari district on 7 March 2007. 

94. The facts described above would seem to follow the similar pattern of the case 

of Mr. Railai Mro, Chairman of Sualok mouza and Headman of Sualok mouza from 

Bandarban, who was subject of the aforementioned communication sent by the 

Special Rapporteur and the Representative of the Secretary General on 8 March 2007. 

95. Concerns were expressed that the alleged facts described above could be 

linked to the indigenous leaders and activists’ peaceful work in defence of human 

rights of the indigenous communities of the Chittagong Hill Tracts, including their 

efforts in claiming land rights for the indigenous communities. In particular, there was 

concern that the aforementioned persons were being targeted by the army-led security 

forces for their vocal role in favour of the implementation of the Accord signed by the 

PCJSS and the Awami League Government on 2 December 1997, which provided 

limited autonomy to the indigenous peoples and addressed, among others, the 

demilitarization of the Chittagong Hill Tracts. 


96. In a letter dated 24 April 2007, the Permanent Mission of Bangladesh in 

Geneva replied to the urgent appeal of 20 April 2007. The letter acknowledged the 

receipt of the urgent appeal and indicates that it has been duly noted and forwarded to 

the concerned authorities of Bangladesh for necessary inquiry and action and that the 

request will be carefully and appropriately considered. 

Urgent appeal 

97. On 9 May 2007, the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal to the 

Government concerning Mr Nasruddin Elan, Acting Director of Odhikar; a human 

rights organization based in Dhaka, Bangladesh. 

98. According to reports, on 26 April 2007, Mr Elan received a phone call 

requesting that he appear at the headquarters of the Naval Intelligence Services in 

Banan, for a meeting with Captain Zubayer, in order to discuss two cases which had 

been investigated by Odhikar. The cases in question referred to the death of two men 

whilst in custody at Bhola, in February and March 2007. On 2 May 2007, Mr Elan 

received a number of phone-calls throughout the day again demanding that he go to


Page 29 

the Naval Headquarters in Banan to discuss the cases. Mr Elan refused the request 

saying that an official letter would be required. 

99. On 3 May 2007, an individual in civilian dress came to Odhikar and requested 

that Mr Elan accompany him to the Naval Headquarters in Banan. The same morning, 

Mr Elan was escorted to Capitain Zubayer’s office where two officers from the 

Directorate General of Forces Intelligence (DGFI) joined the meeting. The two 

officers reportedly subjected Mr Elan to a barrage of verbal abuse and threatened to 

kill him. They also stated that they would interrogate Mr Hassan Arif, President of 

Odhikar, if necessary, and suggested that the organization would be well advised to 

cease its human rights work. Mr Elan was also informed that should he report the 

incident, he would be arrested. 

100. Concern was expressed that the afore-mentioned events were directly related 

to Mr Elan’s work in human rights, and in particular his involvement in investigating 

allegations of human rights abuses within the Naval Headquarters in Banan. Further 

concern was expressed for the physical and mental integrity of Mr Elan and other 

members of Odhikar. 


101. In a letter dated 7 August 2007, the Permanent Mission of Bangladesh in 

Geneva replied to the urgent appeal of 9 May 2007. Related to the case, the letter 

stated that on 21 March 2007, a known criminal, Mr Farid, died while in naval 

custody in Tazmuddin of Bhola District. Mr Elan’s report on this matter was in some 

respects contradictory to the findings of the Naval investigation report and therefore 

Mr Elan was invited to discuss this with the Director of Naval Intelligence. On 3 May 

2007, Mr Elan informed the Director of Naval Intelligence that he did not have a 

vehicle to travel to the Naval Headquarters. As such, Naval authorities sent a vehicle 

to being him. He arrived at 12.10 pm. After the meeting Mr Elan returned to his office 

at 12.25 pm. Mr Elan was not intimidated and no abusive words were used. The 

allegation that two officers from the Director General of Force Intelligence were 

present is not true. The report published by the Odhikar on the issue is exaggerated 

and appears to have been done with the intention to defame Bangladesh navy. 

102. The Government maintained that since the country is in a state of emergency, 

some restrictions on civil liberties cannot be ruled out. Notwithstanding, the 

Government is committed to providing for the fundamental rights of its people and 

institutional reform is underway. 

Urgent appeal 

103. On 14 May 2007, the Special Representative, together with the Chairperson- 

Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Special Rapporteur 

on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and 

the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, sent an urgent appeal to the 

Government concerning Mr Tasneem Khalil, investigative journalist with Dhakabased 

Daily Star newspaper and part-time consultant for the international human 

rights organization, Human Rights Watch. Mr Khalil assisted Human Rights Watch in 

research for a 2006 report concerning allegations of torture and extrajudicial killings


Page 30 

by security forces in the country, and has published several controversial reports of 

alleged cases of corruption and abuse by members of the security forces. According to 

information received, on 11 May 2007, at approximately midnight, four plain-clothed 

individuals, who identified themselves as being from the ‘joint task force’, visited Mr 

Khalil’s home in Dhaka. The four men stated that they were placing Mr Khalil under 

arrest and proceeded to search the house, confiscating his passport, two computers, 

documents and two mobile phones, before taking him to Sangsad Bhavan army camp 

outside the parliament building in the city. A warrant was not produced for Mr 

Khalil’s arrest nor was he informed of the reason for his detention. Mr Khalil was 

reportedly called for questioning by military intelligence during recent weeks. 

104. Concern was expressed that the arrest and detention of Mr Khalil might be 

directly related to his peaceful work in defence of human rights and in particular his 

involvement in conducting research on allegations of torture and extra-judicial 

killings by security forces, as well as the publishing of reports of alleged cases of 

corruption. Further concern was expressed for Mr Khalil’s physical and psychological 

integrity in light of reports of ill-treatment of detainees since a state of emergency was 

declared in Bangladesh on 11 January 2007. 


105. By letters dated 15 May 2007 and 31 October 2007, the Government informed 

that the Joint Forces took Mr. Khalil from his residence on 11 May, and he was 

allowed to leave the office within less than 24 hours since he was brought in for 

interrogation. No information regarding discourteous behavior with him was reported. 

Urgent appeal 

106. On 22 May 2007, the Special Representative, together with the Special 


expression, sent an urgent appeal to the Government concerning Mr Jahangir Alam 

Akash, journalist with CSB News Bangladesh and human rights defender. 

107. According to information received, in the evening of 3 May 2007, Mr Akash 

received a threatening call on his mobile phone from an individual who identified 

himself as Major Rashidul Hassan Rashid, an official from the Rapid Action Batallion 

(RAB)-5, in Rajsahi region. The alleged threats were in relation to a CSB broadcast 

the day before, in which RAB officials had raided a house in the city of Rajshai, 

shooting an alleged criminal in the presence of his wife and child. Mr Akash had 

interviewed the victim’s wife a short time after the incident, and the report was aired 

later that evening. According to reports, the caller questioned Mr Akash as to why 

CSB News had broadcast the incident, claiming that he had acted against the State and 

that if Mr Akash or any of his colleagues attempt to cover any incidents involving 

RDB in the future, they would ‘suffer the consequences’. Concern was expressed that 

the afore-mentioned events may be directly related to Mr Akash’s work in defence of 

human rights. 

Response from the Government


Page 31 

108. In a letter dated 26 November 2007, the Permanent Mission of Bangladesh in 

Geneva replied to the urgent appeal of 22 May 2007. According to information from 

the Government, on 2 May 2007, RAB raided the house of Benjir Ahmed. Mr. Ahmed 

got a bullet injury and RAB immediately brought him to the hospital for treatment. 

According to the Government, Mr. Ahmed is a criminal and an arms cadre of AL. 30 

minutes after this incident, journalist Mr. Akash visited the house of Mr. Ahmed and 

telecasted the interview of Mr. Ahmed’s wife, where he tried to present Mr. Ahmed as 

a political leader instead of a terrorist. 

109. The Government stated that Mr. Akash has a record of toll collection, black 

mailing and reporting false and fabricated stories, and therefore he was boycotted by 

his colleagues and was avoided by local people. The Government maintained that Mr 

Akash has launched an international campaign to draw sympathy in his favour in 

order for the Government to refrain from taking action against him according to 

national law. 

Urgent appeal 

110. On 15 June 2007, the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal to the 

Government concerning the reported arrest and detention of Mr Santoshito Chakma, 

alias “Bakul”, General Secretary of the Chittagong Hill Tracts Jumma Refugees 

Welfare Association. As part of his work for this organization, Mr. Chakma has 

played a vocal role in the defence of the rehabilitation of the Jumma indigenous 

refugees following their return from India. The situation of members of organizations 

working for the defence of the rights of the Jumma people in the Chittagong Hill 

Tracts has been the subject of previous communications sent by the Special 

Rapporteur on the situation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of 

indigenous people and the Special Representative on the situation of human rights 

defenders on 20 March 2007, and by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of the 

human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people on 4 September 2004, 

20 April 2006 and 8 March 2007. 

111. According to information received, on 3 June 2007, Mr. Chakma was 

reportedly arrested by police officers from Chengi Square police station, in 

Khagrachari Town, while returning home from a meeting with the Task Force on the 

rehabilitation of returnee Jumma refugees. Mr. Chakma was arrested under section 

16/2 of the Emergency Powers Rules-2007, which empowers all personnel of the law 

and order maintaining forces to arrest any person on suspicion without a warrant. Mr. 

Chakma was reportedly informed that he had been arrested on charges of extortion 

and disturbance of communal harmony. According to reports, Mr. Chakma was 

presented before Khagrachari Court and is currently being detained at Khagrachari 

prison. Neither his family nor the members of his organization have been able to 

establish direct contact with Mr. Chakma while in prison. 

112. Concern was expressed that the arrest and detention of Mr. Chakma might be 

directly related to his peaceful work in defence of the rights of the returned Jumma 

refugees in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, including recent rallies and blockades aimed at 

drawing the attention of the Government of Bangladesh to the difficult conditions 

currently faced by the refugees.


Page 32 


113. In a letter dated 26 November 2007, the Government of Bangladesh responded 

to the above mentioned urgent appeal. The Government stated that Mr. Chakama was 

arrested on 3 June 2007 due to his involvement in three murder cases. According to 

information from the Government, there were also reports, allegations and charges 

against Mr. Chakama stating that he was obstructing government activities, misusing 

cooperative funds and creating communal unrest. 

114. The Government stated that Mr. Chakama was first arrested under section 16 

(2) of the emergency power rule 2007. After his arrest, the local police made an 

enquiry against him and he was arrested according to section 385/386 of the penal 

code. The case regarded extortion. After his arrest he was brought before the Court of 

a local Magistrate, and the court ruled that he was to remain in jail. 

115. The Government maintained that Mr. Chakama was arrested under specific 

allegations brought against him and of the basis of evidence. The arrest did not violate 

international standards on freedom of expression and assembly. 

Urgent appeal 

116. On 11 July 2007, the Special Representative, together with the Special 

Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers and the Special Rapporteur on 

the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, sent an 

urgent appeal to the Government concerning the reported arrest and detention of Mr. 

Milton Chakma, Assistant Coordinator of the Hill Watch Human Rights Forum and 

member of the United Peoples Democratic Front, an organization representing the 

Jumma people of the Chittagong Hill Tracks. 

117. The situation of members of organizations working for the defence of the 

rights of the Jumma people in the Chittagong Hill Tracts had been the subject of 

previous communications sent by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of the 

human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people and the Special 

Representative on the situation of human rights defenders on 20 March 2007 and 15 

June 2007, and by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of the human rights and 

fundamental freedoms of indigenous people on 4 September 2004, 20 April 2006 and 

8 March 2007. 

118. According to information received, on 29 May 2007, at around 11.30 am, Mr. 

Milton Chakma and his wife, Ms. Sumana Chakma were waiting for a bus near 

Chengi Bridge, one kilometre west of Khagrachari bazaar, on their way to Chittagong 

for Ms. Chakma’s medical treatment. While at the bus station, a Bangladesh army 

lorry reportedly came near them, and one of the army personnel asked Mr. Milton to 

identify himself. When Mr. Chakma told his name, the lorry went towards the 

direction of Khagrachari town. The lorry returned after a few minutes, and the 

military personnel arrested Mr. Chakma and took him away. No reason for his arrest 

was allegedly given at that time. 

119. In the afternoon of the same day, Mr. Chakma’s relatives proceeded to 

Khagrachari zone army headquarters to seek information on his whereabouts. The


Page 33 

army personnel allegedly refused to provide information on the grounds that their 

offices were closed at 2.00 pm. When Mr. Chakma’s relatives returned again to the 

headquarters the next day, the zone commander told them that Mr. Chakma was 

picked up by army personnel from Mahalchari zone. However, they went to 

Mahalchari zone army headquarters, the army officials denied having arrested Mr. 

Chakma. 

120. On 31 May 2006, Mr. Chakma was produced before the Court in Rangamati. 

The Court reportedly granted a 7-day police remand for interrogation on 6 June 2007. 

On 12 June 2007, he was reportedly transferred secretly in an army vehicle to the 

Rangamati jail, allegedly with the intention to prevent his lawyer from appealing for 

bail. On that date, the Court of Rangmati granted an additional remand for 4 days. 

Since the end of this remand, Mr. Chakma has been reportedly held in judicial 

custody at Rangamati jail and, to date has not been produced before the Court. 

121. According to information subsequently received, Mr. Chakma was arrested on 

the basis of an First Information Report (FIR) filed by Md. Shadihul Islam, Sergant 

(No. 3998686) of 24 Bengal Regiment. As per this report, Mr. Chakma has been 

charged in relation to the alleged murder of an army officer in Ghilachari, Rangamati 

district, in December 2006 (Case No. GR 304/06). The officials’ records reportedly 

show that this case was originally filled on 27 December 2006 under Sections 302- 

304 of the Bangladesh Penal Code. However, in the original FIR Mr. Milton Chakma 

was not reportedly included. It was alleged that the assassination charges brought 

against Mr. Chakma are manifestly unfounded, and that they may be related to his 

peaceful work in defence of the rights of the rights of the Jumma people in the 

Chittagong Hill Tracts. Concern was expressed concerning the personal integrity of 

Mr. Chakma. Concern was also expressed that Mr. Chakma might not have been 

given due process according to the relevant international standards. 


122. By letter dated 13 July 2007, the Permanent Mission of Bangladesh to the 

United Nations Office and Other International Organizations in Geneva 

acknowledged receipt of the communication sent by the Special Representative and 

reiterated the full support of the Government of Bangladesh for her mandate and 

work. 

Urgent appeal 

123. On 10 August 2007, the Special Representative, together with the Special 


expression, the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to 

an adequate standard of living, sent an urgent appeal to the Government concerning 

Mr Rabindra Ghosh. Mr Rabindra Ghosh is the President of the Dhaka Chapter of 

the Human Rights Congress for Bangladesh Minorities (HRCBM). The HRCBM is a 

non-Governmental organisation dedicated to the promotion of human rights that has 

special consultative status with the United Nations. An urgent appeal to the 

Government concerning Mr Ghosh was already sent by the Special Representative of 

the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders on 30 August 2005.


Page 34 

124. According to information received, on 7 August 2007, police officers came to 

the home of Mr Ghosh in the Western Bazaar area of Moulovibazar town. They issued 

him with an arrest warrant, informing him that he had 24 hours to comply with the 

warrant and present himself at Bogra police station. The following day, Mr Ghosh 

proceeded to the station, but was not arrested; he was instead threatened to be arrested 

should he continue his work. It is alleged that the arrest warrant was ordered by 

Upazilla Nirbahi Officer, in reaction to Mr Ghosh’s campaigning for the recovery of 

the historic Bhabani Temple at Bogora. The temple was reportedly destroyed by 

national armed forces on 13 February 2007, in violation of a High Court order to 

protect the building. The historic temple reportedly existed for hundred years and a 

minority community, including caretakers of the temple, lived in the premises for 

generations and were forcefully evicted when the building was demolished. Concern 

was expressed that the warrant for the arrest of Mr Rabindra Ghosh may be related to 

his non-violent and legitimate work in the defence of human rights. Further concern 

was expressed for the physical and psychological integrity of Mr Rabindra Ghosh and 

his colleagues at the HRCBM. 


125. In a letter dated 15 January 2008, the Government responded to the above 

mentioned urgent appeal. The Government informed that Mr. Gosh was not present 

during the eviction carried out by the Joint Forces in the Bhabanipur Temple areas in 

February 2007. A case was filed against the eviction activities of the joint forces at the 

Court of the Assistant Judge, and the case was subsequently dismissed by the Court 

after proper examination. There was no mention of torture against Mr. Ghosh in the 

case. No case has been filed regarding the allegations. Mr. Ghosh was arrested in 

connection with another incident. An investigation was carried out on the basis of the 

allegations. On completion of the investigation, a Non-FIR prosecution was submitted 

to the Court. As a result of that prosecution, Mr. Ghosh appeared before the court 

voluntarily and the Court granted him bail on his appeal. 

Urgent appeal 

126. On 7 November 2007, the Special Representative, together with the 

Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Special 


expression and the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers 

sent an urgent appeal concerning Mr. Jahangir Alam Akash, journalist with CSB 

News Bangladesh and human rights defender. Mr. Alam Akash was the subject of an 

urgent appeal sent by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the 

right to freedom of opinion and expression and Special Representative of the 

Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders on 22 May 2007. While 

we appreciate Your Excellency’s Government’s reply dated 23 May 2007, in which it 

is inter alia stated that the contents of the communication have been duly noted and 

forwarded to the concerned authorities in Bangladesh for necessary inquiry and 

action, we would like to draw your attention to new information we have received on 

Mr. Jahangir Alam Akash. According to the new information received, on 23 October 

2007, a group of 10 -12 Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) agents in plain clothes went to 

the house of Mr. Alam Akash in Rajsh. Reportedly, his wife did not let them in until 

they told her who they were; she asked for a search warrant but they refused to


Page 35 

present one. Reportedly, the agents disclosed their identity and said that a reliable 

source had told them that there were some arms hidden in the house and alleged they 

had a search warrant issued by the concerned court. 

127. The RAB agents grabbed Mr. Alam Akash and began slapping him hard in the 

face. Then, they put him in handcuffs, wrapped a black cloth around this head and 

took him away. He was reportedly taken to a nearby army camp where he was 

severely beaten. It has been reported that he has suffered severe physical injuries and 

is unable to walk, having been moved to the Rajshahi hospital. Mr. Alam Akash 

remains detained on extortion charges and has not yet appeared in court. Prior to 

these attacks, Mr. Alam Akash had been broadcasting and publishing news on alleged 

abuses of power by the RAB. In particular, on 2 May 2007 Mr. Alam Akash presented 

a report on an attempted extrajudicial execution by RAB agents that had allegedly 

taken place in Rajshahi. He has also received numerous death threats due to his work 

and has suffered physical assaults in the past after publishing critical articles 

regarding local politicians. Concern was expressed that the alleged ill-treatment and 

detention of Mr. Alam Akash may be directly related to his peaceful activities in 

defence of human rights. 


128. In a letter dated 26 November 2007, the Government responded to the above 

mentioned urgent appeal. The Government referred to its previous communications 

dated 2 May 2007 and 7 November 2007. The Government informed that Mr. Akash 

has a record of toll collection, black mailing and reporting false and fabricated stories, 

and therefore he was boycotted by his colleagues and was avoided by local people. 

The Government maintained that Mr Akash has launched an international campaign to 

draw sympathy in his favour in order for the Government to refrain from taking action 

against him according to national law. 

Observations 

129. The Special Representative thanks the Government of Bangladesh for 

responding to all of her communications. This indicates the Government’s willingness 

to cooperate with the mandate. However, she regrets not having received more 

information on the allegations submitted on 11 July 2007 and on 20 April 2007 and 

the measures undertaken by the Government of Bangladesh to investigate these cases. 

130. The Special Representative is concerned that certain rights under the 

Declaration for human rights defenders might have been curtailed under the 

emergency regulations in Bangladesh. She is particularly concerned about freedom of 

assembly and association, and she is worried that some of the restrictions on these 

rights exceed what is permissible by international law. The responses from the 

Government of Bangladesh do not entirely dispel her concern related to reports on 

allegations of torture and ill-treatment of defenders in custody. The Special 

Representative wishes to remind the Government of Bangladesh that certain basic 

rights, such as the right to life and the prohibition on torture and other cruel, inhuman 

or degrading treatment, may not be restricted at any time, according to International 

law.


Page 36 

131. The Special Representative refers to the recommendations in her 2003 report 

to the General Assembly (A/58/380) in which she examines the impact of security 

legislation on human rights defenders and looks at the role and situation of human 

rights defenders working in the context of emergencies. 


Bolivia 

132. El 9 de marzo de 2007 la Representante Especial señaló a la atención urgente 

del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con los miembros de la Asamblea 

Permanente de los Derechos Humanos (APDH) y en particular el Presidente de la 

organización, el Sr. Adalberto Rojas. La APDH es una organización que trabaja en 

defensa de los derechos humanos de la población campesina, los pueblos indígenas y 

otras personas de la comunidad de Santa Cruz de la Sierra, departamento de Santa 

Cruz, que sufren discriminación. 

133. Según la información recibida, el 21 de enero de 2007, varios miembros del 

Comité Cívico Pro Santa Cruz habrían entrado en las oficinas de la APDH. Dichos 

individuos habrían amenazado al personal de la APDH diciéndoles que volverían con 

armas y dispararon contra el edificio antes de marcharse. Según los informes, el 7 de 

diciembre de 2006, el Sr. Rojas habría sido golpeado por ocho miembros de la Unión 

Juvenil Cruceñista, conocido como el grupo armado del Comité Cívico Pro Santa 

Cruz, en las afueras de las oficinas del ADPH. Se alega que uno de los miembros del 

grupo habría acercado al Sr. Rojas amenazándole con muerte. Otros miembros del la 

organización resultaron heridos en el ataque. Se informa que tras haber denunciado el 

incidente a la policía los miembros de la APDH habrían gozado de protección policial 

hasta el 7 de enero de 2007. Desde 2003 miembros de la APDH, en Santa Cruz 

habrían sido victimas de amenazas de muerte, así como al hostigamiento y agresiones 

violentas. Durante los últimos meses, la sociedad civil en el departamento de Santa 

Cruz habría sufrido un incremento en los atentados y amenazas después de que el Sr. 

Rojas se ha visto obligado a abandonar su casa, ante el temor por su seguridad y la de 

su familia. 

134. Se expresó temor de que estos eventos puedan estar relacionados con la 

actividad en defensa de los derechos humanos de la Asamblea Permanente de los 

Derechos Humanos (APDH) presidida por el Sr. Rojas y se expresó profunda 



Observations 

135. La Representante Especial lamenta que, al finalizar este informe, no había 

recibido una respuesta a la comunicación de 9 de marzo de 2007, ya que considera 

que responder a las comunicaciones representa un elemento fundamental cooperación 

de los Estados con el mandato. En este contexto, la Representante insta al gobierno 

boliviano a que le proporcione una respuesta, tratando los asuntos mencionados 

Brazil


Page 37 


136. On 12 January 2007, the Special Representative, together with the Special 


people and the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, sent a letter of allegations 

concerning the plans to construct a tourist resort in the municipality of Itapipoca, in 

the state of Ceará. According to the information received, the proposed resort will be 

constructed in areas that indigenous Tremembé communities consider to be part of 

their traditional lands, without previously consulting the communities concerned, and 

while the formal procedure for the delimitation, demarcation and titling of these lands 

is still ongoing. 

137. According to information received, the Tremembé indigenous communities, 

who represent approximately 5,000 individuals, live in the municipalities of Itarema, 

Acaraú and Itapipoca, in the State of Ceará. On 5 May 2003, the Córrego João Pereira 

indigenous land, in the municipalities of Itarema e Acaraú, was granted legal 

recognition by presidential decree. The area covered by the Presidential Decree does 

not include the lands of the Tremembé communities of São José and Buriti, in the 

municipality of Itapipoca, which reportedly migrated into their current lands during 

the 1980s, as a result of increased drought and population pressure. According to the 

information received, the lands belonging to these communities have not yet been 

officially demarcated and titled. 

138. The procedure for the demarcation of the Tremembé of São José and Buriti 

reportedly started in 2004, when the National Foundation on Indigenous Affairs 

(FUNAI) established an inter-disciplinary working group to conduct a study of the 

area, the first step in the procedure of tiling of indigenous lands under the 1973 Indian 

Statute. The study carried out by the FUNAI working group reportedly concluded that 

there was no indigenous population in the area. This conclusion was challenged by an 

independent expert research carried out in December in 2004 by specialists of the 

Ceará State University, which concluded that the Tremembé indigenous community 

of São José and Buriti depend highly on the land and natural resources in the area for 

their subsistence activities. The publication of this independent research allegedly led 

FUNAI to the decision to conduct a new official study on the area. Officials from 

FUNAI and the Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural 

Resources (IBAMA) visiting the Tremembé communities in November 2006 

reportedly stated that the new study will be undertaken in 2007. 

139. While the Tremembé still await the legal recognition of their lands, a large 

tourist scheme, known as Cidade Nova Atlântica, has reportedly started to be built in 

areas belonging to the lands that the Tremembé occupy and use for their traditional 

subsistence activities. The planned scheme will reportedly include as many as 28 

hotels and resorts, several golf courses and other leisure area, covering an area of 

3,200 hectares. According to an independent assessment, the proposed scheme will 

have an important environmental impact, and it will seriously limit the Tremembés’ 

capacity to access and use the lands and natural resources they depend on for their 

traditional subsistence economies. For instance, the construction of the tourist resort 

will allegedly cause the extinction of the streams leading to the Mundaú River, on 

which the Tremembé depend on for water, fishing and traditional mining, further 

causing the depletion of lagoons and the destruction of the vulnerable mangrove


Page 38 

system. The affected communities claim that they have not been consulted on this 

project and that various petitions that they have issued have remained unanswered. 

140. The construction company has reportedly been operating in contravention of 

an injunction lodged by the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office in 2004, subsequently 

upheld by a decision of 9 May 2006 of the Regional Federal Court of the 5th Region. 

The Court decision suspended the company’s license to build until an evaluation of 

the Tremembé’s claims over their lands has been completed by the FUNAI. It is 

alleged that despite the Court’s order, the company has continued to prepare the land 

for construction, fencing off areas they intend to build on, burning vegetation and 

cutting down numerous trees. 

141. Moreover, the plans to construct the Cidade Nova Atlântica tourist scheme 

have led to increased tension in the area, and members of the São José and Buriti 

communities have reportedly been object of numerous threats and intimidation by 

private security guards working for the construction company, as well as local police 

officers. On 4 November 2006, after approximately 200 members of the Tremembé 

communities led a peaceful blockade at an access road to the construction site, 

preventing trucks from delivering materials and equipment, a group of armed men 

reportedly came to threaten the Tremembé, stating that they came to drive them off 

the land and kill them. Two off-duty police officers were allegedly part of this group. 

It is further reported that company security guards and local police have repeatedly 

blocked the well which the Tremembé depend on for water, have cut down numerous 

trees, and have threatened to kill them if found fishing in the nearby river. Armed 

police have reportedly been seen driving around the Tremembé village in company 

cars, intimidating them. According to the information received, the Tremembé have 

lodged formal complaints at the local police station and at the Office of the Ceará 

State Attorney of Ceará, but have received no response. 

142. Concerns were expressed that the members of the Tremembé communities of 

São José and Buriti might suffer human rights violations as a result of the activities 

carried out by the construction company and its private security guards as well as the 

local police. It was also alleged that the construction of a tourist resort in areas 

claimed to be part of indigenous lands while they are still in process of being 

demarcated and titled may contravene the existing constitutional and legal provisions 

protecting the rights of indigenous peoples to their lands and natural resources, as well 

as various provisions of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention No. 

169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, of which Brazil is a 

party, and other international standards. Finally, concerns were expressed that the 

various acts of harassment and intimidation against the Tremembé were linked to their 

activities in defence of human rights, in particular their efforts to secure their right to 

live on the land they consider theirs. 


143. On 22 January 2007, the Special Representative sent a letter of allegations 

concerning the killing of the juvenile Mr. Andreyson Santos Silva, 16 years old, an 

agricultural worker and member of the Landless Workers Movement (Movimento dos 

Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra, MST). Members of MST were the subject of 

previous communications by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on


Page 39 

the situation of human rights defenders. Mr Josias de Barros and Mr Samuel Ferreira, 

two of the main national coordinators of the MST in Pernambuco, killed in August 

2006, were the subject of an allegation letter sent on 29 September 2006, and Jaime 

Amorim, National Coordinator of the MST and prominent labour activist in 

Pernambuco, was the subject of an allegation letter sent on 4 October 2006. 

144. According to the information received, on 17 December 2006 in the early 

afternoon, the juvenile Andreyson Santos Silva was reportedly killed by a machete 

blow while bathing in a stream located on the Sítio Cachoeirinha dos Carvalhos 

estate, a farm which is a neighbouring property of the Paulista Farm, both located in 

the city of Garanhuns, Pernambuco state. The police investigation is reportedly being 

undertaken by the 135 Police station of Garanhuns, under the responsibility of police 

chief Débora Bandeira de Melo Tenório. 

145. Concern was expressed that the killing of Mr. Andreyson Santos Silva might 

be linked to his membership of the MST, and might be the latest incident of a long 

series of threats and intimidations against the landless workers by landowners. 

Numerous conflicts between the owner of the Paulista Farm, a ranch neighboring the 

smaller farm Cachoeirinha dos Carvalhos where the lethal attack occurred, and the 

landless workers took place over the past years. 



Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Special Rapporteur 

on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and 

the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, sent a letter of allegations concerning Mr. 

Antonio Santos do Carmo, rural worker and member of the Movimiento de los 

Trabajadores Sin Tierra (MST), a movement which works for land rights and agrarian 

reform in Brazil. 

147. According to information received, on 2 May 2007, Mr. Santos do Carmo, 

along with a group of MST members, were ambushed by unknown individuals, in 

front of the Hacienda São Felipe, near the motorway connecting Belem de Para with 

Brasilia. The assailants, some of them allegedly belonging to the military police, 

entered the MST camp and began to attack those inside. Mr. Santos do Carmo was 

violently assaulted and died from bullet wounds to the chest and throat. Other MST 

members were also injured in the attack. After the incident, MST members blocked 

the road between Belem and Brasilia as a form of protest and demanded that 

representatives from the National Institute for Agrarian Colonization and Reform, and 

the federal Government take action to resolve the situation in the area. The following 

day one a man suspected of having taken part in the attack on the MST members was 

detained. 

148. Concern was expressed that the killing of Mr. Santos do Carmo along with the 

attack on members of MST might be directly related to their work in defence of 

human rights, and in particular the rights of rural workers in Brazil. Further concern 

was expressed for the safety of members of the Movimiento de los Trabajadores Sin 

Tierra.


Page 40 




people, the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an 

adequate standard of living and the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, sent a 

letter of allegations concerning attack against members of indigenous communities of 

the Surumú region, in Terra Indígena Raposa Serra do Sol (RSS), in the state of 

Roraima. 

150. The case of RSS, including the traditional lands of over 16,000 Ingariko, 

Makuxi, Patamona, Taurepang and Wapichana people, was the subject of a recent 

letter addressed to your Excellency’s Government on 24 May 2007. In this 

communication, we expressed our concern about the legal actions brought before the 

Supreme Federal Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal, STF), seeking the suspension of 

the Presidential Decree of 15 April 2005, which ratified the demarcation of RSS and 

called for the removal of “non-indigenous occupants present in the area.” At this time, 

we would like to express our appreciation for the recent STF decision of 4 June 2007, 

overturning its earlier injunction and thus allowing the removal process to move 

forward. We note, however, that the recent STF decision did not resolve all of the 

other pending legal challenges that are still before the Court in relation to the 

demarcation, titling, and removal process in RSS. Moreover, we note that, in spite of 

this favourable STF decision, the Government has not publicly announced a new 

expected date for the total removal of non-indigenous occupants pursuant to the 

Presidential Decree of 15 April 2005. 

151. In addition, we have received worrying information concerning new threats 

and attacks against members of the RSS indigenous communities reportedly 

perpetrated by non-indigenous occupants who are opposing the process of 

demarcation and titling of the indigenous land. According to the new information 

received, on 14 June 2007, seven members of the indigenous communities of the 

Surumú region initiated an action of peaceful reoccupation of a traditional place 

known as Paruwani, part of the ancestral lands of the Makuxi indigenous people, 

located in the proximities of the rice farm “Depósito e Canadá.” As part of this action, 

they initiated the construction of housing structures in the area. Since the beginning of 

the reoccupation, they started to receive threats from agricultural workers from the 

neighbouring farm. 

152. On 17 June 2007, at approximately 12.00, while on his way to pick up a group 

of students of the Renascer Community, Mr. Anselmo Dionísio Filho, Tuxaua 

(traditional chief) from the Barro Community, was followed by a white car (L200) on 

the road accessing the Municipality of Uiramutã. When he stopped at the road to the 

community, the white car also stopped, its passengers got out of the vehicle, and 

started filming. The passengers were identified as Mr. Paulo César Quarteiro (former 

prefect of the municipality of Paracaima), Mr. Márcio Junquiera (representative of the 

State of Roraima at the Federal Congress), and three other individuals. Tuxaua 

Anselmo asked these persons to leave the place and stop filming. After a tense 

discussion, they came back to their vehicle and moved to a distance of 50 m., where 

they continued filming, and eventually left.


Page 41 

153. On the same day, at approximately 14.00, two individuals, identified as Mr. 

Paulo César Quarteiro and Mr. Anísio Pedrosa, driving the same white car, entered 

the indigenous communities’ settlement into the Paruwani area, observed the 

situation, and left. A few minutes after, the white car, followed by a white 3/4 truck, 

carrying a group of men wearing balaclava helmets, and armed with guns, clubs, and 

knives broke into the settlement. They left the two vehicles and pointed their guns at 

them, shouting that, if they did not leave the area immediately, they would open fire; 

some of the gunmen fired their guns at the air. The members of the indigenous 

communities were forcibly taken into the truck, where they were made bow their 

heads and detained. While in detention, the gunmen reportedly turned around and 

burned the housing structures built by the indigenous communities in the location, 

along with their possessions. 

154. Subsequently, the gunmen drove the indigenous people to the proximities of 

the Municipality of Uiramutã, took them out of the truck and left. While on the road, 

they were pejoratively treated as “lazy” and “invaders,” and they were threatened that 

if they returned to the Paruwani area, they would “not be able to tell their story.” 

Concern was expressed for the security of the members of RSS indigenous 

communities as a result of their peaceful defence of their traditional lands and their 

continuous calls for the demarcation and titling of their lands pursuant to the 

Presidential Decree of 15 April 2005, and that the continuous presence of ricegrowers 

in the area may lead to additional violations of the rights of the communities 

living in the area. Particular concern was also expressed by the reported direct 

involvement of local and national authorities in the attack of 14 June 2007, which 

would support the powerful economic groups opposing the demarcation and titling of 

RSS lands. 

Urgent appeal 

155. On 31 October 2007, the Special Representative, together with the Special 


on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, sent 

an urgent appeal to the Government concerning Tomé Guajajara, Madalena 

Paulino, Antonio Paulino as well as the threat of imminent violence against 50 

families of the Guajajara indigenous community of Lagoa Cumprida, in the Araribóia 

reservation, Maranhão state. According to the information received, the reservation of 

Araribóia, one of the oldest indigenous reservations in Brazil, covers an area of 413 

thousand hectares across six municipalities of Maranhão state. Since the beginning of 

the 1980s, the region has reportedly been subject to repeated incursions from illegal 

loggers, resulting in violent conflict with indigenous peoples and widespread 

environmental damage, including deforestation, forest fires and water drainage. 

According to the reports, ninety per cent of the traditional lands of the Guajajara 

people is said to be affected by logging, hunting and land invasions, threatening 

indigenous livelihoods. The Guajajara have been campaigning for the protection of 

the reservation’s borders and the expulsion of illegal settlers. 

156. On 15 October 2007, at about 6.00 am, a group of 15 armed men -five of them 

masked- allegedly invaded the Lagoa Cumprida indigenous community. According to 

the reports, six indigenous people were grouped on a football field and threatened, 

with the gunmen firing in the air. After trying to defend himself against the attack,


Page 42 

sixty year old Tomé Guajajara was reportedly shot six times and killed. Two other 

community members, Madalena Paulino, Antonio Paulino were allegedly wounded. 

The gunmen reportedly stated that they would return and some residents are reported 

to have fled to hide in the forest or nearby towns. 

157. The attack has been interpreted as revenge against the mobilization of 

indigenous organizations against illegal logging in the reservation. In particular, it is 

alleged that the attack may be related to the seizure of a logging truck by the Guajara 

in September 2007, when passing illegally through the indigenous reservation, and 

after a long but fruitless campaign to get the authorities to act against repeated 

incursions from the loggers. When the loggers offered money for the return of the 

vehicle, the indigenous community refused to negotiate, informing the National 

Indian Foundation of the situation. 

158. Even though Federal police agents visited the reservation in the aftermath of 

the attack on 15 October, the reports that we have received indicate that the 

community is in a state of fear and feels abandoned by the authorities, and some of the 

community members have reportedly fled to neighbouring towns or hid in the forest. 

It is reported that the community has still not been visited by representatives from the 

National Indigenous Foundation (Fundação Nacional do Indio FUNAI), and that no 

measures have so far been taken to protect the community. 

159. Serious concern was expressed regarding the safety of the leaders and other 

members of the Guajajara indigenous community of Lagoa Cumprida. It was further 

feared that leaders and members of the community might be targeted because of their 

activities in defence of their human rights. 

Urgent appeal 


Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, sent an urgent appeal to 

the Government concerning one incident of an extrajudicial execution, and multiple 

incidents of attempted extrajudicial executions by an armed militia group on 21 

October 2007, at the Via Campesina encampment at the GMO field of Syngenta 

Seeds, Santa Tereza do Oeste, Paraná, Brazil. 

161. According to allegations received, at 1.30 pm on 21 October 2007, an armed 

militia of approximately 40 persons arrived at the entrance of the Via Campesina 

encampment and began shooting at the rural workers. The militia broke down the 

gate to the encampment, and invaded the site. They shot and killed Valmir Mota de 

Oliveira (42 years old), a leader of the Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem 

Terra (MST). Five other farmers were also shot and seriously wounded: Gentil Couto 

Vier, Jonas Gomes de Queiroz, Domingos Barretos, Isabel Nascimento de Souza, and 

Hudson Cardin. 

162. It is alleged that Isabel Nascimento de Souza was also beaten. Two other 

MST leaders, Celso Barbosa and Célia Aparecida Lourenço, were chased by gunmen, 

but escaped. Allegations received suggest that the militia’s actions indicate that the 

intent was to specifically kill the MST leadership.


Page 43 

163. According to the allegations, the background to the attack is that 150 MST 

members peacefully occupied the Sygenta Seeds field at 6.00 am on 21 October 2007. 

At that time, there were 4 private security guards in the area. A gun belonging to one 

of the guards was fired, injuring a worker. The MST then sought to disarm the guards, 

who subsequently left the area. It is alleged that the Syngenta Seeds company 

employed the armed militia which subsequently returned at 1.30 pm, and that the 

militia acted through a front company called NF Security, in conjunction with the 

Rural Society of the Western Region (SRO) and the Movement of Rural Producers 

(MPR). 

164. Allegations received also indicate that during a public hearing on 18 October 

2007, with the Commission for Human Rights and Minority Rights (CDHM) of the 

Federal Chamber of Congressional Representatives, in Curitiba Paraná, it was 

communicated that MST leaders, including Valmir Mota de Oliveira, had been 

threatened for the previous 6 months by militia who were employed by the Syngenta- 

SRO-MPR group. According to allegations received, Brazilian authorities had 

opened an inquiry into allegations against Syngenta and NF Security, but had taken no 

actions to protect MST leaders. 

165. Regarding the alleged extrajudicial execution of Valmir Mota de Oliveira, we 

would like to bring to your attention the Government’s duty to thoroughly, promptly 

and impartially investigate suspected cases of extrajudicial execution, and to 

prosecute and punish all violations of the right to life. As reiterated by the 61st 

Commission on Human Rights in Resolution 2005/34, all States have “the obligation 

… to conduct exhaustive and impartial investigations into all suspected cases of 

extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions”, and “to identify and bring to justice 

those responsible”. 

166. With respect to the prior death threats against Valmir Mota de Oliveira, and 

the continuing death threats to other members of the MST leadership, we would like 

to bring to your attention that Article 6(1) of the ICCPR requires States to provide 

effective protection to those whose lives are in danger. As expressed in Principle 4 of 

the UN Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, 

Arbitrary and Summary Executions, this requires that individuals in danger of such 

executions, including those who receive death threats, be guaranteed effective 

protection through judicial or other means. We urge your Government to immediately 

take all necessary steps, as required under international law, to protect the right to life 

of the members and leaders of the MST, especially Celso Barbosa and Célia 

Aparecida Lourenço, who are in particular danger. 

Observations 

167. The Special Representative regrets that by the time of finalizing this report, 

the Government of Brazil had not responded to any of her communications sent since 

1 December 2006. She considers response to her communications an important part of 

the cooperation of Governments with her mandate. She urges the Government to 

respond to the concerns raised by her, and provide detailed information regarding 

investigations undertaken as well as protective measures taken. She reiterates her 

concern at attacks against the life and personal integrity of Brazilian human rights 

defenders, and she is particularly concerned of the continuing violations committed


Page 44 

against human rights defenders working to promote the rights related to land 

ownership and the rights of indigenous peoples, and labour rights. 

168. The Special Representative visited Brazil from 5 to 21 December 2005 and 

reiterates the recommendations made in her report on visit (A/HRC/4/37/Add.2). 


Cambodia 

169. On 12 March 2007, the Special Representative sent a letter of allegations 

concerning Mr Hy Vuthy, president of the Free Trade Union of Workers in the 

Kingdom of Cambodia (FTUWKC) at the Suntex garment factory, in Phnom Penh’s 

Dangkao district. 

170. According to the information received, on 24 February 2007, Mr Hy Vuthy 

was shot dead by two unidentified assailants on a motorbike whilst returning home 

from work at the Suntex factory. The attack took place one kilometre from the 

factory. According to reports, Mr Hy Vuthy’s death marks the third killing of an 

FTUWKC official during the last three years, since the Union's president Mr Chea 

Vichea was killed in January 2004. Four months later FTUWKC leader and President 

of the Trinunggal Komara, Mr Ros Sovannareth was also killed. 

171. Furthermore, during 2006 FTUWKC officials at Suntex and the neighbouring 

Bright Sky factory, including Mr Chey Rithy, FTUWKC vice-president at Suntex, Mr 

Chi Samon, FTUWKC president of the Bright Sky factory, Mr Yeng Vann Yuth, 

member of FTUWKC of the Bright Sky factory, Mr Lem Samrith, FTUWKC 

treasurer of the Bright Sky factory, Mr Choy Chin, union secretary-general at Suntex 

and Mr Em Chhay Tieng, FTUWCK vice-president of the Bright Sky factory were the 

subjects of ongoing violent attacks and intimidation. 

172. Grave concern was expressed that the killing of Mr Hy Vuthy formed part of 

an ongoing campaign to silence human rights defenders in Cambodia and that the 

continuous harassment and intimidation of FTUWKC officials might be related to 

their legitimate activities in the defence of human rights. 

Urgent appeal 



expression and the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers 

sent an urgent appeal to the Government concerning two events affecting the 

functioning of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), in 

particular the expulsion of the non-Governmental organization Open Society Justice 

Initiative (OSIJ) by the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) 

and the imposition by the Bar Association of the Kingdom of Cambodia (BAKC) of 

high fees on international lawyers who wish to represent defendants before the ECCC. 

Regarding the decision made by the ECCC to expel the international non- 

Governmental organisation OSIJ from all cooperation, according to the information 

received the OSIJ issued a press release on 14 of February 2007, calling for a


Page 45 

thorough investigation of allegations that Cambodian officials may be obliged to pay 

“kickbacks” in return for their positions at the ECCC. The press statement also called 

for any investigation on the case to be made public and, if the allegations proved true, 

that immediate measures were taken by the ECCC to address the problem. The release 

was based on information gathered over several months from sources both within and 

outside of the ECCC. 

174. On the 16 of February 2007, the Deputy Prime Minister Sok An stated in the 

newspaper Agence France Press that Justice Initiative was no longer allowed to enter 

the court. Meanwhile, ECCC Deputy Administrator Michelle Lee and Public Affairs 

Officer Peter foster claimed that the OSIJ would still have full access to the tribunals. 

Later that same day, though, the ECCC Administrator Sean Visoth sent a letter to the 

OSIJ, which stated that, the Cambodian side of the ECCC’s Office of Administration 

would “have no further cooperation with the OSIJ”. 

175. On the 9 of March 2007, OSIJ members were informed by two ECCC staff 

members that two weeks earlier, the Prime Minister Hun Sen had issued an oral order 

to expel the OSIJ from Cambodia and had asked for a list of the names of everyone 

associated with the OSIJ’s ECCC project. On the 11 of March 2007, the OSIJ was 

told that the delivery of names to the Deputy Prime Minister might trigger a decision 

to execute the expulsion order. We understand that the OSIJ has served as a primary 

source of information about the ECCC and has provided a platform for Cambodian 

civil society to exchange views on the chambers. National and international non- 

Governmental organizations have an essential role in scrutinizing the work of the 

courts and thereby ensuring that trial proceedings conform to international standards 

guaranteeing the right of defendants to a fair trial before a competent, independent 

and impartial tribunal. We also understand that the reported action against OSIJ may 

be in response to the issued public statement mentioned above. The allegations, if 

proven true, would raise serious concerns as to the impartiality and independence of 

the Chambers and their ability to provide defendants with a fair trial in accordance 

with international standards. The expulsion of the OSIJ would also constitute a 

damning statement about the willingness of the Cambodian Government to allow the 

ECCC to proceed free of improper Government influence and also hinder the cause of 

freedom of expression generally in Cambodia. 

176. Regarding the other issue of concern, namely, the decision of the BAKC to 

impose fees for the international lawyers who wish to represent defendants before the 

ECCC, according to the information received, the BAKC wants foreigners to pay a 

membership fee of … US$500 as well as an additional US $2,000 and a monthly fee 

of … US$200 if chosen to work with a client. The tribunals’ four international judges 

have threatened to boycott the preparations for the tribunal over the BAKCs’ decision 

to impose the fees, as they believe these very high fees severely limit the rights of the 

accused and of the victims to select a counsel of their choice. 

177. The international judges believe that the failure to fix an appropriate fee places 

an obstacle to adopting the Internal Rules, which were drafted during a ten day 

session on the 16 of March 2007 in Phnom Penh. The national judges consider that it 

is a matter outside the scope of the draft rules and should therefore not be an obstacle 

to their adoption. The judges are ready to hold a plenary at the end of April. For the


Page 46 

international judges, this will only be possible if a satisfactory resolution of this issue 

is reached. 

Urgent appeal 

178. On 29 June 2007, the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal to the 

Government concerning alleged threats against Mr. Lem Piseth, a journalist with 

Radio Free Asia, a private, non-profit corporation broadcasting news and information 

in 9 languages to listeners throughout Asia. 

179. According to the information received, on 16 June 2007, whilst returning to 

Kampong Seu, in the south of the country, Mr Piseth received a threatening call on his 

mobile phone from an unknown individual. The caller allegedly insulted Mr Piseth, 

referring to him as ‘insolent’, before threatening him with death ‘because of the story 

about the forest’ and suggested that there would not be ‘enough land to bury (him) in’. 

Mr Piseth attempted to call the number back but was only able to reach a call centre. 

According to reports, Mr Piseth had recently published four articles highlighting the 

damage being caused as a result of illegal deforestation in Kompong Thom province. 

Following the publication of the reports, Mr Piseth was allegedly followed by 

members of the police and military. 

180. On 1 June 2007, Global Witness, a non-Governmental organization which 

works to expose the links between the exploitation of natural resources, conflict and 

corruption, published a report on the destruction being caused by illegal logging in 

Cambodia. Two days later the report was allegedly banned by the Cambodian 

authorities and on 8 June 2007, Khieu Kanharith, Minister of Information allegedly 

announced that “newspapers [could] refer to [the report] but not reproduce it”. 

However Radio Free Asia, as well as other media, continued to broadcast on the 

report, before being reportedly ordered to cease any broadcasting on the issue by a 

police official. Mr. Lem Piseth also quoted the report in a radio broadcast. As a result 

of the threats received, Mr. Lem Piseth has reportedly gone into hiding. Concern was 

expressed that the afore-mentioned events are directly related to Mr Piseth’s 

legitimate activities in defending human rights, in particular his involvement in 

publicising the damaging effects of illegal deforestation in Cambodia. Grave concern 

was also expressed for Mr Piseth’s safety in light of the alleged threats he has 

received. 


181. On 17 July 2007, the Government of Cambodia replied to the urgent appeal 

sent 29 June 2007. The Government stated that there was no threat against Mr. Lem 

Piseth, and that this was a false and provocative allegation. Mr. Lem Piseth is working 

freely in Cambodia. As State Party to the international human rights instruments, the 

Kingdom of Cambodia recognizes and respects the rights of expression in the media. 


182. On 19 July 2007, the Special Representative sent a letter of allegations 

concerning the killing of Mr Seng Sarorn, a community activist from Sre Kor village 

in Sesan district, Stung Treng province. Mr Seng was active in community networks


Page 47 

on forestry, fisheries and land issues, and campaigned against illegal logging and 

fishing in the area. He was also involved in discussions about the impact of economic 

land concessions on local communities, and in negotiations with a concession 

company to mitigate its impact. A large number of economic land concessions have 

been granted in Sesan district, which is a densely forested area with a large indigenous 

population. Illegal logging is reportedly taking place within the district, in addition to 

illegal fishing and hunting. 

183. According to the information received, on 4 July 2007, Mr Seng Sarorn was 

with family members at a hut next to their rice field when an unidentified person fired 

a shot from below the hut, mortally wounding the victim. 

184. Serious concern was expressed that the killing of Mr Seng Sarorn might be 

related to his peaceful activities in defence of human rights, in particular his work in 

rising concerns about land and natural resources in the region. 

Urgent appeal 

185. On 31 July 2007 the Special Representative, together with the Special 

Rapporteur on the question of torture, sent an urgent appeal to the Government 

concerning Mr Sath Savuth, a human rights defender working for the protection of 

forests and the land rights of the inhabitants of Thlath Commune, Anglong Veng 

District, Oddar Meanchey Province. 

186. According to the information received, on 21 July 2007, Mr Sath Savuth was 

subject to a grenade attack by unknown assailants at his home in Anglong Veng. Mr 

Sath Savuth’s life was similarly threatened in July 2005 when he was attacked while 

working in Tumring Commune, Sandan District, Kampong Thom Province. No 

arrests were made and, according to reports, no investigation into the attack in July 

2005 has yet been carried out. 

187. Concern was expressed that the attack against Mr Sath Savuth may have been 

related to his peaceful work in defence of human rights, in particular the rights of 

local communities to land and local resources. Further concern was expressed for the 

physical and psychological integrity of Mr Savuth and his family. 

Urgent appeal 

188. On 2 August 2007 the Special Representative, together with the Special 


expression and the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, sent an urgent 

appeal concerning the following case. 

189. According to information received, on 8 June 2007, the Ministry of Cult and 

Religion and the Buddhist patriarch Non Nget issued a directive which forbids all 

monks living in the Kingdom of Cambodia from organizing or participating in any 

demonstration or strike or carrying out Buddhist marches which affect public order. 

190. The decision also bars monks from providing false information which may 

affect Buddhist religion. The directive states that monks who do not respect the


Page 48 

instructions strictly will be punished in accordance to Buddhist norms and national 

law. The directive was adopted after Khmer Kampuchea Krom monks carried out a 

series of peaceful demonstrations in Phnom Penh in February and April 2007 to 

advocate for the protection of the rights of the Khmer Krom, particularly in Viet Nam 

following the alleged defrocking and arrest of five Kampuchea Krom monks in that 

country. It has been reported that the monks who were defrocked and arrested in Viet 

Nam were sentenced to 2 - 4 years of imprisonment for disturbing traffic when they 

organised demonstrations to advocate for the religious and cultural rights of the 

Khmer Krom in Viet Nam to be respected. 

191. It was feared that the Cambodian authorities will use the directive of 8 June 

2007 to prevent monks from continuing to carry out their peaceful protests in defence 

of human rights, and to crack down on them if they go ahead. Allegedly the directive 

is specifically aimed at restricting the activities of Khmer Kampuchea Krom monks 

who protest regularly and who are under particular focus at the moment because of 

their activities in Viet Nam. 

Urgent appeal 

192. On 30 November 2007, the Special Representative, together with the Special 


expression, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, sent an urgent 

appeal concerning Mr Tim Sa Khorn, chief monk in the North Phnom Denh temple, 

and member of the Khmer Krom community in Cambodia. Mr Tim Sa Khorn 

acquired Cambodian citizenship after he moved in 1979 to the commune of Phnom 

Denh in Kirivong District in Takeo Province because of acts of harassment against 

him. 

193. According to the information received, in 2002, Mr. Tim Sa Khorn was 

appointed as chief monk of North Phnom-Denh temple. On 16 June 2007, Supreme 

Patriarch Tep Vong issued a religious decree in both Cambodian and Vietnamese 

languages to defrock Mr. Tim Sa Khorn, accusing him of conducting activities that 

were harmful to the Cambodia-Viet Nam friendship. Subsequently, the Vietnamese 

authorities allegedly circulated this decree to Khmer Krom Buddhist temples. On 3 

July 2007 a spokesperson of the Cambodian Minister of Foreign Affairs declared that 

Mr. Tim Sa Khorn “had returned to Viet Nam” after reportedly being summoned to 

the office of the religious head of the Takeo Province in Cambodia and being forced 

to enter a car. On 2 August 2007 Vietnamese authorities announced that he had been 

arrested for having illegally entered the country. 

194. Concern was expressed that the enforced disappearance and the illegal 

deportation of Mr Tim Sa Khorn to Viet Nam might be directly linked to his nonviolent 

activities in defence of human rights. 


195. In a letter dated 30 January 2008, the Government of Cambodia responded to 

the above mentioned urgent appeal. The Government informed that Monk Tim 

Sakhon had used the location of the Pagoda to distribute bulletins of the Khmer


Page 49 

Kapuchea Krom union. Each bulletin contained the content of inspiration propaganda 

aimed to create conflicts between Cambodia and Viet Nam. 

196. According to the Government, Monk Tim Sakhorn does not respect the rules 

of Buddhism and did not participate in religious activities as required. He propagated 

monks and followers to support activities of the foreign based Khmer Kampuchea 

Krom Federation movement. Monk Tim Sakhorn organized illegal demonstrations 

twice in order to inspire anti-sentiment against the relationship between Cambodia – 

Viet Nam. The demonstrations created extreme confrontation and violence against the 

Buddhism disciplines, monk students and Buddhism followers. The monk 

demonstrators used axes and wooden sticks against the other monks which caused 

many injured. The Supreme Patriarch Buddhism Monk of Cambodia organized a 

special meeting participated by 10 high ranking Monks officials to review his case. As 

a result, the cases on his violations against disciplines, monk Tim Sakhorn’s status 

was removed. Mr. Tim Sakhorn was then detained by Vietnamese authority. 

According to the Government, Mr. Tim Sakhorn is now under the legal prosecution of 

the present laws of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam. 

Observations 

197. The Special Representative thanks the Government of Cambodia for its replies 

to the communication sent 29 June 2007 and 30 November 2007. She regrets however 

that at the time of the finalization of the report she has not received replies from the 

Government concerning the other cases sent since the establishment of her mandate. 

The Special Representative is gravely concerned about the letter of allegations sent on 

12 March 2007 and on 19 July 2007 concerning the killings of the trade unionist Mr 

Hy Vuthy and the killing of the community activist Mr Seng Sarorn. The allegations 

are serious, and the Special Representative urges the Government to provide her with 

detailed substantive responses to assure her that investigations have been undertaken 

what steps have been taken to bring the perpetrators to justice. 

Appel urgent 

Cameroon 

198. Le 29 août 2007, la Représentante spéciale, conjointement avec le Rapporteur 

spécial sur l’indépendance des juges et des avocats, de Rapporteur spécial sur la 

situation des droits de l'homme et des libertés fondamentales des populations 

autochtones, a envoyé un appel urgent sur la situation des éleveurs Mbororos 

Fulanis dans la province du Nord-Ouest du Cameroun, en particulier relativement 

à des événements récents ayant entraîné la destitution du chef traditionnel des 

Mbororos, Lamido Adamu K. Buba. Ces événements semblent se dérouler dans un 

contexte plus large de violations des droits de la population Mbororo, violations 

entraînées par la dépossession de leurs terres traditionnelles au profit d’un 

entrepreneur privé. 

199. La situation décrite met en évidence l'interférence supposée de M. Baba 

Danpullo dans le système de l’autorité traditionnelle de la communauté Mbororo, 

débouchant sur des persécutions et arrestations de chefs traditionnels et d'autres 

membres de la Communauté.


Page 50 

200. Selon les allégations reçues, le chef spirituel de la communauté Mbororo, 

Lamido Ahmadu Sabga, serait décédé le 13 juin 2007. En accord avec la loi 

coutumière de la communauté, le Conseil traditionnel Mbororo aurait élu, le 15 juin 

2007, à la majorité des votes, M. Adamu Kawuyel Buba en tant que nouveau chef 

traditionnel. 

201. Il est allégué que la nomination de M. Adamu K. Buba aurait été explicitement 

objectée par Mr Baba Danpullo, qui, depuis la mort de l’ancien Lamido, aurait essayé 

d’influencer le processus et nommé un de ses collaborateurs. Dans ce contexte, lors 

des condoléances de l’ancien Lamido Ahmadu Sabga, M. Adamu K. Buba aurait, 

selon les informations rapportées, menacé un des membres du Conseil traditionnel 

avec les mots suivants : « Je vous conseille de choisir un bon chef et si vous 

choisissez une personne qui ne me convient pas, je ne l'accepterai pas ». 

202. En accord avec leur pratique, après l'élection du nouveau Lamido, les autorités 

des Mbororos auraient envoyé une lettre au Chef Provincial de Mezam, informant de 

l’intronisation. Cependant, le 19 juin 2007, ce dernier aurait publié une Décision 

Préfectorale (n° 129 PD/E29/PS) déclarant la nullité de l’intronisation de M. Adamu 

K. Buba, interdisant toutes les réunions et les assemblées de la communauté Mbororo 

et fermant le palais traditionnel du Lamido. Un Recours Gracieux (Réf. 

MLF/RG/001/07) aurait été présenté le 28 juin 2007 par les leaders de la communauté 

contre cette décision préfectorale. Sans tenir compte de cette plainte en cours, et, 

négligeant les pratiques traditionnelles des Mbororos, le Chef Provincial de Mezam 

aurait, selon les informations reçues, annoncé la vacance du poste du Lamido 

traditionnel. 

203. Le 12 juillet 2007, tous les membres du Conseil traditionnel Mbororo auraient 

été convoqués à la Direction Générale de la Recherche Extérieure du Poste de Liaison 

du Nord-Ouest-Bamenda. Pour n’avoir reçu aucune information officielle sur les 

motifs de cette convocation, et par crainte de représailles pour l’intronisation du 

nouveau Lamido, les membres du Conseil traditionnel auraient choisi de ne pas se 

rendre à la gendarmerie. 

204. Le 13 juillet 2007, aux alentours des 5h00 du matin, approximativement 500 

personnes de la communauté Mbororo, y compris le Lamido récemment élu, Adamu 

K. Buba, ainsi que les membres du Conseil traditionnel, auraient manifesté contre la 

décision préfectorale annulant l'intronisation du nouveau Lamido. Au cours de cette 

manifestation, les protestataires auraient paisiblement bloqué la route principale qui 

traverse la communauté de Sagba. Tous les membres du Conseil traditionnel, y 

compris Lamido Adamu K. Buba, auraient à nouveau été convoqués à la Direction 

Générale de la Recherche Extérieure du Poste de Liaison du Nord-Ouest-Bamenda, 

interrogés, puis libérés. Selon les allégations, le 8 août 2007, Lamido Adamu K. Buba 

aurait à nouveau été interrogé avant d’être libéré. 

205. Selon les allégations, le Chef Provincial de Mezam aurait informé la 

population de Sagba qu’au cours de la journée du 20 août 2007, après dépôt de 

nouvelles candidatures, une nouvelle intronisation serait discutée. Cependant, aux 

alentours des 6h00 du matin du 20 août, une troupe de plus de 100 soldats aurait été 

déployée dans le village de Sabga, le Chef Provincial de Mezam aurait intronisé


Page 51 

Mamuda Sagba, supposément par défaut d’autres candidatures. Vers 16h00, M. Baba 

Danpollo et le Lamido de Banyo du département d’Adamawa seraient entrés dans 

Sagba. L’arrivée de M. Baba Danpollo aurait accentué la révolte des membres de la 

Communauté Mbororo. 

206. Une utilisation abusive de la force aurait alors été employée par les soldats, 

avec utilisation de gaz lacrymogène et coups de fusil. Les suivantes personnes sont 

rapportées comme étant blessées : Madame Maimouna Dawuh, agée de 29 ans ; 

Madame Fatimatou Manjo, agée de 22 ans ; Monsieur Abdou Moussa, 31 ans ; 

Monsieur Yakubu Alim, 22 ans, Monsieur Kabiru Oumarou, 21 ans ; ainsi qu’un bébé 

de quelques mois. Par ailleurs, des chevaux auraient été tués. 

207. Un total de 21 personnes, comprenant des membres du Conseil traditionnel 

ainsi que de l'organisation MBOSCUDA auraient été inscrites sur une liste 

d’individus à arrêter. Plus de vingt Mbororos auraient quitté le village ce même soir 

pour Yaoundé. D’autres les auraient rejoint ultérieurement, et, actuellement, 34 

personnes seraient réfugiées devant l’ambassade des Etats-Unis. 

208. Des craintes sont exprimées sur le fait que la destitution du Lamido 

nouvellement élu puisse répondre à une stratégie plus large de M. Baba Danpollo, 

avec l'appui ou la connivence allégué des autorités locales, pour exercer à son propre 

avantage le contrôle de la communauté Mbororo. Des inquiétudes sont également 

exprimées concernant la sûreté personnelle des autorités traditionnelles Mbororos, 

notamment le Lamido Adamu K. Buba, de même que le reste des membres du Conseil 

traditionnel et des membres de la MBOSCUDA, susceptibles d’être victimes de 

représailles en conséquence de leur rôle dans la défense des droits des Mbororos. 

209. Selon l'information reçue, en 1985, M. Alhadji Baba Ahmadou Danpollo, 

propriétaire de ranchs et membre du Comité de direction du Mouvement 

Démocratique du Peuple Camerounais (CPDM), et tiers à la communauté Mbororo, 

aurait sollicité en 1985 au Ministère de l’élevage, des pêches et des industries 

animales une concession en vue de la création d’un ranch privé, le « Elba Ranch», à 

Ndawara, dans la sous-division de Fundong (département de Menchum). L’aire 

réclamée pour ce ranch englobe des villages Mbororos et des secteurs traditionnels 

d’élevage. 

210. En décembre 1986, une Commission d’enquête fut établie par les autorités de 

Fundong avec l'objectif d'étudier cette requête. La Commission organisa des réunions 

dans le secteur qui serait affecté par le ranch, avec la participation des autorités 

locales et des membres de la communauté Mbororo. Au cours de ces réunions, Mr. 

Baba Danpollo aurait promis une compensation aux familles qui seraient affectées par 

l'établissement de son ranch privé, perdant leurs résidences et leurs terres de pâturage. 

211. Par Décision (n° 056) du 18 juillet 1986, le Ministre de l’élevage, des pêches 

et des industries animales a approuvé la création de l’Elba Ranch pour l’élevage de 

bovin à Ndawara. Les limites du ranch ont été reconnues par un titre foncier n° 140 

(Menchum) du 1er décembre 1989, avec une superficie de 4.726 hectares. En outre, 

une concession de 1.335 hectares sur une zone contiguë de transhumance a été 

assignée au ranch par Décret n° 89/351 du 2 mars 1989.


Page 52 

212. Depuis la mise en place du ranch, 63 familles Mbororo (comprenant un total 

de 739 personnes ainsi que 1730 troupeaux de bétail) sont estimées avoir été 

déplacées de leurs terres traditionnelles de pâturage. La zone affectée comprend 

20.000 hectares de terres occupées traditionnellement par les Mbororos dans la région 

de Mezam, dans les départements de Bamessing, Boyo, Menchum et Ngokentungia, 

conséquence de l'établissement des deux Elba Ranchs et de l’extension illégale de 

leurs limites originelles sur des terres voisines. Selon les allégations, les familles 

affectées de la communauté Mbororo seraient désormais dépourvues de logements 

avec les commodités appropriées et rencontreraient de sérieux problèmes en ce qui 

concerne l’accès à l'eau et à la nourriture, en conséquence de l'afflux d’étrangers et du 

manque de terres de pâturage pour leur bétail. D’après les informations en notre 

possession, les personnes affectées n'ont jamais été compensées pour les 

déplacements ou les pertes encourues. 

213. En outre, il nous est rapporté que l'établissement du Ranch Elba aurait entraîné 

une situation générale d'abus contre des membres de la communauté Mbororo, 

supposément perpétrés par le personnel du propriétaire du ranch, M. Baba Danpollo, 

avec l'appui ou la connivence des autorités locales. Selon les rapports dont nous 

disposons, M. Baba Danpollo aurait établi son propre tribunal, appelé Cour Alkadi de 

Ndawara, dans sa résidence à l’Elba Ranch, avec ses propres lieux de détention. Cette 

Cour aurait été reconnue par les autorités locales comme une Cour de droit 

traditionnel musulman et serait assistée par la police nationale. 

214. Selon les informations à notre disposition, depuis 1993 approximativement, 

150 membres de la communauté Mbororo auraient été condamnés par la Cour Alcali 

de Ndawara dans l’Elba Ranch, sans respect des règles du procès équitable. Les 

jugements incluraient des emprisonnements à la prison centrale de Bafoussam, sous 

juridiction militaire, ainsi que dans d’autres prisons d’autres provinces. Des 

arrestations arbitraires à la prison privée du ranch sont également rapportées, où de 

nombreux cas de torture et de mauvais traitements de la communauté Mbororo sont 

allégués. De plus, les arrêts de la Cour Alcali de Ndawra dans l’Elba Ranch auraient, 

selon les allégations, entraîné des dépossessions de plus de 400 têtes de bétail ainsi 

que d’importantes amendes. 

215. Nous avons également reçu des allégations de harcèlements, détentions, 

tortures, y compris tentatives d’assassinats contre des membres de l’Association 

Camerounaise de Développement Social et Culturel des Mbororos (MBOSCUDA). Il 

est allégué que ces faits seraient liés au rôle de MBOSCUDA dans la dénonciation de 

violations supposément commises par M. Baba Danpullo, avec l’appui ou le laxisme 

présumé des autorités locales. 

216. Il nous a été fait part de la création, par Décision Ministérielle (n° 164) du 2 

juillet 2003 et ultérieurement modifiée par Décision (n° 230) du 13 août 2003, d’une 

Commission d’enquête interministérielle chargée de mener les investigations sur les 

nombreuses plaintes déposées par les Mbororos du Nord-Ouest contre M. Baba 

Danpollo. Une copie du rapport final de la Commission, daté du 12 août 2004, est en 

notre possession. 

217. Le rapport final de la Commission interministérielle a relevé des irrégularités 

dans la situation légale des terres de l’Elba Ranch, y compris des expropriations


Page 53 

irrégulières et des empiétements sur des terres adjacentes; des destructions et 

obstructions par des employés de l’Elba Ranch de projets communaux hydrauliques; 

ainsi que des problèmes dérivés des indemnités. Par ailleurs, le rapport relève 

l’influence de M. Baba Danpollo dans la nomination et la destitution d’autorités 

traditionnelles; la tentative de privatiser la Cour Alcali de Ndawara ainsi que sa 

transformation irrégulière en une juridiction pénale; et enfin l'utilisation d’influences 

politiques pour faire passer les auteurs des irrégularités pour des victimes. 

218. Afin de remédier à la situation, le rapport de 2004 de la Commission 

interministérielle recommande, notamment, de tracer et de délimiter à nouveau les 

frontières légales de l’Elba Ranch ; le paiement par M. Baba Danpollo des intérêts sur 

les réparations auxquelles ont droit les anciens propriétaires ; ainsi qu’un suivi 

régulier de la situation. 

Réponse du Gouvernement 

219. Le 18 décembre 2007, le Gouvernement a répondu à l’appel urgent du 29 août 

2007. Le Gouvernement informe que sa réponse au sujet de la destitution du Chef 

traditionnel des Mboros sera communiquée dans les meilleurs délais. Par ailleurs, le 

Premier Ministre a mis sur pied le 31 avril 2007 une commission ministérielle ad hoc 

chargée de recueillir sur le terrain toute information relative à la crise de succession à 

la tête de la chefferie Sagba. Cette commission a mené du 23 au 25 septembre 2007 

une enquête administrative dans le département concerné. Ses conclusions seront 

communiquées aux trois mandataires dans la réponse qui leur sera transmise. 

Observations 

220. La Représentante spéciale remercie le Gouvernement de sa réponse mais 

regrette qu’au moment de la finalisation du présent rapport des clarifications n’aient 

toujours pas été reçues. Elle regrette également l’absence de réponse à ce jour à ses 

communications en date des 7 mars 2006, 7 septembre 2005 et 4 juin 2004 et presse le 

Gouvernement de répondre aux craintes exprimées dans celles-ci. 

Appel urgent 

Central African Republic 

221. Le 24 janvier 2007, la Représentante spéciale a envoyé un appel urgent sur le 

cas de Mme Bernadette Sayo Nzale, présidente de l’Organisation pour la compassion 

et le développement des familles en détresse (OCODEFAD), et de sa fille. 

L’OCODEFAD, basée à Bangui, regroupe plus de 2 000 adhérents, victimes des 

graves violations des droits de l’Homme et du droit international humanitaire 

commises à l’occasion des conflits qui se sont succédés entre troupes loyalistes et 

rebelles depuis 2002. L’OCODEFAD a pour objectifs statutaires d’apporter un 

soutien économique, social et médical aux victimes et de les aider dans la constitution 

de plaintes auprès de la justice centrafricaine et de la Cour pénale internationale pour 

faire valoir leur droit à la justice et à réparation. Mme Bernadette Sayo Nzale a été 

l’objet d’un appel urgent envoyé par la Représentante spéciale du Secrétaire général 

concernant la situation des défenseurs des droits de l'homme le 15 août 2006 et qui 

reste sans réponse à ce jour. Selon les informations reçues :


Page 54 

222. Depuis le 17 janvier 2007, les menaces de mort proférées à l’encontre de Mme 

Sayo en août 2006 se seraient aggravées. En effet, ce même jour, Mme Sayo aurait 

reçu plusieurs appels anonymes la menaçant de mort, à la fois sur son téléphone 

portable ainsi que sur celui de sa fille. 

223. Le 18 janvier 2007, une journaliste de Radio Centrafrique aurait reçu un appel 

anonyme annonçant la mort de Mme Sayo. La gendarmerie mobile aurait reçu un 

appel similaire indiquant que « Mme Sayo a été mise à mort, vous pouvez aller 

ramasser son corps chez elle ». Les gendarmes se seraient alors déplacés au domicile 

de Mme Sayo pour constater que celle-ci était saine et sauve. 

224. Ces graves menaces auraient pour origine l’organisation par l’OCODEFAD, le 

13 janvier 2007, d’une journée de sensibilisation autour du thème : « un modèle de 

partenariat efficace entre le gouvernement et les organisation des sociétés civiles pour 

la consolidation de la paix en Centrafrique ». Plusieurs représentants d’ambassades 

étrangères et du Bureau des Nations unies en RCA (BONUCA) avaient participé à 

cette journée. 

225. Il est également allégué que Mme Sayo aurait été victime une nouvelle fois 

d’actes de harcèlement en raison de ses activités de défense des droits des victimes de 

crimes internationaux commis en RCA depuis 2002. Ainsi, la fille de Mme Sayo 

aurait été enlevée pendant plusieurs heures dans la nuit du 1er décembre 2006, et 

aurait fait l’objet d’une tentative de viol. Enfin, le propriétaire du local abritant le 

siège de l’OCODEFAD serait contraint d’expulser l’organisation en raison de 

pressions exercées contre celui-ci. 

226. De vives craintes ont été réitérées que les actes relatés auraient eu pour but 

d’entraver le travail de l’OCODEFAD, notamment dans ses activités de consolidation 

de la paix en République Centrafricaine et sa lutte contre l’impunité des auteurs des 

crimes les plus graves perpétrés depuis 2002 sur le territoire centrafricain. 

Observations 

227. La Représentante spéciale regrette l’absence, au moment de la finalisation du 

présent rapport, de réponse à la communication du 24 janvier 2007 ainsi qu’aux 

communications en date du 15 août 2006 et 1 er février 2006. Elle presse le 

Gouvernement d’apporter des réponses détaillées aux craintes exprimées dans ces 

communications. 


Chile 

228. El 24 de Enero de 2007 la Representante Especial, junto con el Relator 

Especial sobre la promoción del derecho a la libertad de opinión y de expresión y el 

Relator Especial sobre la situación de los derechos humanos y las libertades 

fundamentales de los indígenas, enviaron un llamamiento urgente al Gobierno 

señalando informaciones recibidas en relación con el Observatorio de Derechos de 

los Pueblos Indígenas, una organización no gubernamental dedicada a la promoción


Page 55 

y defensa de los derechos de los pueblos indígenas de Chile, con sedes en Temuco, 

Villarrica y Santiago. 

229. Según la información recibida, el 9 de diciembre de 2006, las oficinas del 

Observatorio de Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas en Temuco habrían sido allanadas 

por personas desconocidas. Según se alega, estos desconocidos se habrían apropiado 

de seis discos duros de los ordenadores de la organización, que contenían información 

importante relacionada con el trabajo de la organización en favor de los derechos de 

las comunidades indígenas mapuche de la región, incluyendo una serie de casos 

judiciales en curso. Sin embargo, no se habría sustraído ningún otro artículo de valor, 

como impresoras, instrumentos musicales, teléfonos y otros enseres de la sede. La 

organización habría denunciado el robo a las autoridades competentes. 

230. Se informaron que el allanamiento y sustracción de los discos duros se habría 

producido tan sólo dos días después de que la organización hubiera emitido un 

comunicado público sobre la operación policial llevada a cabo en la Comunidad de 

Temucuicui, en la que diez miembros de esta comunidad habrían resultado heridos, 

entre ellos una mujer embarazada y un menor de ocho años. 

231. Se expresaron temores de que estos eventos puedan estar relacionados con las 

actividades del Observatorio de Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas en defensa de 

derechos de los pueblos indígenas de Chile, y que pudieran constituir un intento de 

frenar esta labor. 


232. Mediante comunicación del 5 de febrero de 2007, la Misión Permanente de 

Chile remitió nota del Gobierno de Chile de fecha de 2 de febrero, proporcionando 

información con respecto al llamamiento enviado el 24 de enero de 2007. El 

Gobierno informó de que la Dirección de Derechos Humanos estaba coordinando con 

la Corporación Nacional de Desarrollo Indígena, el Ministerio Público y la Fiscalía de 

la IX Región de la Araucania, la recopilación de los antecedentes. Informó de que los 

hechos fueron debidamente denunciados a las instancias de la jurisdicción penal, de 

que las investigaciones criminales se encuentran en pleno desarrollo y de que cuando 

los antecedentes solicitados hayan sido decepcionados, serán puestos en conocimiento 

de los Relatores Especiales y de la Representante Especial. 

233. Por último, la comunicación del Gobierno indicaba que el Observatorio de 

Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas se encontraba realizando sus funciones en 

completa normalidad, como también otras instancias de promoción y defensa de las 

libertades fundamentales de la región de la Araucania, particularmente aquellas cuyas 

labores están dirigidas hacia las comunidades indígenas. 


234. El 10 de Julio de 2007, la Representante Especial, junto con Relator Especial 

sobre la situación de los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales de los 

indígenas señalaron a la atención urgente del Gobierno la información recibida en 

relación con el supuesto ataque dirigido en contra del Sr. Jorge Huenchullan Cayul,


Page 56 

werken (vocero) de la Comunidad mapuche de Temucuicui, en la Comuna de Ercilla, 

Provincia de Malleco, Región de la Araucanía. 

235. De acuerdo con la información recibida, el 20 de junio del año 2007, alrededor 

de las 12.00 horas, una camioneta de color blanco, de marca Toyota, que circulaba a 

alta velocidad, intentó arrollar al Sr. Jorge Huenchullán Cayul mientras caminaba por 

el camino público que separa a la Comunidad de Temucuicui y el Fundo Montenegro. 

Al intentar esquivar el impacto de dicho vehículo, el Sr. Huenchullán habría caído a 

varios metros del lugar, quedando en estado de semi insconciencia. El Sr. 

Huenchullán habría sido encontrado y auxiliado posteriormente por otro miembro de 

la comunidad que pasaba por el lugar. 

236. Se alega que la camioneta que habría intentado arrollar al Sr. Huenchullán era 

conducida por el Sr. Héctor Urban Astete, hijo del dueño del Fundo Montenegro, que 

viajaba en compañía de un funcionario de carabineros no identificado. Se da el hecho 

de que la Comunidad de Temucuicui y su comunidad colindante, Ankapi Ñancuchew, 

mantendrían un contencioso sobre la titularidad de las tierras que ahora forman parte 

del Fundo Montenegro, propiedad de la familia Urban, que son reclamadas como 

parte de sus tierras ancestrales. En el marco de este contencioso, varios miembros y 

dirigentes de estas comunidades habrían sido objeto de procesos penales siguiendo 

denuncias realizadas por la familia Urban. A pesar de que en todos estos procesos los 

acusados habrían sido absueltos, muchos de ellos habrían debido pasar períodos 

prolongados de prisión preventiva. Las denuncias de la familia Urban habrían llevado 

asimismo al despliegue de un contingente de las fuerzas especiales de los Carabineros 

de la Prefectura de Malleco para llevar a cabo la protección del Fundo Montenegro, 

así como al allanamiento en reiteradas ocasiones de la Comunidad de Temucuicui. 

237. Según las alegaciones, el ataque sufrido por el Sr. Huenchullán no constituiría 

un hecho aislado, sino que se uniría a otros ataques sufridos por el Sr. Huenchullán y 

otros miembros de la Comunidad de Temucuicui y de la Comunidad colindante de 

Ankapi Ñancuchew por parte de miembros de la familia Urban, en relación con las 

demandas realizadas por estas comunidades en defensa de sus tierras tradicionales. 

Dichos ataques no habrían sido impedidos por los carabineros desplegados en los 

predios de la familia Urban. 

238. Se expresaron preocupación por la integridad del Sr. Huenchullán y de los 

otros dirigentes de las comunidades arriba mencionadas en sus actividades de defensa 

de las tierras tradicionales del pueblo mapuche. Se expresa asimismo preocupación 

por la supuesta implicación de un miembro de las fuerzas de seguridad en el atentado 

sufrido por el Sr. Huenchullán. 


Mediante comunicación del 12 de abril de 2007, la Misión Permanente de Chile 

propuso información con respecto los llamamientos urgentes del 27 de octubre de 

2006 y 1 de diciembre de 2006 sobre el caso del Sr. Waikilaf Cadín Calfuno. El 

Gobierno informó de que el señor Waikilaf Cadín Calfuano permanece en prisión 

preventiva desde el 17 de agosto de 2006, fecha en la que ingresó al centro de 

Cumplimiento Penitenciario de Temuco por orden del Juzgado de Garantía por los 

delitos de secuestro, desórdenes públicos y daños calificados. La medida de traslado


Page 57 

desde el recinto penitenciario de Temuco a la Unidad Especial de Alta Seguridad de 

Santiago, obedeció a razones que aseguraran y resguardaran su salud, ya sea 

agresiones por parte de otros reclusos como por acciones irresponsables del propio 

señor Cadín. El señor Cadín Calfuano inició una huelga de hambre el día 09 de 

octubre de 2006, por disconformidad procesal, la que duró hasta el 22 de octubre de 

2006, dando inicio en términos verbales, de otra huelga de hambre líqida por estar en 

contra de las medidas judiciales del Tribunal, desistiendo de dicha huelga el día 27 de 

diciembre de 2006. Al día 19 de enero de 2007 el señor Cadín se encuentre orientado 

en el tiempo y en el espacio sin referir molestias y con un estado de salud estable. 

Observaciones 

La Representante Especial agradece al Gobierno por la rápida respuesta a su 

comunicación del 24 de enero de 2007, y agradecería contar con informaciones 

adicionales respecto al resultado de las investigaciones llevadas a cabo en relación 

con el allanamiento de las oficinas del Observatorio de Derechos de los Pueblos 

Indígenas.La Representante Especial lamenta no haber recibido respuesta a su 

comunicación de 10 de julio de 2007, en el momento de finalización del presente 

informe. 

Urgent appeal 

China (People's Republic of) 

239. On 21 December 2006, the Special Representative, together with the Special 

Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, the Special Rapporteur on the 

promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the 

Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and the Special Rapporteur on violence 

against women, its causes and consequences, sent an urgent appeal concerning Mr 

Chen Guangcheng, a 34 year old blind self-taught human rights lawyer in Linyi, 

Shandong province, and his wife Ms Yuan Weijing, his lawyers Mr Li Jinsong and 

Mr Li Fangping, a member of his defence team, Dr Teng Biao, and witnesses to his 

trial, - Mr Chen Gengjiang, Mr Chen Guangdong, Mr Chen Guangyu and Mr 

Chen Guanghe. 

240. Mr Chen Guangcheng has a long history of campaigning for the rights of 

farmers and the disabled. He assisted villagers in solving drinking water pollution 

problems when he was attending Najing Chinese Medicine University in 2000. He 

created and ran the “Rights Defence Project for the Disabled” under the auspices of 

the Chinese Legal Studies Association between 2000 and 2001. Since 1996, he has 

provided free legal consultation to farmers and the disabled in rural areas. In 2004, he 

ran a “Citizen Awareness and Law for the Disabled Project”. In April 2005, Mr Chen 

Guangcheng and Ms Yuan Weijing began to investigate villagers’ claims that Linyi 

City authorities were employing extensive violence in implementing Government 

birth quotas. The first report was published by them on 10 June 2005 through the 

Citizens Rights Defence Network (gongmin weiquan wang) and they brought law 

suits against officials involved. 

241. Mr Chen Guangcheng has been the subject of four previous communications 

to your Government, the most recent of which were sent by the Special Rapporteur on


Page 58 

the independence of judges and lawyers, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and 


Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders 

dated 1 December 2006, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and 

lawyers, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to 

freedom of opinion and expression, the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture 

and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human 

rights defenders on 14 July 2006. Previous communications were also sent on 7 April 

2006 by the Special Representative on the situation of human rights defenders, the 



the question of torture, on 31 October 2005 by the Special Rapporteur on the question 

of torture, the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and 

consequences and Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of 

human rights defenders, and on 19 September 2005 by the Chairperson-Rapporteur of 

the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion 

and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the Special 

Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences and the Special 

Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders. 

242. We are also in receipt of your Government’s replies dated 12 December 2005, 

14 June 2006 and 3 October 2006 (awaiting translation). Your Excellency’s 

Government states that "(i)n dealing with Chen and his associates, the public security 

authorities acted in compliance with the law, in remanding them in custody or holding 

them for questioning. Throughout this period their lawful rights were fully protected 

and there is no substance to the allegation that Chen Guangcheng was subjected to 

beatings and placed under house arrest." While we welcome your Government’s 

observations, we are afraid that they do not alleviate our concerns with respect to this 

case, particularly so in the light of consistent reports that a number of individuals 

involved in his trial have allegedly been targeted by the security forces including his 

wife, his lawyers, a member of his defence team and witnesses to his trial. 

243. According to the new information received, on 27 November 2006, Chen 

Guangcheng’s retrial before the Yinan County People’s Court lasted approximately 

10 hours. It is reported that on 1 December 2006, he was sentenced to four years and 

three months’ imprisonment for “gathering crowds to disrupt traffic” and “intentional 

destruction of property”. 

244. According to reports, Chen Guangcheng’s wife, Yuan Weijing, has been under 

de facto house arrest from 12 August 2005 until 25 November 2006. Since then, she 

had been continuously followed by local security personnel and persons in civilian 

clothes believed to have been hired by the police. On 28 November 2006, around 

midday, she was arrested by members of the Yinan County Public Security Bureau 

and detained for questioning. Their one-year-old child was also taken but was sent 

home later that day. Approximately eight hours later, Yuan Weijing, was dragged out 

of police car and left in a barely conscious state on the side of the road near her 

village. She was taken to the Mengyin County Menglianggu Hospital where she was 

treated for extreme trauma however she was accompanied by up to 20 policemen as 

an order of “residential surveillance” had been issued while she was in detention. She

is also suspected of committing “gathering crowds to disrupt traffic” and for 

“intentional destruction of property”. 


Page 59 

245. Furthermore it is reported that the local authorities have intimidated witnesses 

and allegedly withheld evidence in order to prejudice Chen Guangcheng’s retrial. 

246. It was further reported that four other key witnesses in the aforementioned 

trial have been subject to police harassment in relation to the most recent trial and 

were subjected to torture in order to provide false testimony against Mr Chen 

Guangcheng in his previous trial. According to reports, Mr Chen Gengjiang was 

detained on 26 November 2006 and held until after the hearing had taken place. He 

was allegedly forced to sign papers in which he agreed not to participate in the case. 

On the same day, Mr Chen Guangdong and Mr Chen Guangyu reportedly disappeared 

after they had agreed to testify on behalf of the defence. Later the same evening, Mr 

Chen Guanghe was allegedly abducted by undercover police officers as he was on his 

way to meet with Mr Li Fanping regarding the upcoming trial in which he was 

scheduled to testify the following day. He was reportedly formally arrested on 28 

November but his family was not informed of his arrest or his whereabouts until 3 

December 2006. Previously, it is alleged that Mr Chen Guanghe was detained and 

tortured before the first trial by members of the Yinan police in order to procure a 

false confession and to testify against Mr Chen Guangcheng. He was convicted on 

the basis of the false confession but granted a suspended sentence. It is feared that his 

recent detention may be related to the fact that that he has submitted written testimony 

stating that his prior evidence had been coerced through torture. 

247. Members of Chen Guangcheng’s defence team have also allegedly been 

harassed, including his lawyers Mr Li Jinsong, Mr Li Fangping and Dr Teng Biao. 

The two lawyers were apparently prevented from interviewing witnesses and 

obtaining further evidence for the retrial. On 27 November 2006, as the trial was 

taking place, Dr Teng Biao was reportedly detained for five hours during which he 

was allegedly pushed to the ground by six or seven policemen who held him down 

while they searched him. They also apparently searched his bags and computer and 

confiscated his mobile phone. 

248. Previously it had been reported: on 12 August 2005, Mr Chen Guangcheng 

and his wife Yuan were put under de facto house arrest. On 25 August 2005, Chen 

Guangcheng evaded the police surrounding his village and went to Shanghai and 

Nanjing, then Beijing to seek help from lawyers. On 6 September 2005 he was 

detained at the house of a friend in Bejijing by six men who said they were public 

security bureau (PSB) officers. He was held overnight in a hotel and the head of the 

Linyi PSB and the Deputy Mayor of Linyi came to see him in the morning. The Linyi 

PSB head told Mr Guangcheng he was suspected of violating Article 111 of the CCC 

(illegally providing intelligence to foreign countries), for which the maximum 

sentence is life. However, no one produced an arrest warrant justifying his detention 

and the Linyi PSB men coercively took Chen Guangcheng back home. 

249. Mr Guangcheng was placed under house arrest without any order to that 

effect. On 9 September 2005 his landline and mobile phone services were cut off, and 

his computer was seized. On 23 September 2005, PSB officials searched his house 

without producing a search warrant.


Page 60 

250. On 4 October 2005, Beijing law lecturer Xu Zhiyong and lawyers Li Fangping 

and Li Subin attempted to visit Chen Guangcheng but they were stopped on their way 

to his house. Mr Guangcheng reportedly managed to leave his house and spoke with 

them briefly but was then forcibly returned and beaten by men surrounding his house. 

The lawyers tried to approach Chen Guangcheng’s house but were physically 

prevented. Xu Zhiyong and Li Fangping were also beaten. The three lawyers were 

then taken to Shuanghou Township Police station where they were interrogated until 

the following morning. They were advised that Chen Guangcheng’s case involved 

“State secrets” and were escorted back to Beijing. 

251. On 24 October 2005, two other friends of Chen Guangcheng from Beijing 

went to visit him. As Mr Guangcheng tried to greet them, he was stopped and beaten 

by around 20 men surrounding his house. They beat Chen Guangcheng with fists and 

sticks, knocked him down several times and kicked him. Chen Guangcheng’s request 

to seek medical attention was denied by the men who beat him and surveil his house. 

There were a number of eye witnesses on the scene. The visitors were escorted away. 

252. Chen Guangcheng’s wife, Ms Yuan Weijing, had also been prevented from 

leaving the house. It is also reported that was beaten when she left the house to greet 

visitors on 27 December 2005. 

253. On 30 October 2005, Chen Guangcheng’s lawyer filed a lawsuit on his behalf 

at the People’s Court of Yinan County against two Shuanghou Township officials 

with intentional injury for their involvement in beating him outside his house on 24 

October 2005. The two officials are alleged to head the group of more than 20 men 

who surveill Chen Guangcheng and Yuan Weijing’s house. It is reported that to date 

the court has ignored Mr Guangcheng’s suit. 

254. With respect to the ‘traffic’ incident about for Chen Guangcheng was 

eventually charged, on 11 March 2006, Chen Guangcheng reportedly marched with 

other villagers to protest the beating of a villager. Several dozen police blocked their 

way and surrounded them on national highway 205, thereby causing a traffic 

disruption. Chen Guangcheng was taken by Yinan County police from his house to 

the Yinyan Detention Centre without an arrest warrant. There he was held 

incommunicado for 89 days until 10 June 2006. 

255. According to reports, Chen Guangcheng’s lawyers collected written 

testimonies from village witnesses, who were also detained and then released on bail. 

These villagers were reportedly forced to confess or provide incriminating false 

information against Chen Guangcheng. They have stated that police used various 

torture methods at the detention centre in order to elicit confessions, such as tying 

them up to chairs with chains, depriving them of sleep for up to 15 days and 

withholding food and water. 

256. On 10 June 2006, Chen Guangcheng was formally detained on suspicion for 

“gathering crowds to disrupt traffic” and “intentional destruction of property”. On 21 

June 2006, the Yinan PSB issued an arrest warrant for Chen Guangcheng No. 193 

(2006). On the same day, Chen Guangcheng’s lawyers’s were allowed to visit him for 

the first time in three months. However, when they asked where he had been detained


Page 61 

during those three months, the prison guards interrupted their discussion, preventing 

Mr Guangcheng from answering the question. His family has not been allowed to 

visit. His wife remained under house arrest. 

257. On 22 June 2006, one of Mr Guangcheng’s lawyers, Mr Li Jinsong, was taken 

into police custody for questioning. On 24 June 2006, two lawyers, Li Jinsong and Li 

Subin tried to visit Ms Yuan but were stopped outside their house and beaten by men 

enforcing the residential detention of Ms Yuan Weijing. 

258. On 27 June 2006, lawyers Mr Li Jinsong and Mr Li Subin attempted again to 

see Ms Yuan Weijing (to seek medical parole for Chen Guangcheng), but were also 

harassed by persons in the village, while the police refused to intervene. Around 20 

men turned over their car (while Mr Li Jonsong was still inside) and smashed their 

cameras. Li Jonsong was then taken to the police station for questioning. He resigned 

as Chief Counsel for Mr Chen’s case. 

259. On 18 August 2006, the day before Mr Guangcheng’s trial, his lawyers were 

detained by police. Xu Zhiyong who replaced Li Jinsong was allegedly beaten and 

taken into police custody and not released until 22 hours later after Chen 

Guangcheng’s trial had ended. Similarly, it is alleged that Li Jinsong and another 

lawyer, Mr Zhang Lilhui were detained by police the night before the trial then 

released after the trial without charge. 

260. On 24 August 2006, the Yinan County People’s Court convicted Chen 

Guangcheng under Article 291 of the Chinese Criminal Code (CCC) for “gathering 

crowds to disrupt traffic” and “intentional destruction of property”. Article 291 CCC 

provides that “[w]here people are gathered to disturb order at railway stations or bus 

terminals, ferry landings, civil airports, market places, parks, theatres and cinemas, 

exhibition halls, sports grounds or other public places, or to block traffic or disrupt the 

movement of traffic, or to resist or obstruct public security officials from carrying out 

their duties according to law, if the resulting situation is serious, the ringleaders shall 

be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than five years, criminal 

detention or surveillance.” Chen Guangcheng was sentenced to four years and three 

months imprisonment. 

261. However, the Linyi City Intermediate People’s Court, when reviewing the 

appeal by Chen Guangcheng’s lawyers, overturned this verdict on 30 October 2006 on 

the basis of insufficient evidence for convicting Chen Guangcheng for the offence 

under Article 291 CCC. Instead of declaring Chen Guangcheng to be innocent and 

releasing him, the Intermediate Court referred the case back to the lower court for retrial. 

He continued to be held in detention at the Yinan County Detention Centre. 

262. Grave concerns were expressed that the charges against Chen Guangcheng 

and his wife Yuan Weijing are fabricated and are solely related to their legitimate 

activities in defence of human rights, in particular their defending villagers’ rights. 

Serious concern was expressed that Chen Guangcheng did not receive a fair trial as 

his lawyers were obstructed in all aspects of their work from collecting evidence from 

witnesses to meeting with their client. Concern is also expressed by the allegations his 

lawyers were subjected to physical abuse and detention to prevent them from 

representing their client at trial. Similar concerns were then expressed for the fate of


Page 62 

his wife, Yuan. Further concern was expressed for the physical and psychological 

integrity of any witnesses for the defence as it is feared that they have been subjected 

to acts of torture or brutality by the Yinin County PSB 


263. In a letter dated 14 February 2007, the Government informed that on the 

evening of 5 February 2006, because Chen Guangcheng was unhappy with the work 

of poverty alleviation officials sent to his village, guided by his wife Yuan Weijing 

and others, he stormed into the offices of the Dongshigu village committee in 

Shuanghou township, Yinan county, and started smashing the glass panes in the doors 

and windows. Shortly after this, upon returning to Chen Guangyu’s home in his 

village, he called on Chen Guanghe, Chen Guangdong, Chen Gengjiang and other 

villagers and urged them to go and smash up police cars in service at the Yinan 

county police station and minibuses belonging to the Shuanghou township local 

authority. Chen Guanghe, Chen Guangdong and their associates went round the 

village, shouting and urging people to go and smash up cars, set on local officials, 

chasing them to the municipal offices, and then charged across to the east end of the 

village, bearing wooden clubs, rocks and other implements, and proceeded to smash 

the windows in three police cars belonging to the Shuanghou police station, rolled 

these vehicles over into the roadside ditch, and then set about attacking and beating up 

police officers on duty at the Yinan county public security bureau. 

264. In the evening of 11 March 2006, Chen Guangyu, who had been drinking, 

claimed to have been beaten up in Dongshgu village and burst into the offices of the 

local village committee, where he started smashing office property. Claiming to be 

seeking an explanation for Chen Guangyu’s beating, Chen Guangcheng seized the 

opportunity to gather together Chen Guangyu, Chen Guangjun, Yuan Weijing and 

others and, at 6 p.m. that same evening, they charged over to the Yinghou village 

section of State highway 205, where they proceeded to block the movement of traffic. 

First Chen Guangcheng took up a position in the middle of the road and stopped the 

traffic, then he directed Chen Guangjun, Chen Guangyu and the others to stand and 

shout in the middle of the road and to block the passage of all vehicles. Police officers 

from the public security bureau arrived on the scene to direct the traffic and instructed 

Chen Guangcheng to halt what he was doing, namely, urging a crowd of people to 

block the passage of vehicles. Chen Guangcheng totally ignored their instructions and 

continued calling on Chen Guangjun, Chen Guangyu and the others to block the 

traffic. This had the consequence that more than 290 motor vehicles, including 

ambulances attending to pregnancy and childbirth emergencies, were unable to move 

and that a section of State highway 205 was blocked for a period of three hours. 

265. On 10 June 2006, Chen was arrested, in accordance with the law, by the Yinan 

county public security bureau in Shandong province on suspicion of the offences of 

wilful damage to property and assembling a mob to disrupt the flow of traffic and, on 

21 June, he was taken into custody with the approval of the procuratorial authorities. 

After his case had been referred to the Yinan county people’s court, Chen’s wife 

assigned as his defence counsel the lawyers Li Jinsong, from the Yitong law firm in 

Beijing, and Zhang Lihui, from the Beijing office of the Xingyun law firm, also 

known as the “Astrorhyme” law firm, based in Zhejiang province. Before the 

proceedings opened at first instance, Chen requested the replacement of his defence


Page 63 

lawyers by one Xu Zhiyong, a lecturer at the State Posts and Telecommunications 

College. In accordance with the provisions of the Chinese Code of Criminal 

Procedure, only a lawyer, person recommended by a civic organization or the 

defendant’s or suspect’s work unit and duly nominated by him or her, or the 

defendant’s or suspect’s legal guardian or close relative or friend, may act in his or 

her defence. Xu Zhiyong, however, only had his office pass and personal identity 

document and was unable to produce any official letter of introduction or other 

credentials; the court had no means of verifying his identity or his relationship to 

Chen and for that reason was unable to approve his attorneyship. The court appointed 

Li Jiasheng, a lawyer from the Yangdu law firm in Shandong, and Zhu Baolun, a 

lawyer from the Shandong Tonglixing State law office, as defence counsel for Chen, 

but Chen refused their services. 

266. On 19 August 2006, the Yinan county people’s court, meeting at first instance, 

found Chen guilty of the offence of causing wilful damage to property and sentenced 

him to seven months’ fixed term imprisonment; it also found him guilty of the offence 

of gathering a mob to disrupt the flow of traffic and sentenced him to serve four 

years’ fixed term imprisonment; the court decided that he should serve a combined 

sentence of four years and three months’ fixed term imprisonment. Following his 

sentencing at first instance, Chen refused to accept the court’s verdict and lodged an 

appeal. The Linyi city people’s high court in Shandong province, meeting at second 

instance, found that the court of first instance had restricted Chen’s right to defence 

(the assigned defence counsel had not been accepted by Chen), a factor which might 

have adversely influenced the fairness of the proceedings, and, on 31 October 2006, it 

quashed the original judgement and sent the case back to the court of first instance for 

retrial. The allegations in the letter that we have received that the case was sent back 

to the original court because there had been insufficient evidence to convict Chen 

Guangcheng for the offence of gathering a mob to disrupt the flow of traffic are 

unfounded. 

267. On 27 November 2006, sitting at a reconstituted bench, the Yinan county 

people’s court reopened the case in open proceedings, Chen’s brother attended the 

court in the public gallery, and Chen’s defence was conducted by the lawyers Li 

Fangping from the Beijing Ruifeng law firm and Li Jinsong from the Beijing Yitong 

law firm. During the proceedings, Chen’s rights in litigation were fully upheld: he 

exercised his own rights to defence and the lawyers appointed by him also made 

submissions in his defence. On 1 December 2006 the court ruled at first instance and 

made public its verdict: for the offence of wilful damage to property, it sentenced 

Chen to seven months’ fixed term imprisonment and, for the offence of gathering a 

mob to disrupt the flow of traffic, it sentenced him to four years’ fixed term 

imprisonment, ruling that he should serve a combined term of four years and three 

months. After sentencing at first instance, Chen refused to accept the court’s verdict 

and once again lodged an appeal. The Linyi city intermediate people’s court, after 

hearing the case at second instance, ruled that Chen, as a means of giving vent to 

personal grievances, had caused and incited others to cause wilful damage to property, 

the amount of which was considerable, and that his conduct had infringed public and 

private ownership rights and constituted the offence of wilful damage to property; it 

found further that Chen, with the aim of influencing and exerting pressure on the 

Government, had assembled a mob in order to block the flow of traffic, that the 

circumstances of his offence had been particularly serious, that he had been


Page 64 

responsible for organizing the process of assembling a mob to block traffic, that he 

had directed the operation and had served as the ringleader and that his conduct had 

therefore constituted the offence of assembling a mob for the purpose of disrupting 

traffic. As the original court judgement had been based on clear facts, the conviction 

had been correct, the sentence had been commensurate with the offence and the trial 

proceedings had followed due process, the court dismissed the appeal and ruled that 

the original judgement should stand. This ruling was published on 12 January 2007. 

During the proceedings at second instance, the court also heard the views of Chen’s 

defence counsel and, in accordance with the applicable evidence, found that the facts 

set out in the accusation by the procuratorial authorities and the charges brought 

against the defendant were sound and accordingly handed down the judgement 

referred to above. In their conduct of the proceedings against Chen, the public security 

authorities fully upheld his rights in litigation and those of his family members, acted 

in strict compliance with the law and applied the law in a civilized manner. The 

proceedings in this case were all conducted in accordance with the law, the facts 

underlying the court’s judgement were clear, the evidence was ample and conclusive, 

the sentence was commensurate with the offence and the trial proceedings followed 

due process. 

268. With regard to the allegations in the letter which we have received to the 

effect that, on 30 October 2005, Chen’s lawyers endeavoured to lay charges with the 

Yinan county court against public security officials from Shuanghou township for 

having caused intentional bodily harm to Chen, but that the court ignored this suit, it 

is our understanding that the Yinan county court did indeed receive an application 

from the lawyers to bring charges, but because the lawyers did not have Chen’s power 

of attorney, following an investigation the court determined that the lawyers were not 

authorized to act for the plaintiff and rejected the application. With regard to the 

allegations in the letter to the effect that Li Jinsong and Li Fangping filed an 

administrative and civil action with the Linyi city intermediate people’s court against 

the Linyi city public security bureau (including the bureau chief, Liu Jie) and other 

Government agencies, it is our understanding that the court did indeed receive such an 

application from the lawyers, in December 2006, which had been sent by expedited 

mail service, and that the matter is currently being investigated and no conclusion has 

been reached as yet. The allegations in the letter that public security officials have 

been harassing members of Chen’s family, his lawyers and other persons are entirely 

without substance. 

Urgent appeal 


Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, sent an urgent appeal 

concerning Mr Li Jinsong and Mr Li Fangping, the lawyers of Mr Chen 

Guangcheng, a 34 year old blind self-taught human rights lawyer in Linyi, Shandong 

province. 

270. Mr Li Jinsong and Mr Li Fangping have been the subject of three previous 

communications to your Government, the most recent of which were sent by the 

Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, the Special 


expression, the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, the Special Rapporteur


Page 65 

on violence against women, its causes and consequences and the the Special 

Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders 

dated 21 December 2006. Previous communications were sent on behalf of Mr Li 

Fangping on 7 April 2006 by the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on 

Arbitrary Detention, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and 

lawyers and the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and Special 

Representative on the situation of human rights defenders and on behalf of Mr Li 

Jinsong on 1 December 2006 by the Special Rapporteur on the independence of 

judges and lawyers, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the 

right to freedom of opinion and expression and the Special Representative of the 

Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders. 

271. We are also in receipt of your Government’s reply dated 14 June 2006. While 

we appreciate Your Government’s reply, we regret that it does not contain any 

information regarding Mr Li Fangping. 

272. According to the new information received, on 26 to 27 December 2006, Mr 

Li Fangping and Mr Li Jinsong were travelling on an overnight bus from Beijing to 

Linyi. On the highway in Linyi, Shandong, in the early morning, around 4:30 am, on 

27 December 2006, the bus was stopped by unmarked cars. Unidentified men pulled 

Mr Li Jinsong out off the bus and attacked him. When Mr Li Fangping went off the 

bus trying to stop the attack, the men attacked him as well. 

273. Mr Li Fangping was hit on the head and has received emergency care. Initial 

diagnosis shows that he suffers from a 3cm-long wound on his head, but x-ray does 

not show any fracture on the skull. Mr Li Jinsong has swollen bruises on his left eye 

and left arm. 

274. The attack occurred when the lawyers were on their way to a meeting with Mr 

Chen Guangcheng. This meeting was supposed to take place at the Yinan County 

detention center, where Mr Chen Guangcheng is being detained. 

275. On 8 December 2006, Mr Li Jinsong handed in Mr Chen Guangcheng's appeal 

against the decision rendered by the Yinan County People's Court to the Linyi 

Municipal Court. The Yinan County People's Court reportedly sentenced Mr Chen 

Guangcheng to four years and three months’ imprisonment for “gathering crowds to 

disrupt traffic” and “intentional destruction of property”. Mr Li Jinsong also visited 

Mr Chen Guangcheng at the Yinan detention center that day. In addition, on 6 

December 2006, Mr Li Jinsong and Mr Li Fangping filed administrative and civil 

lawsuits against the Linyi Municipal Public Security Bureau including its chief Mr 

Liu Jie and other Government bodies. These lawsuits were also submitted to the Linyi 

Court on 8 December 2006. 

276. Mr Li Fangping and Mr Li Jinsong were informed by a judge at the Linyi 

Municipal Court handling Mr Cheng Guangcheng's appeal of Mr Chen Guangcheng's 

request for the meeting with his lawyers on 27 December 2006 at the Yinan County 

detention center. It is unclear whether Mr Chen Guangcheng had actually requested 

the meeting with his lawyers.


Page 66 

277. Concern was expressed that the attack against Mr Li Jinsong and Mr Li 

Fangping might be directly related to their legitimate work acting on behalf of Mr 

Chen Guangcheng's appeal. Further concern was expressed that this attack might 

intimidate or deter current or future lawyers from representing clients in cases dealing 

with human rights issues. 

Urgent appeal 


Rapporteur on the adverse effects of the illicit movement and dumping of toxic and 

dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment on human rights, sent an urgent 

appeal concerning Mr Sun Xiaodi, a Gansu-based activist who has spent more than a 

decade petitioning the central authorities over radioactive contamination from the No. 

792 Uranium Mine in the Gannan Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture in Gansu Province. 

On 1 December 2006, Mr Sun Xiaodi had received the Nuclear-Free Future Award 

delivered by a jury of international environmentalists, activists, scholars and 

journalists. 

279. According to the information received, since the receiving of his award, Mr 

Sun Xiaodi’s home had reportedly been raided at night by unknown persons throwing 

stones at his door and windows. It is alleged that Mr Sun Xiaodi reported the attacks 

to local state security officers who did not take any action, instead telling him: 

"You're free to leave if you want to!”. Moreover, since being detained briefly in early 

2006, Mr Sun Xiaodi has reportedly had his water and electricity shut off numerous 

times for no apparent reason. It is further reported that Mr Sun was under residential 

surveillance for an unspecified period. Although he is no longer officially under 

surveillance, in practice each of his movements is allegedly monitored, and if he 

leaves the area for any reason, he is followed and interviewed by security personnel 

upon his return. 

280. Mr Sun Xiaodi has also been unable to obtain official permission to seek 

medical treatment in Beijing for a tumor, a potentially life-threatening health 

condition. It is reported that residents of the area where Mr Sun Xiaodi lives suffer an 

unusually high rate of cancer and other health conditions which may be associated 

with radioactive contamination. Given the limitations of local medical facilities, Mr 

Sun Xiaodo put in a request with local public security officials for permission to go to 

Beijing for further diagnosis and treatment, but after nearly two months he has 

received no reply. Mr Sun Xiaodi is reportedly currently experiencing such physical 

discomfort that he has difficulty sleeping, and in addition to the tumor, he suffers 

from gall stones and coronary heart disease. 

281. Concerns were expressed that the harassment against Mr Sun Xiaodi and the 

absence of response from local authorities to allow him to seek medical treatment in 

Beijing might be in retaliation for his legitimate activities in the defence of human 

rights, i.e. his work denouncing radioactive contamination in Gansu Province, and for 

his acceptance of an international environmental award. 



Page 67 

282. On 26 February 2007, the Government informed that on 29 April 2005, Mr 

Sun was taken into criminal detention, in accordance with the law, by the Gansu 

public security authorities on suspicion of commission of the offence of providing 

State secrets to bodies outside the country. On 4 June, his arrest warrant was approved 

by the procuratorial authorities and, on 19 September, the measure of restraint 

implemented against him was amended to residential surveillance. On 9 March 2003, 

he was released from residential surveillance. At the current time, the public security 

authorities are not applying any restraint measures against Sun. 

Urgent appeal 


Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable 

standard of physical and mental health, sent an urgent appeal concerning restrictions 

on events and human rights defenders promoting human rights in the context of 

HIV/AIDS, and to information concerning access to treatment for haemophiliacs 

infected with HIV through blood products. 

284. According to information received, a number of activists have recently been 

detained in relation to activities to promote human rights in the context of HIV/AIDS. 

On 24 October 2006, three haemophiliacs, Mr. Zhao Chenyang, Mr. Wang Xinyang 

and Mr. Yang Shoufu were reportedly arrested in front of a hospital in Shanghai. The 

following day, the leader of the Chinese Haemophilia Association, Mr. Kong Delin, 

was detained by the Shanghai authorities. Each of these individuals had recently 

raised issues regarding the protection of the human rights of haemophiliacs. While 

Kong Delin was released on 30 November, the remaining three haemophiliacs are 

reportedly still detained, and there has been no update on their condition and 

whereabouts. 

285. Furthermore, on 24 November 2006, Dr Wan Yanhai, founding member and 

director of the Beijing ZHIAIXING Information and Counselling Centre (commonly 

known as the AIZHIXING Institute), an organization which promotes and defends the 

rights of individuals living with HIV/AIDS, was questioned by four individuals 

claiming to be members of the Beijing Public Security Bureau (PSB) in relation to the 

activities of the AIZHIXING Institute, specifically a workshop on “Blood Safety, 

AIDS, Law and Human Rights”, scheduled to take place on 25 November 2006. It is 

reported that Dr Wan was initially interrogated at the AIZHIXING Institute’s office 

where, in the presence of the police, he instructed staff members to cancel the 

workshop. He was then reportedly taken into police custody in an undisclosed 

location. On 27 November 2006, Dr Wan was reportedly released after having 

remained in detention without being charged, for more than 48 hours, in breach of 

both the PRC Public Order Management Punishment Law and the Regulations on 

Procedures of Processing Administrative Detention by Public Security Authorities 

under which an individual cannot be held for more than 8 hours or in more 

complicated cases, 24 hours. The detainee’s family or employer must be informed of 

the reason for the detention and the location where the detainee is held. 

286. Furthermore, it is reported that Dr Wan has been threatened on previous 

occasions in relation to his work on HIV/AIDS and health rights. In August 2002 he 

was reportedly detained for a month on suspicion of “illegally leaking state secrets”


Page 68 

after he electronically distributed a Government document online to the organization’s 

mailing list which dealt with the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Henan Province. The 

AIZHIXING Institute was allegedly prevented from registering as a non-profit non- 

Governmental organization and was required to register as a for-profit business. 

287. We would like to express our concern about the detention of these individuals 

in relation to their activities in defence of human rights, in particular the right to the 

highest attainable standard of health, in the context of HIV/AIDS and haemophilia. 

288. Concern was expressed regarding the information received which alleges that 

haemophiliacs infected with HIV/AIDS and hepatitis do not receive satisfactory 

treatment and compensation. The free medication and treatment made available to 

HIV/AIDS patients by the Government since 2003 is reportedly not suitable to 

haemophiliacs. Haemophiliacs are prone to develop various syndromes such as 

malformation, impaired mobility and bleeding. Free and appropriate treatment for 

these conditions is not available. This means that the burden of those haemophiliacs is 

greater than that of the average person living with HIV/AIDS. 


289. On 9 March 2007, the Government informed that, on 17 August 2002, Mr 

Wan unlawfully gained possession of Government documents containing material 

marked as classified, which he unlawfully transmitted to persons and bodies outside 

the country and placed on foreign websites. In accordance with the Criminal Code, the 

Confidentiality Act, the State Security Act and other relevant laws and regulations of 

the People’s Republic of China, on 25 August 2002 the Beijing city public security 

bureau took Wan into custody for investigation on suspicion of having provided State 

secrets to bodies outside the country. Following the investigation, Mr Wan made a 

candid confession of his unlawful actions, voluntarily acknowledged his guilt and 

rendered positive assistance to the State security authorities in tracing other persons 

who had unlawfully provided secrets to third parties. In view of the good attitude 

shown by Mr Wan in admitting his offence and being prepared freely to confess, 

constituting the legally prescribed preconditions for lenient treatment, the Beijing city 

public security bureau decided that he should receive an admonition. 

290. On 20 September 2002, in accordance with the law, he was instructed to 

provide a written acknowledgement of his repentance and he was duly released from 

custody. Mr Wan was taken into criminal custody not because of any work he was 

performing to protect the rights of persons with HIV and AIDS, but because he had 

violated the country’s law and was suspected of having transmitted State secrets to 

bodies outside the country. Chinese law clearly stipulates that, before an internal 

report of a Government agency is made public, access to the report is controlled in 

accordance with its level of confidentiality. Even if, at some suitable juncture, the 

agency decides to make public the content of the report, it still may not be transmitted 

to bodies outside the country if possession has been gained of it by unlawful means or 

if it has not yet been declassified. According to the provisions of articles 4 and 61 of 

the Chinese Code of Criminal Procedure, the action by the Beijing city public security 

bureau in taking Wan into custody, as prescribed by law, for the purposes of 

investigation was both in accordance with due process and effected within the 

requisite time limits. According to relevant provisions of the Chinese Code of


Page 69 

Criminal Procedure, it is possible to withhold notification to a detainee’s family of his 

or her detention for an interim period and within the time limits set for remand in 

custody (under law, the maximum period for such custody is 30 days), if the 

exigencies of the investigation so dictate or the detainee so requests. In the present 

case, the public security authorities were guided primarily by Wan’s own written 

request that his family should not be notified of the fact of his having been taken into 

custody. 

291. In November 2006, in Beijing, Mr Wan organized the second symposium on 

Blood Safety, AIDS, the Law and Human Rights. On 24 November, when they 

learned of this event, the public security authorities sought further information about 

the symposium from Mr Wan, but did not take any coercive measures against him, 

nor was he taken into custody in an undisclosed location, as alleged. Inquiries with the 

Chinese public security department and other security authorities have established that 

none of the persons mentioned in the communication, namely, Zhao Chenyang, Wang 

Xinyang, Yang Shoufu and Kong Delin, has been arrested or taken into custody. 

Urgent appeal 

292. On 31 January 2007, the Special Representative, together with the 



expression, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief and the Special 

Rapporteur on the question of torture, sent an urgent appeal concerning Mr Jamyang 

Gyatso, a monk at Bora Monastery in Xiahe, Northwest Gansu. Mr Gyatso’s work as 

a human rights defender was carried out by peaceful means. According to information 

received: 

293. On 8 January 2007, Mr Jamyang Gyatso was arrested by plain clothed Chinese 

security officials outside Bora Monastery in Xiahe. Officials at the Monastery later 

discovered that Mr Jamyang Gyatso’s room had been searched and that a bag full of 

religious scriptures, including CD’s, had been removed. Several calls made to the 

publicly listed number for the local police were dismissed as a wrong number, or the 

recipient hung up when enquiries were made as to Mr Jamyang Gyatso’s 

whereabouts. Mr Jamyang Gyatso is currently being detained at an unknown 

location. 

294. Before his arrest Mr Jamyang Gyatso had served as custodian of the gardens 

and forests in Bora Monastery and encouraged local Tibetans to listen to foreign radio 

broadcasts. He had also worked on making copies of a book written by a Tibetan poet, 

Hortsang Jigme, who lives abroad. His work as a human rights defender was carried 

out peacefully in the form of religious teachings and providing information to local 

Tibetans on how to receive images and writings of Tibetans living abroad. 

295. Concerns were expressed that the arrest and detention of Mr Jamyang Gyatso 

might form part of an ongoing campaign against Tibetans advocating for the human 

rights of Tibetans, such as the right to freedom of expression and freedom of religion. 

In view of the reported detention at an undisclosed location, further concern was 

expressed that Mr Jamyang Gyatso might be at the risk of ill-treatment.


Page 70 


296. On 23 March 2007, the Government informed that on 9 January 2007, in 

accordance with the law, Mr Jamyang Gyatso was placed under investigation by the 

State security authorities, on suspicion of having conducted unlawful acts which 

endangered State security. In the course of the investigation, Mr Gyatso confessed in 

full to having committed the offence of incitement to separatism. On 3 February, the 

Chinese security authorities ordered that he be placed under restricted freedom of 

movement, on his own recognizance, pending trial. 

Urgent appeal 



expression and the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, sent an urgent 

appeal concerning information we have received regarding Mr Ablikim Abdiriyim, 

third son of the human rights defender for the minority Uighur community in the 

northwest region of Xinjiang, Ms Rebiya Kadeer. He is currently being detained at 

Tianshan Detention Centre in Urumchi, the capital of the Xinjiang Uighur 

Autonomous Region (XUAR). Mr Abdiriyim was the subject of an urgent appeal sent 

by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of 

opinion and expression and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the 

situation of human rights defenders on 1 July 2005 and of an urgent appeal sent by the 

Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the 

Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights 

defenders on 29 June 2006. 

298. According to the information received, Mr Abdiriyim was arrested on 13 June 

2006, along with his brothers Mr Alim Abduriyim and Mr Kahar Abduriyim. 

Subsequently, Mr Ablikim Abdiriyim was subjected to prolonged interrogations and 

beatings whilst awaiting trial. As a result of this treatment and the detention 

conditions, he is suffering from ill health. However, he is being denied access to 

medical treatment. He has also been prevented from wearing warm clothes provided 

by his family. Furthermore, on 26 November 2006, Mr Ablikim Adiriym was seen 

being carried out of Tianshan Detention Centre on a stretcher. On 28 January 2007, 

Mr Abdiriyim was charged and tried with "subversion of state power", "ethnic 

separatism" and "sending information over the internet to Ms Kadeer". 

299. Before their arrest, on 1 June 2006, both Mr Ablikim Abdureyim and his 

brother Mr Alim Abduriyim had been beaten by police in front of their children and 

their sister. Mr Ablikim Abdureyim was beaten unconscious and later hopitalised. His 

sister was then given a mobile phone by the perpetrators and told to call their mother, 

Rebiya Kadeer, who was in the United States at the time and to inform her about what 

was happening. She was later taken to hospital and treated for symptoms of stress and 

shock. 

300. Since 1999, when Ms Kadeer was first detained as a prisoner of conscience, 

members of her family have been subjected to ongoing harassment and intimidation. 

After her release on medical parole on 17 March 2005, when she left China for the 

USA, the intimidation of Ms Kadeer’s family intensified. Prior to her release she had


Page 71 

been warned that if she engaged with members of the Uighur ethnic community or 

spoke publicly about "sensitive issues" after her release, her "businesses and children 

will be finished". The "Kadeer Working Group", has been established by the 

authorities to handle the state's actions against the family and its businesses. Members 

of the Kadeer family have been informed that they should find new residences as the 

court would be confiscating their properties around or after the Chinese New Year, in 

February 2007, as partial payment for the heavy fines levied on the family business. 

301. On 27 November 2006, the day following Ms Rebiya Kadeer's election as 

president of the World Uyghur Congress (WUC), Mr Alim Abdiriyim and his brother 

Mr Kahar Abdiriyim were subjected to fines amounting to millions of US dollars and 

Mr Alim Abdiriyim was sentenced to seven years of imprisonment on charges of tax 

evasion. 

302. Concern was expressed that the arrest and detention of Mr Ablikim Abdiriyim 

might form part of an ongoing campaign against Ms Rebiya Kadeer and her family 

and were directly linked to Ms Kadeer's high profile work in advocating for the 

human rights of the minority Uighur community in the northwest region of Xinjiang 

in China. Serious concern was also expressed for the physical integrity of Mr 

Abdiriyim. 


303. On 17 July 2007, the Government informed that on 13 June 2006, Ablikim 

Abdureyim was taken into custody. The Urumchi city people’s procurator’s office in 

the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region laid charges against the defendant Ablikim 

Abdureyim for the offence of incitement to separatism and instituted proceedings 

against him with the Urumchi city people’s intermediate court. Following proceedings 

in open court, the Urumchi city people’s intermediate court determined that on 21 

April 2004, in the course of operations by the fire protection department of the 

Tianshan district public security bureau in Urumchi to check and rectify the fire 

protection facilities in the Rebiya Kadeer office building, Ablikim Abdureyim, acting 

under instructions from his mother Rebiya Kadeer, together with Alim Abdureyim, 

Rushangul Kadeer and others, started spreading rumours to the effect that the 

Government was going to prohibit and to close down the businesses operating in the 

Rebiya Kadeer office building, and other such allegations, printed 450 inflammatory 

leaflets, purchased cotton sheeting and started to prepare banners, with the intention 

of stirring people up to march on the Government offices. 

304. On 17 July 2004, Ablikim Abdureyim downloaded from the Internet two 

articles containing separatist material, entitled “Issues to be on guard against and to 

prohibit in jihad” and “Struggle towards independence”, and sent these to the Yahoo 

Uighur language website, requesting the dissemination of the articles on the Internet. 

305. On 15 May 2006, after gleaning from the Internet the news that the United 

States Government had refused to hand over to the Chinese Government five East 

Turkestan terrorists who were Chinese nationals and was preparing to hand them over 

to the Albanian Government, Ablikim Abdureyim posted under that article such 

comments as “Long live East Turkestan! … What we are doing in our own land to 

repel the alien invaders is not terrorism: it is revolution, we are making revolution! ...”


Page 72 

and so forth. On 28 May 2006, acting under instructions from his mother Rebiya 

Kadeer and stepfather, Sidikaji Rozi, and together with Alim Abdureyim, Rushangul 

Kadeer and others, Ablikim Abdureyim concocted an article giving a distorted picture 

of the Chinese human rights system and nationalities policy, entitled: “Are we the 

criminals?” and, by use of the Internet, sent it to Rebiya Kadeer, Sidikaji Rozi and 

others in the United States of America and, after further amending this material, 

prepared to send it to people from Xinjiang who were out of the country at that time. 

The Urumchi city people’s intermediate court found that Ablikim Abdureyim had 

engaged in separatist activities and had violated the unity of the State and that his 

conduct constituted the offence of incitement to separatism. This conduct clearly does 

not fall within the scope of exercise of the freedom of expression and opinion; not 

only is it in breach of criminal law, it also violates the Constitution. 

306. On 17 April 2007, the Urumchi city people’s intermediate level court handed 

down its judgement and published its verdict: pursuant to the provisions of article 

103, paragraph 2, article 56, article 55, paragraph 1, and article 106 of the Criminal 

Code of the People’s Republic of China, Ablikim Abdureyim was sentenced to nine 

years’ fixed term imprisonment and stripped of his political rights for three years, for 

the offence of incitement to separatism. In the course of this case, the courts, in 

accordance with the law, safeguarded Ablikim Abdureyim’s lawful rights. Ablikim 

Abdureyim did not appoint defence counsel, nor did he request the court to assign a 

defence lawyer on his behalf. Article 34 of the Chinese Code of Criminal Procedure 

provides that, “if a defendant is blind, deaf or mute, or is a minor, and has not 

appointed defence counsel,” or “could be sentenced to death, but has not appointed 

defence counsel, the people’s court shall designate a lawyer to undertake the duty of 

providing legal assistance”. As in this case there was no duly appointed defence 

counsel, as stipulated by law, thus during the trial at first instance there was no 

defence counsel participating in the proceedings. During the trial, the defendant 

Ablikim Abdureyim made a full confession to having perpetrated a criminal offence. 

Three days before the trial opened, the court of first instance, as prescribed by law, 

posted an advance announcement of the date and venue of the trial on the bulletin 

board and notified the procuratorial authorities and the defence thereof. Following the 

proceedings at first instance, Ablikim Abdureyim did not lodge an appeal and the 

judgement has since become enforceable. During the period over which Ablikim 

Abdureyim has been held in custody, the Chinese public security authorities have 

conducted all proceedings in strict compliance with the law and there have been no 

instances of intimidation, excessively long custody, use of torture to extract 

confessions or other such practices being used against him. 



Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard 

of living and the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, sent 

a letter of allegations concerning Mr Liu Dehuo, Mr Cui Yongfa, Ms Shao 

Xiaobing, Mr Chen Ningbiao, Mr Chen Zhibiao, Mr Shao Xixia and Mr Guo 

Jianhua, human rights defenders working to protect their land from forced 

annexation.


Page 73 

308. According to the information received, on 10 April 2007, the District Court of 

Sanshan, in Nanhai County, Guangdong province sentenced Mr Dehuo, Mr Ningbiao 

and Mr Zhibiao to four years in prison, Mr Yongfa, Mr Xixia and Mr Jianhua received 

a sentence of three years and six months, whilst Ms Xiaobing was sentenced to two 

years and six months in prison. They we are all charged with illegally obstructing an 

approved construction project in Sanshan District. Upon hearing the verdict all of the 

defendants announced that they would appeal the sentence. 

309. According to reports, the seven defendants were detained by Nanhai police in 

June 2006 and have been in detention since then. They were charged with extortion 

and blackmailing the Yingshun Tank Farm, a gas and petrochemical company, which 

had reportedly taken over 1 hectare of land in Sanshan without official approval for 

use as a construction site. The company was reportedly requested by villagers to hand 

over 50,000-yuan to compensate them or the plan to develop a construction site on the 

land would be exposed. However the company filed a complaint for blackmail 

against the defendants before making any payment. 

310. Mr Liu Dehuo, Ms Shao Xiaobing, Mr Chen Ningbiao, Mr Chen Zhibiao, Mr 

Shao Xixia and Mr Guo Jianhua were tried on 6 December 2006 without legal 

counsel. Mr Yongfa’s wife acted as his legal representative. 

311. Concern was expressed that the aforementioned events might form part of an 

ongoing campaign against human rights defenders in China. Concern was also 

expressed at reports that Mr Liu Dehuo, Mr Cui Yongfa, Ms Shao Xiaobing, Mr Chen 

Ningbiao, Mr Chen Zhibiao, Mr Shao Xixia and Mr Guo Jianhua did not receive a fair 

trial. 


312. In a letter dated 31 July 2007, the Government informed that the case of 

extortion brought against Chen Ningbiao and other persons, numbering seven in all, 

was considered by the Nanhai district people’s court in Foshan city, Guangdong 

province, and on 10 April 2007, in accordance with the law, the court rendered its 

judgement in criminal case Nan Xing Chu Zi (Nanhai criminal court of first instance) 

No. 1913. The court found that the facts of the case were as follows: 

313. At about 6 a.m. on 16 May 2006, Liang Mingji, a driver employed by Fanghua 

elementary school in the Liwan district of Guangzhou city, was driving the school bus 

(registration Guangdong A24695), transporting schoolchildren, when, at the Yidong 

Market intersection in the Sanshan area of Pingzhou, Guacheng neighbourhood, 

Nanhai district, he encountered Chen Ningbiao, sitting on his motorcycle, registration 

Y61470, and blocking the road. Liang sounded his horn and proceeded slowly 

forward, but Chen would not let him through, whereupon Liang brought his vehicle to 

a stop with a space of more than 10 centimetres between it and Chen’s motorcycle. 

Chen picked up a rock and use it to threaten Liang, preventing him from leaving, and, 

claiming that his motorcycle had been struck, demanded that Liang pay him 200 yuan 

compensation. When Liang refused to pay, Chen made telephone calls to Chen 

Zhibiao, Liu Dehuo and other residents of Sanshan village, totalling 10 in all, 

summoning them to his assistance. When Chen Zhibiao and Liu Dehuo arrived at the 

scene, they saw that Chen Ningbiao’s motorcycle had sustained no damage, but the


Page 74 

three men still gathered round the school bus and started making a commotion, 

pushing and shoving Liang Mingji and demanding that he pay the compensation, and 

also blocking the path of the traffic police who had come to investigate the incident. 

Following this, the owners of the bus, Zhao Jiandong and Zhao Jiannan, made their 

way to the scene, to find out what was going on. At this point, Chen Ningbiao let the 

air out of the bus’s tyres, to prevent it from proceeding into Sanshan, and threatened 

to smash it up, demanding 5,000 yuan in damages from the bus owners, while Chen 

Zhibiao and Liu Dehuo noisily repeated his threats. Under duress, Zhao Jiandong and 

Zhao Jiannan agreed to pay 3,500 yuan in compensation. On the suggestion of Chen 

Zhibiao and Liu Dehuo, Chen Ningbiao used a false name, “Chen Yidong”, on the 

receipt slip. 

314. The plot of land situated in the area called “Meichong” in Pingzhounan village 

on Guacheng Street in the Nanhai district of Foshan city had been expropriated as 

State land on December 1997 by the Guangdong province cadastral office and was 

managed by the Nanhai district land resource centre. At a later date, because the land 

was not yet developed, it was allocated to the Nanhai farmer Li Bin for his use. In 

April 2006, Li Bin was granted permission to rent the piece of land to the Shunying 

fuel depot in Nanhai district. The general manager of the depot, Chen Zhujia, hired a 

digger to excavate a pond on the land for use as a fish farm. 

315. At about 9 a.m. on 20 May 2006, Chen Ningbiao, Chen Zhibiao, Cui Yongfa, 

Liu Dehuo, Guo Jianhua and other villagers from Sanshan, numbering more than 10 

in all, gathered at the fuel depot and started creating a disturbance, claiming that 

damage had been caused to the piece of land in “Meichong”, threatening to set fire to 

the digger and demanding compensation from the person who had rented it for the 

excavation of a fish-pond. The defendant Zhao Xiaobing then went up to a motor 

vehicle parked in front of the depot gates and threatened to let the air out of its tyres. 

Chen Zhujia was worried that the villagers might damage the fuel depot, so he 

pretended that the piece of land in question had been leased to someone else and 

undertook to go and call that person. All 10 and more of the defendants, Chen 

Ningbiao, Chen Dehuo, Cui Yongfa, Guo Jianhua and the other villagers from 

Sanshan, forced their way on three separate occasions into the fuel depot and urged 

Chen Zhujia to go and fetch the person who had rented the land for use as a fish-farm. 

316. At about 3 p.m. that afternoon, Chen Zhujia realized that the safety of the fuel 

depot was under threat and was therefore constrained to try and find the depot’s legal 

adviser, Lin Jiaqing, and ask him to masquerade as the person who had rented the land 

for use as a fish farm and to enter into discussions with the villagers. Chen Zhibiao, 

Liu Dehuo, Cui Yongfa, Shao Xixia and other persons, claiming to be acting on 

behalf of the village, went up to Lin Jiaqing, standing on the embankment nearby, and 

demanded payment of damages. Basing the claim on the damage which Lin Jiaqing 

had allegedly caused to the plot of land, Liu Dehuo demanded that he pay 150,000 

yuan in compensation. Chen Zhibiao and the other persons took up the same demands, 

but were met with refusal from Lin Jiaqing. Undeterred, Liu Duhuo, Cui Yongfa and 

the others, arguing that Lin had allegedly signed an “illegal agreement”, demanded 

that he pay them at least 75,000 yuan. In the meantime, Shao Xiaobing and a group of 

villagers dragged over some water pipes which they found lying around in the vicinity 

and used them to block the main gate into the fuel depot. They then continued 

creating a disturbance, shouting and threatening. Chen Ningbiao and Guo Jianhua


Page 75 

then joined the other villagers on the embankment, demanding payment of damages. 

Chen Zhujia realized what consequences all this might have for the safety of the fuel 

depot and its operation and, under duress, suggested to Lin Jiaqing that he pay 50,000 

yuan in compensation. After Chen Zhibiao and the other persons had received the 

payment of 50,000 yuan, the villagers present at the scene were each paid out an 

amount of 200 yuan by Shao Xixia. 

317. It has been ascertained in addition that, before this piece of land in 

“Meichong” was expropriated, it had been the property of the Nanshan village 

collective and none of the seven defendants belong to that village collective. 

318. The Nanhai district people’s court in Foshan city, Guangzhou province, 

determined that Chen Ningbiao, Chen Zhibiao and Liu Dehuo had engaged in two 

acts of extortion, to an amount of 53,500 yuan; that the defendants Cui Yongfa, Shao 

Xixia, Guo Jianhua and Shao Xiaobing had engaged in one act of extortion, to an 

amount of 50,000 yuan, and that the amounts obtained by extortion were substantial. 

In the course of jointly committing the offence of extorting money from the Shunying 

fuel depot, Chen Ningbiao, Chen Zhibiao, Liu Dehuo, Cui Yongfa, Shao Xixia and 

Shao Jianhua had played the main role and were therefore the primary culprits: they 

should be punished in a manner commensurate with the commission of the full 

offence; Shao Xiaobing had played a secondary role and was an accessory to the 

offence: in accordance with the law she should receive a lighter punishment. In 

accordance with the provisions of article 274, article 26, paragraphs 1, 3 and 4, and 

article 27 of the Criminal Code of the People’s Republic of China, for the offence of 

extortion the defendants Chen Ningbiao, Chen Zhibiao and Liu Dehuo were sentenced 

to four years’ fixed-term imprisonment, the defendants Cui Yongfa, Shao Xixia and 

Shao Jianhua were sentenced to three years’ and six months’ fixed-term imprisonment 

and the defendant Shao Xiaobing received a sentence of two years’ and six months’ 

fixed-term imprisonment. 

319. In the course of these proceedings, the court, acting in accordance with the 

law, informed the defendants of their right to receive the services of court-assigned 

defence lawyers or to appoint their own defence lawyers. Of the seven defendants in 

the case, Liu Dehuo, Cui Yongfa and Shao Xiaobing separately appointed defence 

lawyers (Cui Yongfa appointed two defence lawyers). After being notified by the 

court as required by law, Zhang Jiankang and Wang Quanzhang, the lawyers 

appointed by Liu Dehuo and Cui Yongfa, respectively, still failed to appear in court. 

Huang Liuxiao, the other lawyer appointed by Cui Yongfa, and Zhu Daohua, the 

lawyer appointed by Shao Xiaobing, did appear in court and participated in the 

proceedings. The other defendants did not appoint their own defence lawyers but, in 

court, in accordance with the law, all fully exercised their right to conduct their own 

defence. Article 34 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the People’s Republic of 

China stipulates as follows: “In the event that the defendant is blind, deaf or mute or is 

a minor, and has not appointed a defence lawyer” or “may incur the death penalty and 

has not appointed a defence lawyer, the people’s court shall designate a lawyer, who 

shall be duty-bound to provide legal assistance in that person’s defence”. The abovenamed 

defendants did not fall into the categories specified as necessitating the 

appointment or assignment by the court of defence lawyers.


Page 76 

320. After the Nanhai district people’s court in Foshan city, Guangdong province, 

had passed sentence at first instance, the seven defendants lodged appeals within the 

time limit set by law. The case is currently being heard at second instance by Foshan 

city people’s intermediate court in Guangdong province. 


321. On 27 April 2007, the Special Representative sent a letter of allegations 

concerning Mr Ablikim Abdiriyim, third son of the human rights defender for the 

minority Uighur community in the northwest region of Xinjiang, Ms Rebiya Kadeer. 

Mr Abdiriyim was the subject of an urgent appeal sent by the Special Rapporteur on 

the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and 

the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights 

defenders on 1 July 2005 and of an urgent appeal sent by the Chairperson-Rapporteur 

of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Special Representative of the 

Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders on 29 June 2006. Mr 

Abdiriyim was also the subject of an urgent appeal sent by the on 13 March 2007 by 

the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of 

opinion and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of 

human rights defenders. 

322. According to information received, on 17 April 2007, the Intermediate 

People’s Court in Urmchi, capital of Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, sentenced 

Mr Abdiriyim to nine years in prison on charges of ‘instigating and engaging in 

secessionist activities’, which he allegedly pleaded guilty to during the trial. The 

court also issued a ruling which will deny Mr Abdiriyim all political rights for a 

period of three years when he is released from prison. In practice such a decision 

could effectively subject Mr Abdiriyim to house arrest. The courts verdict also 

claimed that Mr Abdiriyim had been responsible for requesting that two articles, 

entitled ‘Issues to be aware of and prohibited in Jihad’ and ‘Struggle towards 

independence’ be published on the Uighur-language Yahoo website. Reports claim 

however that such a website does not exist. Mr Abdiriyim was also charged with 

attempting to distribute materials ‘in an attempt to stir up public protest against the 

local Government’. In addition, at the beginning of April the authorities initiated a 

process to assess and liquidate the Kadeer family business. Mr Abdiriyim was 

reportedly denied access to a lawyer and did not have legal representation during the 

trial. 

323. Mr Abdiriyim was arrested on 13 June 2006, along with his brothers Mr Alim 

Abduriyim and Mr Kahar Abduriyim. Mr Ablikim Abdiriyim was allegedly subjected 

to prolonged interrogations and beatings whilst awaiting trial. As a result of this 

treatment and the detention conditions, he is suffering from ill health. However, he is 

being denied access to medical treatment. He has also been prevented from wearing 

warm clothes provided by his family. Furthermore, on 26 November 2006, Mr 

Ablikim Adiriym was seen being carried out of Tianshan Detention Centre on a 

stretcher. He is currently being detained at Tianshan Detention Centre in Urumchi, the 

capital of the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region (XUAR). 

324. Concern was expressed that the arrest and detention of Mr Ablikim Abdiriyim 

was directly related to his legitimate and peaceful work in advocating for the human


Page 77 

rights of the minority Uighur community in the northwest region of Xinjiang in 

China, and might form part of an ongoing campaign against the Kadeer family, in 

particular his mother Ms Rebiya Kadeer. Grave concern was expressed for the 

physical and psychological integrity of Mr Abdiriyim. 




of living, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers and the 

Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, sent a letter of allegations concerning 

Ms Mao Hengfeng, a well-known petitioner against family planning policies and 

forced evictions in Shanghai since 1989. Ms Hengfeng was the subject of a letter of 

allegations sent by the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture together with the 

Special Representative to the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights 

defenders on 9 June 2005. 

326. According to information received, on 16 April 2007, Ms Hengfeng was 

informed by the Municipal No.2 Intermediate People’s Court in Shanghai that her 

original sentence of two and half years was to be upheld. The court session lasted 10 

minutes during which time the judgment was read out. Neither Ms Hengfeng nor her 

lawyer was authorized to present an argument in her defence and only family 

members were allowed to attend the hearing. 

327. On 12 January 2007, Ms Hengfeng was sentenced to two and a half years in 

prison by Shanghai Yangpu District Court for allegedly damaging hotel property 

whilst in detention by Shanghai’s Yangpu Public Security Bureau at a guest house in 

Beijing. It was alleged that Ms Hengfeng had broken two table lamps in the 

guesthouse and she was subsequently arrested on 30 June 2006 on charges of 

‘intentionally destroying property’. During the trial Ms Hengfeng was prevented by 

prison guards, from verbally protesting against the mistreatment and abuse which she 

was subjected to whilst in detention. 

328. According to reports, prior to her trial on 16 April Ms Hengfeng was detained 

in a small cell in which the floor was covered with excrement with the smell 

preventing her from sleeping. Reports also claim that prison guards had covered the 

only window in the cell. Ms Hengfeng’s current conditions of detention are unknown. 

329. Concerns were expressed that the arrest and detention of Ms Hengfeng were 

directly related to her work in defence of human rights in China and might form part 

of an ongoing campaign against human rights defenders in the country. Further 

concern was expressed at reports that Ms Hengfeng is being detained in poor 

conditions which might prove detrimental to her health. 


330. On 31 May 2007, the Special Representative sent a letter of allegations 

concerning Mr Hu Jia, a pro-democracy campaigner and HIV-Aids activist. Mr Jia is 

co-founder of the Beijing Aizhixing Institute of Health Education and an outspoken


Page 78 

advocate for people with HIV/AIDS; he has publicly criticised the authorities over 

their treatment of people with AIDS and other issues. According to reports received: 

331. On 18 May 2007, Mr Jia was detained by police as he prepared to take a flight 

from Hong Kong to Europe. He was informed by domestic security officials at the 

airport that he was forbidden from leaving the country. Mr Jia and his wife were then 

interrogated by officials and told they were suspected of threatening state security. 

Mr Jia had been invited by organisations in several European countries to speak about 

human rights violations in China. Reports claim that Mr Jia’s home is currently under 

police surveillance. 

332. According to reports, in 2006 Mr Jia was kept under house arrest for a period 

of 168 days and was allegedly interrogated for 41 days. In 2004, Mr Jia was detained 

as he attempted to lay a wreath on Tiananmen square in memory of the victims of the 

1989 massacre. 

333. Concern was expressed that the decision by the Chinese authorities to prevent 

Mr Jai from travelling abroad might form part of an ongoing campaign against human 

rights defenders in China. 

Urgent appeal 

334. On 27 June 2007, the Special Representative, together with the Special 

Rapporteur on the question of torture and the Special Rapporteur on the independence 

of judges and lawyers sent an urgent appeal concerning Mr Chen Guangcheng, a 

human rights lawyer who was sentenced to four years and three months of 

imprisonment after taking legal action against Linyi city authorities for their practice 

of forcing women to have abortions in order to meet the national birth quotas. Mr 

Chen Guangcheng has previously been the subject of the following communications 

sent by Special Procedures: a joint urgent appeal sent on 19 September 2005 by the 

Chairperson of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Special Representative 

of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders, the Special 

Rapporteur on Violence against Women, its causes and consequences and the Special 


expression, a joint allegations letter sent on 31 October 2005 by the Special 

Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders, 

the Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, its causes and consequences and 

the Special Rapporteur on Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or 

punishment, a joint urgent appeal sent by the Chairperson of the Working Group on 

Arbitrary Detention, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the 

situation of human rights defenders, the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of 

judges and lawyers and the Special Rapporteur on Torture and other cruel, inhuman or 

degrading treatment or punishment on 7 April 2006, a joint urgent appeal by the 


and expression, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation 

of human rights defenders, the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of judges and 

lawyers and the Special Rapporteur on Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading 

treatment or punishment sent on 14 July 2006 and a joint urgent appeal by the Special 


expression, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of


Page 79 

human rights defenders, the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of judges and 

lawyers, and the Special Rapporteur on Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading 

treatment or punishment and the Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, its 

causes and consequences sent on 21 December 2006. 

335. According to the information received, on 16 June 2007, several fellow 

prisoners of Mr Chen Guangcheng were ordered by the prison guards to beat him. As 

a result of the beatings, one of his ribs broke and he suffered from severe pain in the 

area of his thorax. However, he was denied medical treatment. That same day, he 

began a hunger strike to protest against the beatings and the lack of medical treatment. 

336. The beatings presumably aimed at punishing him for having requested to file 

an appeal with the provincial high court. Being blind from birth, Mr Chen 

Guangcheng needs the assistance of a lawyer to draft an appeal, but is now unable to 

do so, since he is has not been allowed to meet with him for more than 30 minutes per 

month. 

337. Serious concern was expressed with regard to the alleged denial of medical 

treatment and the insufficient amount of time Mr Chen Guangcheng is allowed to 

meet with his legal counsel. Concern was also expressed in relation to the unfair trial 

that led to his prison sentence, allegedly for his peaceful activities in defence of 

human rights. 

Urgent appeal 



of living, the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, the Special Rapporteur on 

violence against women, sent an urgent appeal concerning Ms Mao Hengfeng, a 

well-known petitioner against family planning policies and forced evictions in 

Shanghai since 1989. Ms Mao Hengfeng was the subject of joint appeals sent on 10 

May 2007, 1 February 2006 and on 5 January 2006. We note Government responses 

received in this regard, including those dated 18 April and 14 June 2006. 

339. According to recent information received, on 15 May 2007 at approximately 

6am, Ms Mao Hengfeng was transferred from the police detention centre to prison. 

She was given inadequate clothing which left her virtually naked. When protesting at 

this treatment, she was beaten by police officers and placed in solitary confinement 

upon her arrival at the prison. Ms Mao Hengfeng embarked upon a hunger strike as a 

gesture of protest against her situation. She was subsequently subjected to forced 

feeding on three occasions by prison guards who tied her hands and forced a tube 

down her throat. She was placed under constant surveillance by inmates that had been 

assigned the task by prison guards. These prisoners seem to have also been ordered to 

harass Ms Mao Hengfeng and they proceeded to verbally abuse her. 

340. Ms Mao Hengfeng is currently in poor health, suffering from high blood 

pressure and arthritis. These conditions are further aggravated by her inadequate 

living conditions. She has neither been provided with chairs, nor a bed. As such, she 

has no choice but to lie on the floor, often in cold and damp conditions. Ms Mao 

Hengfeng was visited by her husband on 28 June 2007. At this time her husband


Page 80 

reported her ill-treatment and requested that the prison officials grant Ms Mao 

Hengfeng's lawyers access to visit her in order to prepare for her upcoming appeal. 

341. Serious concern was expressed at reports that Ms Hengfeng is being detained 

in poor conditions which may prove detrimental to her health. Further concern was 

expressed that the reported ill-treatment of Ms Mao Hengfeng in prison might be 

directly related to her peaceful work in defence of human rights in China, and might 

form part of a pattern of harassment of human rights defenders in the country. 


342. On 15 August 2007, the Government informed that on 16 April 2007 Ms Mao 

Hengfeng was sentenced by the Yangpu district people’s court to two years and six 

months’ fixed-term imprisonment for the offence of causing malicious damage to 

property, to run from 30 May 2006 to 29 November 2008. She is currently serving her 

sentence in the Shanghai women’s prison. Upon being admitted to prison, Mao 

underwent a physical examination which showed that, apart from an inclination to 

high blood pressure, all other indications were within the normal range. Mao is 

currently sharing a cell with two other women prisoners, she has not been sent to the 

punishment cells nor has she been placed in solitary confinement. Her eating and 

sleeping arrangements are normal. With regard to the issue of appeal, to date Mao has 

not submitted any written application, nor has she applied to see her lawyer, so there 

is no case here of the prison not allowing her to lodge an appeal. The prison officers, 

acting in accordance with the law, treat the prisoners in a civilized manner. Mao 

enjoys her rights on the same footing as the other prisoners, including the right to 

health and the right to appeal. The allegation that Mao has been subjected to illtreatment 

is not supported by the facts. 

Urgent appeal 



of living and the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, sent an urgent appeal 

concerning Mr Zheng Enchong and his wife Mrs Jiang Meili. Mr Zheng Enchong is 

a human rights lawyer in Shanghai. Mr Enchong was sentenced to three years’ 

imprisonment on charges of ‘illegally providing state secrets overseas’. He was 

released on 5 June 2006 and has been under house arrest and subject to police 

surveillance ever since. 

344. On 5 July 2007, Mr Enchong signed a petition, along with 100 other evicted 

house-owners from the neighbourhood of Dongbakuai. The petition called for a public 

trial of Mr Zhou Zhengyi, the former president of Nongkai, a property development 

firm in Shanghai, who has been detained and faces charges of fraud and bribery. The 

petition also called for evictees to be allowed to attend the trial and testify as affected 

parties. Mr Enchong was the subject of two communications sent respectively by the 

Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Special 


expression and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of 

human rights defenders on 16 March 2004 and by the Special Rapporteur on the


Page 81 

independence of judges and lawyers and Special Representative of the Secretary- 

General on the situation of human rights defenders on 20 July 2006. 

345. According to information received, on 24 July 2007 at approximately 7.30am, 

Mr Zheng Enchong went to the Shanghai Municipal Higher People’s Court with his 

wife, Mrs Jiang Meili, in order to register to attend the trial of Mr Zhou Zhenghyi, to 

be held at the end of July 2007. 

346. On their arrival at the courthouse Mr Zheng Enchong and Mrs Jiang Meili 

were reportedly surrounded by six police officers, namely Mr Tang Wei, Mr Wu 

Yanan, Mr Qian Guoqiang, Mr Wang Zhenlin, Mr Li Wei and Mr Feng Jianping. Mr 

Tang Wei and Mr Wu Yanan, with the help of the other officers, then proceeded to 

knock Mr Enchong to the ground. They dragged Mr Enchong along the ground for a 

distance of almost 200m while they subjected him to an assault which lasted for an 

hour. Mr Enchong sustained injuries to his left hand in the course of the assault which 

was observed by hundreds of residents in the vicinity. 

347. The police officers then allegedly forced Mr Zheng Enchong and Mrs Jiang 

Meili into a taxi. They went directly to the home of Ms Jiang Zhongli, the sister of 

Mrs Jiang Meili, on the Baochang Road. Here they were met by five police vehicles 

and more than 30 police officers who prevented them from leaving. That same day, at 

approximately 9.00am, more than 50 displaced residents from the neighborhood of 

Dongbakuai presented themselves at the Shanghai Municipal Higher People’s Court 

in order to register to attend the trial of Mr Zhou Zhenghyi. Security guards and police 

officers prevented them from entering the building. 

348. Concern was expressed that the aforementioned alleged harassment of Mr 

Zheng Enchong might be as a result of his peaceful and legitimate human rights 

activities as a human rights lawyer in Shanghai. Further concern was expressed for the 

physical and psychological integrity of Mr Zheng Enchong and Mrs Jiang Meili. 


349. In a letter dated 18 December 2007, the Government informed that in March 

2001, because Mr Zheng Enchong had conducted activities in breach of relevant 

provisions of the Lawyers’ Act of the People’s Republic of China, the Shanghai 

Judicial Bureau decided to revoke his licence. On 28 October 2003, for the offence of 

unlawfully providing State secrets to bodies or persons outside the country, he was 

sentenced by the Shanghai intermediate people’s court No. 2 to three years’ fixedterm 

imprisonment (to run from 6 June 2003 to 5 June 2006) and stripped of his 

political rights for one year. Zheng refused to accept the verdict and lodged an appeal. 

On 18 December 2003, after hearing the case at second instance, the Shanghai 

people’s high court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original verdict. On 5 June 

2006, Zheng was released from custody on completion of his sentence (his sentence 

of one year’s deprivation of his political rights expired on 5 June 2007). 

350. Following his release from custody, Zheng was emphatically not placed under 

house arrest. If he had been placed under house arrest, how could he have attended 

proceedings in court? The two statements are mutually contradictory. Second, the 

allegations in the letter that “on 24 July 2007 at approximately 7.30 a.m., Mr Zheng


Page 82 

Enchong went to the Shanghai Municipal Higher People’s Court …, in order to 

register to attend the trial of Mr. Zhou Zhengyi”, that he was dragged 200 metres 

along the ground by Tang Wei and five other police officers, and subjected to an 

assault which lasted for one hour and that he was then forced to leave, and that, on 

that same day, at approximately 9 a.m., “more than 50 displaced residents … 

presented themselves … in order to attend the trial of Mr. Zhou Zhengyi” but that 

“security guards and police officers prevented them from entering the building” are 

simply not true. Enquiries have shown that the second division of the Shanghai city 

people’s procurator’s office only filed charges against Zhou Zhengyi with the 

Shanghai people’s intermediate court on 17 August 2007: thus it was not possible for 

anyone to have attended the trial at the Shanghai people’s high court on 24 July. The 

six persons named in the letter are not to be found among the judicial police of the 

Shanghai people’s high court. At about 9 a.m. on 24 July, dozens of people claiming 

to be forcibly relocated residents from “Dongbakuai” (“Lot East 8”) demanded to 

attend the trial of Zhou Zhengyi. But following a perusal of the schedule of court 

hearings, and confirmation and notification that the Shanghai people’s high court was 

not holding any hearings that day, the people that had gathered promptly withdrew, no 

one tried to gain entry to the court and the security guards and police did not need to 

take any preventive action. 




expression, sent a letter of allegations concerning Melanie Raoul, Sam Price, Leslie 

Kaup, Nupur Modi, Duane Martinez, Pete Speller, Lhadon Tethong and Paul 

Golding, human rights activists. According to the information received, Melanie 

Raoul, Sam Price, Leslie Kaup, Nupur Modi, Duane Martinez and Pete Speller, 

citizens of Canada, the United State and the United Kindom, were arrested by the 

Chinese Police on 7 August 2007 during a demonstration at the Great Wall of China. 

Reportedly, the protesters displayed banners calling for Tibet’s independence. On a 

related manifestation, Lhadon Tethong, Executive-Director of the organization 

Students for a Free Tibet, and Paul Golding were detained in Beijing on the same day. 

Allegedly, they had been manifesting for the independence of Tibet during the 

celebrations on the countdown to the Olympic Games in Beijing. According to the 

information received, the eight human rights activists were released from prison on 8 

August 2007 and deported to Hong Kong on the same day. 

352. Concern was expressed that the arrest of the eight aforementioned persons was 

related to their peaceful and legitimate activities in defence of human rights, in 

particular the right of Tibet to self-determination. 


353. At the time this report was finalized, the reply of the Government of 20 

November 2007 had not been translated. 

Urgent appeal


Page 83 

354. On 23 August 2007, the Special Representative, together with the special 

Rapporteur on the adverse effects of the illicit movement and dumping of toxic and 

dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment on human rights, sent an urgent 

appeal concerning Mr Wu Lihong, an environmental activist and human rights 

defender from the Zhoutie Township, Yixing City, in the province of Jiangsu. Mr Wu 

Lihong regularly reports to the authorities cases of environmental violations in the 

form of illegal dumping of industrial waste into the Tai Hu (Tai Lake). According to 

information received: 

355. On 10 August 2007, the Yixing City Court sentenced Mr Wu Lihong to three 

years’ imprisonment and a fine of 500 RMB for the crime of extortion. Mr Wu 

Lihong has reportedly stated his intention to appeal this sentence. It is alleged that 

only four of Mr Wu Lihong’s family members were allowed entry to the courtroom to 

be present at the trial, while other supporters and members of the press were denied 

entry. 

356. Mr Wu Lihong was arrested on 13 April 2007 by the Yixing City police on 

suspicion of extortion. He was transferred to a detention centre in Yixing where he 

was allegedly subject to violent treatment, resulting in injury. His lawyer requested 

that a physical examination be conducted by a doctor. It is as yet unconfirmed 

whether or not an examination was carried out. 

357. Concern was expressed that the aforementioned sentence imposed upon Mr 

Wu Lihong might be related to his peaceful and legitimate activities in the defence of 

human rights, in particular his work to report environmental violations in the form of 

illegal dumping of industrial waste. Further concern was expressed for the physical 

and psychological integrity of Mr Wu Lihong while imprisoned. 







expression, sent a letter of allegations concerning the Asia Catalyst Group, a New 

York-based non-Governmental organisation collaborating with local partners to foster 

respect for human rights and social justice; the China Orchid AIDS Project (COAP), a 

Beijing-based support group for those suffering from HIV/ AIDS as well as the 

families and orphans of those killed by HIV/ AIDS; human rights defender Mr Zhu 

Zhaowu, director of the COAP’s office in Kaifeng in Henan province; Yirenping, an 

Information and Counselling Centre for those suffering from HIV/AIDS based in 

Beijing; the Alliance of People Living with HIV/AIDS; CAP+, a network of 

organisations of people living with HIV, and Mr Duan Jun, Head of the Henan 

Zhumadian PLWHA Self-Help Group, 

360. According to information received, Chinese authorities allegedly called for the 

cancellation of a meeting organised by the Asia Catalyst Group and the China Orchid


Page 84 

AIDS Project (COAP) to be held at the beginning of August 2007 in the city of 

Guangzhou in Guangdong province. The meeting was to involve a discussion with 

Chinese and foreign experts on how people living with HIV can best exercise their 

legal rights. The authorities reportedly said that they considered such issues to be too 

sensitive for public discussion. 

361. In addition, on 15 August 2007, officers of the Kaifeng Public Security 

Bureau ordered the temporary closure for two provincial offices of COAP in Henan 

province. On 16 August 2007, Mr Zhu Zhaowu, the director of COAP’s Kaifeng 

office, was allegedly instructed to clear out the office by midday of the following day 

or risk his own personal safety. The authorities in Henan are reportedly acting as an 

obstacle to Mr Zhu Zhaowu’s attempts to secure alternative premises for COAP 

offices. 

362. Yirenping was reportedly informed by local authorities that it could not hold a 

meeting planned for 4 August 2007 in Guangzhou. A meeting organised by the China 

Alliance of People Living with HIV/ AIDS to be held on August 19-20 2007 in 

Kaifeng was also cancelled by members of Kaifeng police, on the grounds that the 

organisation was unregistered and therefore illegal. 

363. Similarly, CAP+ planned to hold a training in August for organisations of 

people living with HIV in Henan in collaboration with among others Henan 

Zhumadian PLWHA Self-Help Group. The organisations were given the permission 

to organise the meeting by the health authorities. However, the organisations were 

contacted by the Bureau of Public Security and summoned to cancel the meeting. As a 

result, Mr Duan Jun, who was supposed to participate in the training, is reportedly 

under constant police surveillance. 

364. Concern was expressed that the aforementioned incidents might have been 

directly related to the peaceful and legitimate activities carried out by the 

aforementioned organisations in the defence of human rights of people living with 

HIV and their relatives. 




Urgent appeal 



expression, sent a letter of allegations concerning Mr. Lu Gengsong, a well-known 

writer who has published several pro-democracy articles on the internet and books on 

political reform. 

367. According to the information received, on 24 August 2007, Mr. Lu was 

arrested at his home by members of the security forces. These agents also carried out 

a search in Mr. Lu’s home and questioned his family. Mr. Lu was taken to the 

Detention Center of the Hangzhou Public Security Bureau’s branch in the West Lake


Page 85 

district. The charges against him were “inciting subversion of state power” and 

“illegal possession of state secrets”. According to reports, the police informed Mr. 

Lu’s family that the main reason for his detention had been his articles attacking the 

Chinese Communist Party. 

368. Concern was expressed that the arrest and detention of Mr. Lu may be related 

to his peaceful work in defence of human rights in China. 


369. In a letter dated 20 November 2007, the Chinese government responded to the 

above communication. The letter stated that Mr Lu had, on many occasions, published 

articles on websites outside the country containing incitements to the subversion of 

State power and disclosing details of the situation regarding the armed forces, some of 

the content of which, following appraisal by the Official Secrets Office, had been 

deemd to be confidential material 

370. On 24 August 2007, the Xihu (West Lake) public security sub-office of the 

Hangzhou public security bureau, acting in accordance with the law, remanded Mr Lu 

in custody on suspicion of the offences of incitement to the subversion of State power 

and the illegal possession of State secret. On 22 September, the Hangzhou city public 

security bureau applied to the procuratorial authorities for Lu Gengsong to be placed 

in detention. His case was being investigated at time of writing 

Urgent appeal 

371. On 5 September 2007, the Special Representative, together with the 



and expression, sent an urgent appeal concerning the situation of Mr Yang Chunlin, a 

resident of Jiamusi City, Heilongjiang Province. 

372. According to the information received, on 6 July 2007, Mr Yang was arrested, 

and on 3 August was charged with "subversion of state power" following an apparent 

order of the Ministry of Public Security. Mr Yang is reportedly detained at Heitong 

Detention Center in Heilongjiang with no access to his family. It is not clear whether 

he has access to a lawyer. 

373. It is believed that Mr Yang was arrested because of his campaign in collecting 

signatures to support an open letter entitled “We want human rights, not the 

Olympics” in villages where he had been helping farmers who lost their land to seek 

legal redress. Mr Yang had reportedly collected more than 10,000 signatures, mostly 

by Heilongjiang farmers who reportedly were forcedly evicted and sympathized with 

victims of land loss in urban areas where officials allegedly evicted them for hosting 

the Olympics without providing adequate compensation. 

374. Concern was expressed that the arrest and detention of Mr Yang under the 

charge of “subversion of state power” might be related to his peaceful work in 

defence of human rights, in particular housing rights of affected populations in China.


Page 86 


375. In a letter dated 20 November 2007, the Government informed that Mr Yang 

Chunlin, was taken into criminal detention on 6 July 2007 by the Jiamusi public 

security authorities, in accordance with the law, on suspicion of the offence of 

fomenting subversion of State political power and on 12 August his arrest was 

approved by the procuratorial authorities. His case is currently under consideration. 

Urgent appeal 

376. On 28 September 2007, the Special Representative, together with the Special 


of judges and lawyers, sent an urgent appeal concerning Mr. Gao Zhisheng, a human 

rights lawyer. Mr. Gao was the subject of a joint allegations letter sent by the Special 


promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the 

Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights 

defenders on 1st December 2006; a joint urgent appeal sent by the Chairperson- 

Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Special Rapporteur on 

the independence of judges and lawyers, the Special Rapporteur on the question of 

torture, the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and 


of human rights defenders on 30 November 2006; a joint allegation letter sent by the 

Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, the Special 

Rapporteur on the question of torture and the Special Representative of the Secretary- 

General on the situation of human rights defenders on 21 December 2005 and a joint 

urgent appeal sent by the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and 

lawyers and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of 

human rights defenders on 25 November 2005. According to the information 

received: 

377. On 22 September 2007, Mr. Gao Zhisheng was taken from his apartment in 

Beijing by plain-clothes policemen, and his whereabouts remain unknown as of today. 

Reportedly, Mr. Gao’s arrest is directly related to an open letter he sent to the United 

States Congress last week expressing his deep concerns over the worsening 

deterioration of human rights in China ahead of the 2008 Beijing Olympics. It has also 

been reported that prior to that letter, the police had threatened Mr. Gao with jail if he 

released any more open letters or statements. 

378. Concern was expressed that the arrest of Mr. Gao might be related to his 

peaceful activities in defence of human rights. Further concern was expressed for his 

physical and mental integrity in view of his incommunicado detention. 



December 2007 had not been translated. 

Urgent appeal


Page 87 


Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, sent an urgent appeal 

concerning Mr Li Heping, a human rights lawyer practicing at the Gaobo Longhua 

law firm in Beijing. 

381. According to information received, on 29 September 2007, at approximately 

5.30pm, Mr Li was abducted in the car park of the offices of his law firm by twelve 

men in civilian clothes. The men allegedly put a hood over his head and forced him 

into an unregistered car. After about an hour’s drive, the men stopped at an unknown 

location and took Mr Li to a basement where they beat him and tortured him using 

electric rods. While torturing Mr. Li the men demanded that he promise to stop 

practising law and leave Beijing. If he refused, they threatened him with systematic 

attacks. At approximately midnight, they drove Mr. Li to the woods at Xiao Tang 

mountain in the suburbs of Beijing and left him there. Mr Li managed to get a taxi to 

the Beijing hospital where he was treated for his injuries. 

382. Days prior to his abduction and assault, Mr Li was reportedly approached by 

policemen from the National Security Protection Unit of the Beijing Public Security 

Bureau and instructed that he and his family were to leave Beijing. When Mr Li 

refused to leave the city, the policemen proceeded to follow him, keeping him under 

constant surveillance. According to Mr Li, the policemen who followed him 

witnessed his abduction as he had just talked to them. 

383. Upon his return home, Mr Li discovered that his lawyer’s identification card 

as well as some other personal belongings had been taken. In addition, all of the files 

saved on his computer had been erased. 

384. Concern was expressed that the aforementioned abduction and assault of Mr 

Li might be related to his peaceful human rights activities, in particular his work as a 

human rights lawyer to defend those suffering human rights violations in China. 

Further concern was expressed for the physical and psychological integrity of Mr Li 

and his family. 

Urgent appeal 



expression, the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to 

an adequate standard of living, the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on 

Arbitrary Detention and the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, sent an 

urgent appeal concerning Mr Zheng Dajing, a petitioner and human rights defender. 

386. According to the information received, Mr Zheng Dajing was arrested and 

detained on 9 September 2007 by officials of the Public Security Bureau of Shiyan 

City, Yunxi County, Hubei Province, on criminal charges of “petitioning leading to 

disturbance of social order.” Mr Zheng was believed to be held at the Yunxi Detention 

Centre, however, on 18 September 2007 it appeared that Mr Zheng is being detained 

at Yancao Station in Hongtai Yuansigou Village, where he has been beaten and 

subjected to other forms of ill-treatment. Yancao Station is an unofficial detention 

facility established by local authorities for the purpose of detaining petitioners. Local


Page 88 

Government authorities allege that Yancao Station is in fact merely a “class for 

petitioners who have adopted unusual means to petition” and was set up following 

directives of the Central Government. 

387. Before Mr Zheng was arrested he had been forcibly returned from Beijing to 

his hometown on 7 September 2007 by unidentified officials believed to be from the 

Hubei Province. In Beijing he had met with other petitioners and received information 

about the destruction of a village where other petitioners were living. 

388. Local Government officials in Beijing also attempted to forcibly return Mr 

Zheng’s wife, Ms Cao Xiangzhen, to the Hubei Province. Earlier, on 5 September 

2007, Mr Zheng published a letter addressing leaders at the Asia-Pacific Economic 

Cooperation (APEC) meeting on 8 and 9 September 2007 about the human rights 

situation in the People’s Republic of China. His seven year old daughter and his wife 

were previously detained for 65 days in July 2006. 

389. Mr Zheng has been petitioning for several years because his house was seized 

by the local Government. Since early 2007, Mr Zheng has also actively helped 

hundreds of other petitioners and defended their rights. 

390. Concern was expressed that the arrest and detention of Mr Zheng might solely 

be connected to his reportedly peaceful activities in defense of human rights. In view 

of his custody at a reportedly unofficial place of detention, further concern was 

expressed as regards his physical and psychological integrity. 



January 2008 had not been translated. 

Urgent appeal 



expression and the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary 

Detention, sent an urgent appeal concerning Ms Liu Jie, human rights defender and 

pro-democracy activist, and Mr. Fu Jingjiang, her husband. 

393. According to information received, on 11 October 2007, Ms Liu Jie was 

reportedly arrested by members of the Beijing police in the area of the Beijing Zhong 

Ding Village. From there, she was taken to You-an Men police station. 

394. On 13 October, Ms Liu Jie was charged with “suspicion of gathering crowds 

to disturb social order” on the basis of Article 61 of the PRC Criminal Procedure Law 

regarding the initial detention of “major suspects” or “active offenders”. Ms Liu Jie is 

currently detained at the Beian Nongken Detention Centre. 

395. Prior to her arrest, Ms Liu Jie had been the main coordinator in the 

presentation of a public letter, signed by over 12,000 petitioners, to the Chinese 

Communist Party leaders when they are to meet at the 17th Party Congress on 27


Page 89 

October 2007. The letter calls on party leaders to enact political and legal reforms and 

has been signed by victims of alleged harassment and brutality at the hands of the 

police and other state officials. Ms Liu Jie has been involved in such petitions to 

official Chinese Communist Party meetings since 2003. The other coordinators of the 

public letter have reportedly gone into hiding. 

396. It is believed that Mr Fu Jingjiang has also been arrested by police forces as he 

has not been seen since petitioners witnessed his arrest in Harbin on 15 October 2007. 

397. Concern was expressed that the arrest and detention of Ms Liu Jie might be 

directly related to her non-violent human rights activities, in particular her work to 

campaign for democracy and the rule of law in China. Further concern was expressed 

that the arrest and detention of Mr Fu Jingjiang might be linked to the aforementioned 

work of his wife. Finally, concern was expressed for the physical and psychological 

integrity of both of them while in detention. 

Urgent appeal 



of living, the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, and the Special 

Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, sent an urgent 

appeal concerning Ms Mao Hengfeng, a well-known petitioner against family 

planning policies and forced evictions in Shanghai since 1989. Ms Hengfeng was the 

subject of previously transmitted communications. According to information received, 

on 13 September 2007, prison authorities reportedly ordered a fellow inmate to beat 

Ms Mao Hengfeng in punishment for revealing that she had been held in solitary 

confinement for 70 days in July and August 2007. This was in violation of Article 15 

of the Chinese Prison Law which stipulates a maximum of 15 days for the solitary 

confinement of prisoners. Ms Mao was badly bruised as a result of the beating. 

399. On 24 September 2007, prison authorities allegedly sent Ms Mao to the 

Nanhui Prison Hospital. She had previously refused to undergo a medical examination 

for fear that she would be forcibly injected with drugs, as had happened when she was 

held in a psychiatric institution in the 1980s. At the Nanhui Prison Hospital Ms Mao’s 

clothes were removed and she was tied to a bed and force-fed by other inmates. 

400. Ms Mao’s husband, Mr Wu Xuwei, was prevented from visiting her at the 

Shanghai Women’s Prison until 26 October 2007. During his supervised visit Ms Mao 

was repeatedly silenced by prison guards when she attempted to inform him of having 

been force-fed. 

401. Concerns were expressed that the arrest, detention and aforementioned illtreatment 

of Ms Mao Hengfeng might be directly related to her peaceful work in 

defense of human rights in China, and might form part of an ongoing campaign 

against human rights defenders in the country. Further concern was expressed for the 

physical and psychological integrity of Ms Mao whilst she is in detention. 



Page 90 






expression, sent a letter of allegations concerning Mr Ronggyal Adrak, a Tibetan 

nomad of the Yonru nomadic group, and Mr Adruk Lopoe, monk of Lithang 

Monastery, from Yonru Village, and nephew of Mr Ronggye Adrak. He had publicly 

campaigned for the release of Mr Ronggye Adrak and was subsequently arrested. Mr 

Ronggyal Adrak was the subject of a letter of allegations sent by the Special 

Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief and the Special Rapporteur on the 

promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression on 14 

August 2007. Mr Adruk Lopoe was the subject of an urgent appeal sent by the 

Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and Special 

Rapporteur on the question of torture on 29 August 2007. 

404. According to the information received, on 20 November 2007, Mr Ronggyal 

Adrak was sentenced by the Ganzi Autonomous Prefecture People’s Court in 

Dartsedo to eight years of imprisonment with deprivation of political rights for four 

years on charges of seeking to “split” the country and subvert state power during a 

public meeting on 1 August in Lithang county when he called for the return of the 

Dalai Lama and the release of Tibetan political prisoners. 

405. On 20 November 2007, Mr Adruk Lopoe was sentenced by the same court to 

ten years' imprisonment on charges of "colluding with foreign separatist force to split 

the country and distributing political pamphlets." 

406. Concern was expressed that the sentencing of Mr Ronggyal Adrak and Mr 

Adruk Lopoe may be linked to their peaceful activities in defence of human rights in 

China. 




Urgent appeal 

408. On 30 November 2007, the Special Representative, together with Special 

Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, sent an urgent appeal concerning the 

Dagongzhe Centre for Migrant Workers (DGZ) and Mr Huang Qingnan. The DGZ is 

a non-Governmental organisation that provides migrant workers in Shenzhen with 

free legal advice. Mr Huang Qingnan is the license-holder of the organisation. 

409. According to information received, on 20 November 2007, at about 3.30pm, 

Mr Huang Qingnan was walking in Longhu New Village when he was attacked from 

behind by two men armed with knives. He was repeatedly stabbed, particularly in the


Page 91 

back and legs. The men escaped on a motorbike. Mr Huang Qingnan was taken to 

hospital and remains in a serious condition. 

410. On 14 November 2007, at approximately 4.30pm, four men armed with steel 

water pipes broke the doors of the Dagongzhe Centre and proceeded to destroy 

equipment inside the offices, including the furniture and the water machine. The men 

escaped in a white mini-van, its registration plates were obscured, with only 

“Guangdong BMXXXX” visible. According to staff members, there were three 

policemen on patrol outside the offices at the time of the attack who looked on 

without taking any action against the attackers. Staff members then reported the attack 

to the local Tongle police station. When they inquired about the CCTV on the street 

outside the offices, they were informed by the police that it did not have a “recording 

function”. 

411. On 11 October 2007 at approximately 7.00pm, a similar attack occurred when 

the Dagongzhe Centre’s glass doors were broken by several men armed with steel 

water pipes while staff members were inside the offices. After they broke the doors, 

the men reportedly left on motorcycles parked outside. 

412. Concern was expressed that the aforementioned attacks against Mr Huang 

Qingnan and the offices of the Dagongzhe (DGZ) Centre for Migrant Workers might 

be directly related to the human rights activities of the Centre, in particular their work 

to defend workers’ rights and their recent promotion of labour law reform in China. 

Further concern was expressed for the physical and psychological integrity of Mr 

Huang Qingnan and rest of the staff of DGZ. 




expression, sent a letter of allegations concerning Mr. Yang Maodong (a.k.a Mr. Guo 

Feixiong). Mr. Yang Maodong is a legal adviser with the Shengzhi law firm in 

Beijing. Mr Yang Maodong has been the subject of other communications sent by the 


and expression, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation 

of human rights defenders and the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges 

and lawyers on 6 March and 19 October 2006. 

414. According to information received, on 14 November 2007, Mr. Yang 

Maodong was convicted by the Tianhe District Court of Guangzhou City of having 

conducted “illegal business activity” through the publication of Political Earthquake, 

which exposed Government corruption in Shenyang City, Liaoning Province. Mr. 

Yang Maodong was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment and a fine of 40,000 Yuan 

and is being detained at Guangzhou City No. 3 Detention Centre. The trial reportedly 

featured irregularities in legal procedure, such as the absence of Mr. Yang Maodong’s 

lawyers at the sentencing. 

415. Mr. Yang Maodong has been detained since 14 September 2006 and has 

reportedly been subject to ill-treatment during his detention. Prior to his detention he 

had provided legal assistance to peasants from the village of Taishu in Guangdong in


Page 92 

their campaign to obtain a court ruling to dismiss the head of the village committee, 

who has been suspected of corruption. 

416. Concern was expressed that the aforementioned sentence against Mr. Yang 

Maodong might be directly related to his human rights activities, in particular his 

work to apply his legal expertise to the fight against corruption in China. Further 

concern was expressed for the physical and mental integrity of Mr. Yang Maodong 

while imprisoned. 





418. On 30 November 2007, the Special Representative sent a letter of allegations 

concerning Mr Hu Jia. Mr Hu Jia is a pro-democracy campaigner and HIV-Aids 

activist. He is co-founder of the Beijing Aizhixing Institute of Health Education and 

an outspoken advocate for people with HIV/AIDS. Mr Hu Jia was the subject of an 

allegation letter sent by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the 

situation of human rights defenders on 31 May 2007. 

419. According to information received, on 9 November 2007, Mr Hu Jia, on his 

way to visit his pregnant wife at Zhaoyang Hospital, was reportedly beaten by officers 

of the National Security Unit (Guo Bao) of the Beijing Public Security Bureau (PSB) 

in the building where he lives. The officers, who were dressed in plain clothes, had 

been assigned to conduct surveillance on Mr Hu Jia since 18 May 2007. Mr Hu Jia 

suffered injuries to his mouth. Following the beating, the officers permitted him to 

visit his wife. They reportedly followed him there and remained outside the hospital 

room during his visit. 

420. Concern was expressed that the aforementioned surveillance and physical 

abuse of Mr Hu Jia might be directly related to his human rights activities, in 

particular his work to defend the rights of those living with HIV/AIDS in China. 

Urgent appeal 

421. On 4 December 2007, the Special Representative, together with the 


Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers sent an urgent appeal 

concerning Mr Li Guohong. Mr Li Guohong is a representative of former workers of 

the Zhongyuan Oil Field. 

422. According to information received, on 31 October 2007, Mr Li Guohong went 

to Puyang City, Henan Province, where the headquarters of the Zhongyuan Oil Field 

are located, in order to gain information with regard to a lawsuit being taken by 

dismissed workers against the oil field company. When Mr Li Guohong went to 

Zhongyuan Oil Field Public Security Bureau (PSB) to investigate the detention of 

Zhongyuan Oil Field workers, he was placed in administrative detention for fifteen


Page 93 

days. On 16 November 2007, when he was due to be released, he was instead sent to a 

“Re-education Through Labor” (RTL) camp for one and a half years by the 

Zhongyuan Oil Field PSB. 

423. Since 2001, the Zhongyuan Oil Field has reportedly unfairly carried out the 

dismissal of 10,000 workers without providing them with adequate compensation. 

424. According to the regulations in place for RTL camps, there is no the right to 

have the decision ordering the transfer to such a camp be reviewed by a judicial body. 

425. Concern was expressed that the aforementioned treatment of Mr Li Guohong 

may be related to his peaceful human rights activities, in particular, his work to 

defend workers’ rights. Further concern was expressed for Mr Li Guohong physical 

and psychological integrity while in the RTL camp. 


2006 

426. In letter dated 3 October 2006, the Government replied to the urgent appeal 

sent on the situation of Mr Chen Guangchen and Mr Guo Qizhen. The Government 

informed that Mr Guo Qizhen was sentenced in 1995, in accordance with the law, to 

one year’s fixed-term imprisonment, suspended for one year, for the offence of assault 

and battery. Since 2000, Guo has been using the Internet to foment subversion of the 

political power of the State. On 12 May 2006, he was taken into police custody, in 

accordance with the law, for breach of the provisions of articles 105, paragraph 2, and 

106 of the Criminal Code of the People’s Republic of China and on suspicion of 

having committed the offence of fomenting subversion of the political power of the 

State. On 6 June his remand in detention was approved by the procuratorial 

authorities and his case is currently under consideration. Article 105, paragraph 2, of 

the Chinese Criminal Code provides: “Persons fomenting subversion of the political 

power of the State and the overthrow of the socialist system by spreading rumours, 

propagating slander or in any other way shall incur penalties of not more than five 

years’ fixed-term imprisonment, criminal detention, surveillance or deprivation of 

political rights.” Section 2 of the decision of the Standing Committee of the National 

People’s Congress on the safeguarding of Internet security stipulates: “In order to 

safeguard State security and social stability, in the event of any of the following acts 

which constitute an offence, the persons responsible shall incur criminal liability, 

under the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code: (1) Using the Internet to spread 

rumours or slander, to publicize or disseminate other harmful information, to foment 

subversion of the political power of the State and the overthrow of the socialist 

system, or to instigate division of the country and the destruction of national unity.” 

Through his conduct, Guo is suspected of having committed the offence of fomenting 

subversion of the political power of the State. 

427. The Government further informed that in the evening of 5 February 2006, 

because Chen Guangcheng objected to the work of poverty alleviation officials sent to 

his village, guided by his wife Yuan Weijing, he stormed into the offices of the local 

village committee and starting smashing the glass in the doors and windows. Shortly 

after this Chen incited Chen Guanghe and other villagers to smash up a motor vehicle 

belonging to the local authorities and three police cars and to roll these cars over into


Page 94 

the roadside ditch, then to assail and beat up staff of the Yinan county police station. 

In the evening of 11 March, Chen Guangcheng’s cousin Chen Guangyu, who had 

been drinking, claimed to have been beaten up and barged into the offices of the local 

village committee where he started smashing things. Taking this as his pretext, Chen 

Guangcheng gathered together Chen Guangyu, Chen Guangjun, Yuan Weijing and 

others and from 6 p.m. that same evening, on the Yinghou village section of State 

highway No. 205, they obstructed the movement of traffic, barring the passage of 

more than 290 motor vehicles, including ambulances, and blocking a major arterial 

road for a period of three hours. On 10 June 2006, the public security authorities, 

acting in accordance with the law, took Chen into police custody and launched an 

investigation into his actions. On 21 June his remand in detention was approved by 

the procuratorial authorities and, on 26 June, the matter was referred to the 

procuratorial authorities for review and prosecution. On 4 July, the Yinan county 

procurator’s office referred his case to the Yinan county people’s court for 

prosecution for the offences of wilfully causing damage to property and assembling a 

crowd for the purpose of disrupting traffic. On 24 August, the Yinan county people’s 

court instituted proceedings in this case. The court found that Chen Guangchen, as a 

means of giving vent to personal grievances, had caused and incited others to cause 

wilful damage to property, the amount of which was considerable, that his conduct 

had infringed public and private ownership rights and constituted the offence of wilful 

damage to property; it found further that Chen, on account of his cousin having been 

beaten up after drinking, had gathered together a crowd with a view to blocking 

traffic, causing a three-hour stoppage of traffic on the Yinghou village section of State 

highway No. 205 in Shuanghou township, that the circumstances of his offence had 

been particularly serious, that he had been responsible for organizing, planning and 

carrying out the actions in question and had therefore been the principal culprit, and 

that his conduct had therefore constituted the offence of gathering a crowd for the 

purpose of disrupting traffic. As the offender in this case is blind, leniency could be 

applied in his case. That same day, the Yinan county people’s court decided as the 

court of first instance to sentence Chen to seven months’ fixed-term imprisonment for 

the offence of wilfully causing damage to property and to four years’ fixed-term 

imprisonment for the offence of gathering a crowd to disrupt traffic and ordered him, 

accordingly, to serve a sentence of four years’ and three months’ fixed-term 

imprisonment. Article 275 of the Chinese Criminal Code stipulates: “The offence of 

wilfully damaging public or private property, where the amount involved is 

considerable and the other circumstances of the offence are serious, shall incur a 

penalty of not more than three years of fixed-term imprisonment, criminal detention, 

or a fine; where the amount involved is very large and the other circumstances are 

particularly serious, the penalty shall be not less than three years but not more than 

seven years of fixed-term imprisonment.” Article 291 stipulates: “Where a crowd is 

assembled to disturb order at railway stations of bus terminals, ferry landings, civil 

airports, market places, parks, theatres and cinemas, exhibition halls, sports grounds 

or other public places, or to block traffic or disrupt the orderly movement of traffic, or 

to resist or obstruct public security officials from carrying out their duties according to 

law, if the resulting situation is serious, the ringleaders shall be sentenced to fixedterm 

imprisonment, criminal detention or residential surveillance of not more than 

five years.” During the legal proceedings in this case, the court fully upheld the 

defendant’s rights in litigation and in the courtroom his two defence lawyers were 

able to provide full defence services.


Page 95 

428. In a letter dated 12 February 2007, the Government replied to the urgent 

appeal sent on the situation of Mr Gao Zhisheng. The Government informed that on 

15 August 2006, Gao was placed under investigation by the Beijing public security 

authorities, in accordance with the law, on suspicion of the commission of a criminal 

offence, and, on 21 September, his arrest warrant was approved by the procurator’s 

office. Beijing people’s procurator’s office No. 1 laid charges against Gao for the 

offence of fomenting subversion of the authority of the State and instituted 

proceedings against him with Beijing people’s intermediate court No. 1. Beijing 

people’s intermediate court No. 1 determined, following its consideration of the case 

in open proceedings, that: from December 2005 to May 2006, Gao had composed and 

published on websites such as “dajiyuan.com”, “kanzhongguo.com” and others, nine 

articles with such titles as “Three open letters from Gao Zhisheng to Hu Jintao and 

Wen Jiabao” and “This administration never stops killing people”. In these articles, 

Gao engages in rumour mongering and slander, vilifying the current Chinese State 

political and social system and inciting his readers to overthrow the authority of the 

State. At the same time, on 10 separate occasions, both from his home and in other 

places, Gao had given interviews to foreign media, such as “Radio Free Asia”, “Voice 

of Hope”, and other outlets, which held discussions with him and recorded his 

incitements to subvert the authority of the State. Those had been recorded by the 

foreign media as audio files and placed on their websites, for other people to listen to 

or download. During the investigation, Gao made a candid confession to the facts of 

his offences, and of his own initiative provided information about other people who 

had committed extensive offences. This information contained important leads which 

checked out and helped in solving other criminal cases. On 22 December 2006, the 

Beijing city people’s intermediate court No. 1 ruled that Gao’s conduct constituted the 

offence of incitement to subversion of the authority of the State, but, in view of his 

meritorious conduct in denouncing the offences of other culprits, decided, in 

accordance with the law, that his penalty should be rendered more lenient and to 

reduce it below the statutory level. Thus, for the offence of incitement to subversion 

of the authority of the State, he was sentenced to three years’ fixed term 

imprisonment, to be suspended for five years, and stripped of his political rights for 

one year. After the court handed down its judgement at first instance, Gao declared 

himself willing to accept the verdict and did not lodge an appeal. The judgement has 

since become enforceable. 

429. In the course of the proceedings against Gao on the charge of incitement to 

subversion of the authority of the State, the public security authorities fully upheld his 

rights in litigation and those of his family and conducted the proceedings in strict 

compliance with the law, applying the law in a civilized manner. Three days before 

proceedings opened in this case, the court of first instance, in accordance with the 

stipulation of the law, notified the procurator’s office and the defence counsel and 

published in advance the dates and venue of the trial. When the court rendered its 

judgement, Gao’s family were present in the public gallery. When serving papers on 

Gao, the court expressly informed him of his rights in litigation to appoint a lawyer to 

conduct his defence. Gao indicated that, as he was himself a lawyer, he did not need 

to assign a lawyer to conduct his defence and he did not agree to his family appointing 

a lawyer for him. For that reason, the lawyers Mo Shaoping and Ding Xikui, from the 

Mo Shaoping law firm in Beijing, appointed by his brother Gao Zhiyi, were unable to 

act in his defence. Under these circumstances, the court decided, in order to ensure 

that Gao’s rights in litigation were fully upheld, that it should still appoint two


Page 96 

lawyers to defend him, Qian Lieyang, from the Tianda law firm in Beijing (which 

goes by the English name “East Associates”), and Yang Xiaohong, from the Chao 

Yang law firm in Beijing, and Gao agreed to this appointment. In the course of the 

trial, in addition to conducting his own defence, Gao also received full defence 

services from his two defence lawyers. The allegations in the letter that we have 

received that the police harassed Gao’s family members and others are unfounded. 

430. In a letter dated 26 February 2007, the Government replied to the letter of 

allegations sent on the situation of Gao Zhisheng, Guo Feixiong and Yang 

Maodong. The Government informed that the allegations in the letter which we have 

received that the Chinese Criminal Code and the Chinese Code of Criminal Procedure 

have been misused by authorities in order to undermine lawyers’ defence and that 

there are procedural obstacles to the exercise by lawyers of their profession, especially 

with regard to the gathering of evidence and conduct of investigations, have no 

substance in fact. China attaches high priority to upholding the right of lawyers to 

exercise their profession and in the enacting of legislation and administration of 

justice is constantly endeavouring to improve the operation of the legal profession and 

providing comprehensive safeguards to enable lawyers to exercise their profession in 

accordance with the law. The Constitution of the People’s Republic of China 

expressly stipulates that defendants have the right to defence; the Chinese Code of 

Criminal Procedure, the Code of Civil Procedure and the Code of Administrative 

Procedure set out specific provisions on all aspects of the right of lawyers to engage in 

litigation; the Lawyers Act gives detailed provisions on all aspects of the lawyers’ 

right to exercise their profession; the People’s Supreme Court, the People’s Supreme 

Procuratorate and other bodies have also issued various normative instruments 

guaranteeing the right of lawyers to exercise their profession, which set out special 

provisions on the participation of lawyers in criminal proceedings, clearly stipulate 

what is meant, in the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the term “cases involving State 

secrets”, and also set out clear provisions guaranteeing, in criminal proceedings, the 

right of lawyers, in accordance with the law, to meet their clients, to have access to 

files, to conduct investigations, to obtain evidence and to conduct other procedures, 

thus providing effective guarantees of the right of lawyers fully to exercise their 

profession. In recent years, a total of 1.5 million litigious cases are conducted by 

Chinese lawyers every year, and some 800,000 non-contentious legal procedures, and 

through measures to give effect, in accordance with the law, to the rights of proxies 

and of defenders, the lawful rights and interests of parties to proceedings are 

effectively upheld and the proper application of the law is ensured. In the performance 

of their professional services, effective safeguards are provided to lawyers, and in this 

way the development of a State democratic legal system is effectively promoted. 

431. Yang Maodong, male, born August 1966, resident of Gucheng county in 

Hubei province, non-practising lawyer. In January 2006, the Guangdong province 

public security authorities learned that Yang, who in 2001 in Guangzhou had 

unlawfully published a book entitled Political Upheaval in Shenyang, as a special 

2001 issue of the Chinese legal journal Falü Zongheng, was the prime culprit in a case 

involving the operation of an unlawful business under investigation by the Liaoning 

public security authorities and was currently on the run. Following a thorough 

investigation, conclusive evidence was gathered against him. In September 2006, the 

Guangzhou public security authorities, working together with the department 

responsible for comprehensive enforcement of administrative law in cultural


Page 97 

activities, launched its city-wide programme to counter pirated publications. In the 

course of this undertaking it apprehended Yang Maodong, who, in collusion with 

Jiang Wei, Zhang Zhitao and others, had set up a counterfeit publication outfit, 

misappropriating lawful publications and publication numbers, and illegally 

publishing, printing and distributing more than 20,000 separate books and pamphlets. 

On 14 September 2006, the Guangzhou province public security authorities, acting in 

accordance with the law, took Yang into criminal detention on suspicion of the 

offence of operating an illegal business, on 28 September his arrest warrant was 

approved by the procuratorial authorities and his case is currently in progress. 

432. Li Baiguang, male, born 1968, resident of Beijing, formerly head of the legal 

centre (as a non-practising lawyer) of Modern Civilization Pictorial, published by the 

Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, currently unemployed. In December 2004, Li 

was arrested by the Fujian province public security authorities, in accordance with the 

law, on suspicion of the offence of fraud; in January 2005 he was released on his own 

recognizance with restricted freedom of movement pending trial and in January 2006, 

the restriction order against him was lifted. The public security authorities are not 

currently applying any measures against Li. 

433. There does not appear to be any lawyer by the name of Ma Guanjun, as 

mentioned in the letter that we have received. Following a verification of the 

circumstances in question, it would appear that the person intended is Ma Guangjun, a 

lawyer from the Songyuan law office in Inner Mongolia. In December 2002, Ma took 

on the responsibility of representing a suspect, Xu Wensheng, in a rape case. On 22 

August 2003, the Ningcheng county procuratorial office took Ma into custody on 

suspicion, as the counsel for the defence, of the offence of interfering with the giving 

of testimony and, on 5 January 2004, instituted proceedings against him with the 

courts. On 10 March, the Ningcheng county people’s court tried Ma on the charge of 

interfering with the giving of testimony and found him not guilty. On 23 March, the 

Ningcheng procurator’s office challenged the court’s verdict. On 24 May, the Chifeng 

city intermediate people’s court delivered its final ruling in the case: the challenge 

was dismissed and the original judgement stood. Ma was acquitted of the charges 

against him. 

Observations 

434. The Special Representative thanks the Government of China for responding to 

most of her 29 communications which indicates the Government’s continuous 

willingness to cooperate with the mandate. She looks forward to receiving the 

remaining responses. She regrets that at time of finalizing the report, a number of 

replies are being translated. 

435. However, in the light of the responses received, the Special Representative 

reiterates the observations she made in her 2007 communications report, i.e. that the 

Government has consistently challenged the alleged facts in every communication, 

especially those concerning allegations of beatings or torture, which the Government 

say are unfounded. From the very detailed responses provided by the Government 

and the heavy reliance on Chinese law, the Government concludes in every case there 

is no connection between the criminal charges imposed on the alleged victims because 

of their human rights activities. It would also seem that Chinese human rights


Page 98 

defenders often attract traffic offenses for disturbing the peace, assembling crowds, 

disrupting movement of traffic, and at times hinder officials in the discharge of their 

duties. According to the Government, these defenders are detained, arrested and 

charged because they manifest criminal behaviour in breach of Chinese law and not 

because of their human rights activities. In every case, the Chinese judicial authorities 

and the public security bureau have acted in strict compliance with the Chinese 

Criminal Code, the Chinese Code of Criminal Procedure and other laws and 

regulations and in every case, the alleged victim’s lawful rights are said to have been 

upheld. 

436. The Special Representative notes that saying a person’s lawful rights were 

upheld is not be the same as saying a person’s human rights were upheld, and the 

question is really one of whether the Chinese Criminal Code, the Chinese Code of 

Criminal Procedure and other laws and regulations such as the Chinese Lawyers Act 

are compatible with international human rights norms and standards such as those on 

the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the Declaration on Human Rights 

Defenders. The Special Representative would be more willing to accept the 

Government’s explanation that human rights defenders tend to be traffic offenders, if 

she was aware of any examples of human rights defenders being granted legal 

permission by the authorities to hold a peaceful demonstration that might challenge or 

question the Government. She would welcome further information from the 

Government of China that demonstrates that human rights defenders are able to freely 

conduct their work, disseminate information, present a petition, criticize the 

Government publicly or conduct other peaceful activities without the likelihood of 

attracting criminal charges. 

Carta de alegaciones 

Colombia 

437. El 6 de diciembre de 2006, la Representante Especial señaló a la atención 

urgente del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con el Doctor Rafael 

Palencia, abogado defensor que trabaja con el Comité Permanente por la Defensa de 

los Derechos Humanos (CPDH) en el campo de asistencia jurídica. 

438. De acuerdo con la información recibida, el 20 de noviembre de 2006, la casa 

del Dr. Palencia fue allanado por los agentes de la Fiscalía General de la Nación y 

miembros del Departamento Administrativo de Seguridad (DAS), supuestamente de 

acuerdo con un orden del Fiscal 5° Seccional, adscrito a la Unidad de Reacción 

Inmediata de Barranquilla. Según los informes, los funcionarios se llevaron dos 

computadores y también documentos de trabajo y personales. Además, desde el 9 de 

julio de 2006, el Dr. Palencia supuestamente fue el objeto de vigilancia, entonces 

debió cambiar de domicilio. 

439. El Dr. Palencia habría sido victima de otros actos de hostigamiento desde el 

año 2003 cuando habría sido acusado del delito de rebelión y habría sido detenido en 

las oficinas del Ministerio de Trabajo, donde trabajaba. Habría sido liberado después 

de catorce meses debido a la ausencia de pruebas adecuadas.


Page 99 

440. Se expresó temor de que los actos de hostigamiento en contra del Dr. Rafael 

Palencia pudieran estar relacionados con sus actividades en defensa de los derechos 

humanos, en particular su participación en la coordinación de un ciclo de talleres de 

formación sobre la Corte Penal Internacional. 



urgente del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con actos de hostigamiento y 

amenazas en contra de los integrantes de la Unión Sindical Obrera (USO), entre ellos 

el Señor Rodolfo Vecino Acevedo, dirigente nacional de la USO y su esposa, la 

Señora Martha Cecilia Marrugo Ahumada y el Señor Fernando Ramírez. La USO 

es sindicato miembro de la Central Unitaria de los Trabajadores (CUT). 

442. De acuerdo con la información recibida, el 25 de noviembre de 2006, el 

vehículo del Sr. Vecino Acevedo en el que la Sra. Martha Cecilia Marrugo Ahumada 

viajaba junto con sus dos guardias de seguridad, los Sres. Edward Martínez Martínez 

y Álvaro Marrugo, fue atacado por dos hombres que circulaban en moto. Los dos 

desconocidos habrían disparado al coche, sin que los pasajeros resultaran heridos 

gracias al blindaje del coche. El ataque habría sido denunciado a las autoridades 

policiales y al a Fiscalía General de la Nación. 

443. Además, según los informes, el 27 y 28 de noviembre de 2006, el Sr. 

Fernando Ramírez, otro integrante de la USO, recibió llamadas amenazantes. 

Supuestamente, el 27 de noviembre de 2006, la CUT y la USO recibieron un 

comunicado de prensa sobre los hechos descritos, enviado por correo electrónico por 

el Bloque Norte de las Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC). 

444. Se expresó preocupación por el ataque armado descrito y las amenazas en 

contra de los miembros de la USO y se expresó temor de que pudieran estar 

relacionados con sus actividades en defensa de los derechos humanos, en particular 

los derechos de los trabajadores. 


445. Mediante carta fechada 28 septiembre de 2007 el Gobierno de Colombia 

transmitió información en relación con el llamamiento urgente anteriormente 

mencionado. El Gobierno informó de que la Fiscalía adelanta investigación penal por 

los hechos de que fuera víctima la Sra. Martha Cecilia Marrugo. La Policía Nacional 

informó que realizó una reevaluación del estudio técnico y del nivel de riesgo y grado 

de amenaza del Sr. Rodolfo Vecino Acevedo, de modo que se han adelantado varias 

medidas de protección a favor de esta persona, tales como la asignación de una unidad 

policial para su protección; visitas esporádicas al lugar de residencia y sede sindical; y 

la entrega de una cartilla de recomendaciones de autoprotección y seguridad, con el 

fin de que sean puestas en práctica y difundidas en el núcleo familiar. El Ministerio 

del Interior y Justicia, precisó que el Sr. Rodolfo Vecino Acevedo es beneficiario del 

esquema colectivo de protección asignado a la Subdirectiva de la USO en Cartagena. 

En febrero de 2007 se analizó su situación y recomendó asignar un esquema


Page 100 

protectivo individual antibalas, medios de comunicación y armamento, el cual estaría 

en proceso de implementación. 


446. El 12 de diciembre de 2006 la Representante Especial señaló a la atención 

urgente del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con actos de intimidación en 

contra del Señor Iván Cepeda Castro y de la Señora Claudia Girón Ortiz, 

dirigentes de la Fundación “Manuel Cepeda Vargas”, e integrantes del Movimiento 

Nacional de Victimas de Crímenes de Estado. 

447. De acuerdo con la información recibida, el 24 de noviembre de 2006, un grupo 

de desconocidos que portaban armas, detuvieron el vehículo asignado para la 

seguridad de la Fundación “Manuel Cepeda Vargas” y encañonaron al conductor. 

Supuestamente los desconocidos se identificaron como miembros de la Sección de 

Policía Judicial e Investigación (SIJIN) y procedieron a verificar la presencia de otros 

pasajeros dentro del coche. Ese día el conductor viajaba solo, pero el Sr. Iván Cepeda 

Castro y la Sra. Claudia Girón Ortiz se desplazan normalmente en dicho vehículo. 

448. Según los informes, los supuestos miembros de la SIJIN huyeron después de 

que el conductor les mostrara su carné de identificación del Departamento 

Administrativo de Seguridad (DAS). La SIJIN habría declarado que ese día no tenía 

asignados operativos en la zona donde ocurrió el incidente descrito. 

449. El 25 de noviembre de 2006, se señala que varios miembros del Movimiento 

Nacional de Victimas de Crímenes del Estado acompañaron a residentes de San 

Onofre, departamento de Sucre, a una audiencia pública ante la Comisión de 

Derechos Humanos del Senado de la República. Según los informes, muchos 

habitantes de la zona habrían sido victimas de actos de intimidación por parte de 

paramilitares, con el fin de obligarles a transferir el título de sus tierras al Sr. Rodrigo 

Antonio Mercado Peludo, un paramilitar conocido como “Cadena”. Además el 23 de 

noviembre de 2006, el Sr. Juvenal Escudero, un residente de San Onofre que 

denunció los actos de intimidación, habría recibido un disparo en la espalda, que le 

causó graves lesiones, por parte de dos conocidos que circulaban en moto. 

450. Anteriormente, el 30 de abril de 2006, el Sr. Iván Cepeda Castro habría 

recibido un mensaje amenazante en su correo personal y en el “foro del lector”, 

columna que escribe para el periódico “El Espectador”. El mensaje habría declarado 

“Nuestra razón de ser hoy esta mas (sic.) vigente que nunca, la defensa de la libertad y 

la democracia Colombiana (sic.) y hasta que no cese el ultimo (sic.) fusil guerrillero 

opresor del pueblo Colombiano (sic.) seguiremos en armas combatiendo la guerrilla 

utilizando todos los medios que estén a nuestro alcance. Por una Colombia libre, 

digna, justa y en paz. Autodefensas somos todos. Estado Mayor Autodefensas 

Campesinas Nueva Generación, ACNG”. 

451. Se expresó preocupación por los actos de intimidación en contra del Sr. Iván 

Cepeda Castro y la Señora Claudia Girón Ortiz porque se temía que pudieran estar 

relacionados con sus denuncias de los crímenes cometidos por los paramilitares y su 

defensa del derecho de las víctimas a la justicia, la verdad y la reparación.


Page 101 


452. Mediante cartas con fechas 3 de abril de 2007 y 7 de septiembre de 2007 el 

Gobierno proporcionó información con respecto al llamamiento urgente anterior. El 

Gobierno informó de que el 26 de junio de 2006, la Comisión Interamericana de 

Derechos Humanos otorgó medidas cautelares a favor de los miembros de la 

Fundación Manuel Cepeda Vargas. Se cursa una investigación penal por el delito de 

amenazas en contra del señor Cepeda. El Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores solicitó a 

la Procuraría General de la Nación la asignación de una agencia especial, con el fin de 

que actúe dentro del proceso en mención. La Policía Nacional se reunió con el señor 

Cepeda, a quien se solicitó aportar copia de los correos electrónicos amenazantes, con 

el fin de que la policía realizara un seguimiento a las direcciones de orígen de los 

referidos mensajes. Sin embargo, no recibieron respuesta por parte de la víctima. 

453. La Policía Nacional presta seguridad al señor Ivan Cepeda. El Programa de 

protección del Ministerio del Interior y de Justicia informó que desde el 1 de abril del 

2004, el Comité de Reglamentación y Evaluación de Riesgo (RER) recomendó la 

asignación de un esquema de protección a favor del Señor Cepeda. Ambas personas 

cuentan con medios de comunicación. Igualmente se encuentra en trámite la 

realización de un estudio de seguridad con el fin de determinar su grado de 

vulnerabilidad y de ampliar el blindaje con el que cuenta las mismas. 

454. Se asignó a la Fiscalía Quinta Seccional de Vida en Sincelejo, Departamento 

de Sucre, la iniciación de la pertinente investigación penal, la cual se encuentra en 

etapa de indagación preliminar. La Fiscalía general de la nación informó que se había 

ordenado desde 30 de mayo de 2007, la apertura de investigación previa en contra del 

señor Rodrigo Antonio Mercado Pelufo, paramilitar conocido como “Cadena”, por el 

delito de desplazamiento forzado. En relación con las lesiones de él que fuera victima, 

Juvenal Escudero, se encuentra en curso investigación penal previa y el 6 de febrero 

de 2007 se ordenó práctica de pruebas, asignando una misión de trabajo dentro del 

caso. El Gobierno informó que las autoridades realizan rondas policiales perimetrales, 

cubriendo la entrada y salida del municipio de San Onofre, como medida de 

protección colectiva a favor de la comunidad general. La Policía Nacional ha 

instalado una Unidad Investigativa en el municipio, con el fin de brindar una mayor 

seguridad a los habitantes. 


455. El 13 de Diciembre de 2006, la Representante Especial, junto con el Relator 

Especial sobre la promoción del derecho a la libertad de opinión y de expresión 

señalaron a la atención urgente del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con 

las amenazas de muerte en contra de la Señora Marqueza Arrieta, la madre del 

Señor Domingo Tobar Arrieta, Director del Departamento de Derechos Humanos 

del Comité Ejecutivo Nacional de la Central Unitaria de los Trabajadores (CUT). 

456. De acuerdo con la información recibida, el 4 de diciembre de 2006, por la 

mañana, individuos no identificados habrían amenazado de muerte a la Sra. 

Marqueza Arrieta, diciéndole, “la vamos a matar esta advertida”. Según los informes, 

el día siguiente denunció el incidente ante la Fiscalía del municipio de Corozal y el 

Cuerpo Técnico de Investigaciones (CTI).


Page 102 

457. Además, se señala que el Sr. Domingo Tovar Arrieta y sus familiares, así 

como todos los otros integrantes de la CUT, siguen estar víctimas de actos de 

hostigamiento desde hace varios años. 

458. Se expresó preocupación por las amenazas en contra de la Sra. Marqueza 

Arrieta porque se temía que representa una represalia por las actividades de su hijo, el 

Sr. Domingo Tobar Arrieta, en defensa de los derechos humanos. Además se expresó 

temores que los actos de hostigamiento en contra de la CUT pueden representar un 

intento de disuadir a todos sus miembros de continuar con su trabajo. 


459. Mediante comunicación de 1 de octubre de 2007, el Gobierno proporcionó 

información con respecto al llamamiento enviado. En el marco del Comité de 

Reglamentación y Evaluación de Riesgos – CRER, del Programa de Protección a 

Líderes Sindicales a cargo del Ministerio del Interior y de Justicia, se revisaron las 

medidas de protección existentes y el refuerzo de medidas complementarias a favor 

del Sr. Domingo Tovar Arrieta. 

460. El Sr. Tovar es beneficiario de un esquema duro de protección compuesto de 

la siguiente manera: vehiculo blindado, varias unidades de escolta, chalecos antibalas, 

medios de comunicación y armamento. Adicionalmente, el referido ciudadano es 

beneficiario de tres tiquetes aéreos mensuales nacionales. De igual forma, se otorgó 

un mes de apoyo de reubicación temporal y un medio de comunicación celular para 

una de sus hijas. Por otra parte, la Policía Nacional se encuentra a cargo de la 

prevención contra cualquier acción en contra del referido ciudadano. 

461. En lo que respecta a la Sra. Márquez Arrieta, la referida institución se 

encuentra realizando acciones constantes de protección especial, con el fin de 

salvaguardar su vida e integridad. Por otra parte, la Dirección Nacional de Fiscalizas 

de la Fiscalía General de la Nación se encuentra en conocimiento de los presuntos 

hechos por amenazas en contra de la Sra. Arrieta. El Programa Presidencial de 

Derechos Humanos, conjuntamente con la Dirección de Policía Judicial (DIJIN) de la 

Policía Nacional, se encuentra coordinando el impulso de una investigación eficiente 

que permita esclarecer el origen de las ya citadas amenazas. La Procuraduría 

Delegada para la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos, se encuentra en conocimiento de 

los referidos hechos, con el fin de evaluar la inclusión de la situación denunciada 

dentro de una investigación disciplinaria, de considerarlo pertinente. 


462. El 16 de febrero de 2007, la Representante Especial señaló a la atención 

urgente del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con la Sra. Yolanda 

Izquierdo, líder de la Organización Popular de Vivienda (OPV) en el Departamento 

de Córdoba. La OPV es una organización que provee viviendas a numerosas familias 

desplazadas. Además la Sra. Izquierdo luchaba por la recuperación de tierras 

usurpadas por paramilitares.


Page 103 

463. Según la información recibida, el 31 de enero de 2007, la Sra. Yolanda 

Izquierdo habría sido asesinada al salir de su casa en el barrio Rancho Grande de 

Montería, Córdoba. Dos hombres en motocicleta se habrían acercado a la Sra. 

Izquierdo y a su esposo, Sr. Francisco Torreglosa. Uno de los hombres habría 

disparado contra la pareja provocando la muerte de la Sra. Izquierdo. El Sr. 

Torreglosa se encuentra gravemente herido en una clínica de Montería. 

464. Según los informes, durante el mes de enero de 2007, la Sra. Izquierda habría 

denunciado amenazas en contra de su integridad personal y el 25 de enero de 2007, 

habría recibido una llamada anónima y le habría dicho: “Yolanda y Manuel, piérdanse 

que los van a matar”. A causa de las amenazas recibidas, la Sra. Izquierdo habría 

dirigido a la Fiscalía General y al Defensor del Pueblo para pedir protección. 

465. La Sra. Izquierdo era conocida como representante de por lo menos 700 

campesinos que habrían denunciado la obligación a vender sus tierras por presión de 

los paramilitares. 

466. Se expresó profunda preocupación por el asesinato de la Sra. Yolanda 

Izquierdo, y se temía que susodichos incidentes pudieran estar relacionados con sus 

actividades en defensa de los derechos humanos. Además se manifestó temores por la 

seguridad y por la integridad física y psicológica de los defensores de derechos 

humanos en Colombia, en particular los líderes de movimientos de antiguas víctimas 

de grupos paramilitares. 


467. Mediante cartas con fechas 2 de abril, 25 de junio, 8 de agosto y 15 de agosto 

de 2007, el Gobierno respondió a la carta de alegaciones. El Gobierno informó que el 

día siguiente de ocurrencia del reprochable crimen, el Presidente de la República 

expresó su rechazo por el asesinato de la Señora Yolanda Izquierdo. 

468. El Gobierno manifestó que la Policía nacional se había desplazado a la zona 

de los hechos y concertó medidas de protección a favor de varios líderes de la OPV y 

para el Abogado de la organización de las víctimas. La Fiscalía General incluyó al 

Señor Francisco Torreglosa y dos personas más allegadas de la precitada víctima 

dentro del Programa de Protección, a quienes se les ha brindado como medida 

protectiva su reubicación y la de su núcleo familiar. 

469. La investigación penal por el crimen en contra de la señora Izquierdo es 

adelantada por la Unidad nacional de Derechos Humanos y Derecho Internacional de 

la Fiscalía General de la Nación. Se abrió etapa de instrucción y se libró orden de 

captura en contra de la presidenta de la Fundación para la Paz de Córdoba 

(Funpazcor), organización s través de la cual, grupos paramilitares presuntamente 

habrían forzado a pobladores de regiones del Departamento de Córdoba a entregar 

tierras a los mencionados grupos ilegales, de acuerdo con fuentes periodísticas. A la 

fecha las autoridades judiciales de policía judicial continúan en la búsqueda de la 

persona en mención. 

470. El 4 de febrero de 2007 el fiscal ordenó la vinculación y orden de captura en 

contra de un presunto paramilitar no desmovilizado, quien está siendo localizado por


Page 104 

las autoridades judiciales. La investigación penal por el crimen en contra de la señora 

Izquierdo es adelantada por el Despacho 9 de la Unidad nacional de Derechos 

Humanos y Derecho Internacional Humanitario de la Fiscalía General de la Nación. 

471. Han sido vinculados a la investigación penal dos personas más, a quienes se 

les resolvió su situación jurídica, imponiendo en su contra medida de aseguramiento 

consistente en detención preventiva sin beneficio de excarcelación, por los delitos de 

homicidio agravado, tentativa de homicidio, amenazas y concierto para delinquir. El 

Gobierno manifestó que dentro del proceso por el referido crimen, se han constituido 

una agencia especial. Adicionalmente, el Gobierno informó que se encuentra en 

estudio una queja por eventual responsabilidad disciplinaria por omisión de 

funcionario público en el otorgamiento de medidas de protección para la señora 

Izquierdo. 


472. El 20 de febrero de 2007, la Representante Especial, junto con Presidente- 

Relatora del Grupo de Trabajo sobre la Detención Arbitraria señalaron a la atención 

urgente del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con el Sr. Jesús Javier 

Dorado Rosero, Director del Comité Permanente por la Defensa de los Derechos 

Humanos (CPDH) en el Departamento de Nariño e integrante de la Junta Directiva del 

Sindicato del Magisterio (Profesores) de Nariño (SIMANA). Según la información 

recibida, el Sr. Jesús Javier Dorado Rosero fue detenido el 13 de febrero de 2007 en la 

ciudad de Pasto, por agentes del Departamento Administrativo de Seguridad (DAS) 

quienes le condujeron a las instalaciones de la Fiscalía en donde permanece detenido 

en un calabozo, en etapa de indagatoria. 

473. Se informó además que el Sr. Dorado Rosero habría sido víctima de varias 

amenazas desde el año 1999. Por tal razón, en abril de 2001, fue integrada al 

Programa de Protección del Ministerio del Interior y de Justicia. En 2003 se le asignó 

un esquema reforzado de protección, el cual le fue retirado en abril de 2004. El Sr. 

Dorado Rosero fue detenido el 26 de mayo de 2005 y posteriormente encarcelado 

durante cuatro meses, acusado de rebelión. Se alega que durante dicho período pudo 

acreditar la presión ejercida por funcionarios del DAS sobre varias personas para 

obtener declaraciones en su contra. En noviembre de 2006 se informó de la existencia 

de un plan para asesinar a esta persona elaborado por miembros de organizaciones 

paramilitares. 

474. Se afirmó, por último, que la reciente detención de esta persona se inscribe en 

un contexto de hostigamiento y amenazas en contra de los miembros del CPDH. Las 

medidas cautelares de protección concedidas por la Comisión Interamericana de 

Derechos Humanos (CIDH) en febrero de 2004 en favor de los miembros de la Junta 

Directiva de esta institución no se han hecho efectivas. Se recuerda, en este contexto, 

que el Sr. Gregorio Izquierdo Meléndez, Directivo de la Junta Departamental del 

CPDH en Arauca, y Presidente del Sindicato de las Empresas Públicas de Arauca 

(SINTRAEMSERPA), fue asesinado el 13 de septiembre de 2006 en la ciudad de 

Arauca. Se expresó temores de que estos eventos pudieran estar relacionados con sus 

actividades en defensa de los derechos humanos. 

Respuesta del Gobierno


Page 105 

475. Mediante comunicaciones de 26 julio de 2007 y 5 noviembre 2007 el 

Gobierno proporcionó información con respecto al llamamiento enviado. El Gobierno 

informó que la Procuraduría General de la Nación constituyó una agencia especial 

dentro de la investigación penal. En ese sentido, el precitado agente de la 

Procuraduría, precisó que en el transcurso de la investigación se cumplió con los 

requisitos señalados en el ordenamiento jurídico procesal colombiano, en lo referente 

a la captura, vinculación, diligencia de indagatoria y finalmente definición de la 

situación jurídica del ciudadano en mención dentro del termino de ley, dictada por el 

Fiscal 2 Especialización de Pasto – Departamento de Nariño, autoridad que se abstuvo 

de proferir medida de aseguramiento de detención preventiva contra el Sr. Dorado, 

ordenando de la consecuencia su libertad inmediata. Igualmente mencionó, que dentro 

de la comentada investigación, le fueron respetadas a esta persona sus derechos y 

garantías fundamentales. 

476. Finalmente, en lo concerniente a la protección del Sr. Dorado, el Ministerio 

del Interior y de Justicia informó que el Comité de Reglamentación y Evaluación de 

Riesgos (CRER), en sesión del 4 de julio de 2007, recomendó la aprobación de las 

varias medidas protectivas a favor del mencionado ciudadano. El Gobierno 

Colombiano seguirá atento al resultado de las investigaciones que se adelantan, 

respecto de lo cual informará oportunamente a Su Excelencia. 


477. El 23 de marzo de 2007, la Representante Especial, señaló a la atención 

urgente del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con la Sra. Katherine 

González Torres, hermana de la defensora de derechos humanos e integrante del 

equipo directivo de la Organización Femenina Popular (OFP), la Sra. Sandra 

Gutiérrez Torres. 

478. De acuerdo con la información recibida, a finales de diciembre de 2006, 

integrantes de la OFP habrían recibido mensajes a través de correo electrónico 

amenazándoles con que algo sucedería a sus familias si no dejaban su actividad. 

479. El 12 de marzo de 2007, hacia las 4:00 de la mañana, la Sra. González Torres 

habría sido abandonada, con los ojos vendados, en los alrededores de la Terminal de 

Transporte de la ciudad de Bucaramanga, tras casi un mes de haber sido desaparecida. 

Los secuestradores de la Sra. González Torres, le habrían dicho que esperara un buen 

tiempo antes de contactarse con su familia y que no avisara a la policía. 

480. Según se informa, la Sra. González Torres, habría sido secuestrada en 

Barrancabermeja, Departamento de Santander, el 13 de febrero de 2007. Desde el 

mismo día que se la llevaron fue mantenido cautiva en un cuarto oscuro y frió, y fue 

torturada sicológicamente por medio del terror. Se alega que se habría escuchado 

conversaciones de sus captores en las cuales hablaban de la OFP y del escándalo 

internacional que se había desatado. 

481. Se expresó temor de que estos eventos pudieran estar relacionados con la 

actividad en defensa de los derechos humanos de la Sra. Sandra Gutiérrez Torres


Page 106 

integrante de la Organización Femenina Popular (OFP) y hermana de la Sra. 

Katherine González Torres. Se expresa profunda preocupación por la seguridad e 

integridad física de Sra. Sandra Gutiérrez Torres y su familia así como la del resto de 

los integrantes de dicha organización. 


482. Mediante comunicación de 11 octubre de 2007, el Gobierno proporcionó 

información con respecto al llamamiento enviado. El Gobierno manifestó que el 

Programa de Derechos Humanos de la Presidencia solicitó que se activaran los 

mecanismos de búsqueda urgente de la señorita Katherine González. En virtud de lo 

anterior, el 15 de febrero de 2007, se libraron órdenes de la policía judicial al 

comandante de la Policía del Magdalena Medio y a la Jefe del Cuerpo Técnico de 

Investigación de la Fiscalía y al Departamento Administrativo de Seguridad. 

483. Por su parte, la Fiscalía de la Unidad de Derechos Humanos, asumió el 

conocimiento de la investigación penal pertinente, la cual cursa contra sindicados en 

averiguación, por el delito de Desaparición Forzada. 

484. En desarrollo de lo anterior, desde el día en que se conoció el hecho delictivo, 

el Comando de Policía del magdalena Medio en Barrancabermeja de la Policía 

Nacional, conformó un grupo de trabajo con organismos de seguridad, con el fin de 

coordinar la recolección de información e investigación criminal, que dieran con el 

paradero de la señorita González, adelantando de este modo labores de búsqueda de 

información a través de familiares, amigos y vecinos de la víctima, que permitieran 

consolidar datos para orientar la investigación. En ese sentido, el 14 de febrero de 

2007, se realizó un plan de búsqueda a nivel nacional por intermedio de las 

seccionales de inteligencia e investigación judicial, con la fotografía de la víctima, 

difundiendo los mensajes por los medios de comunicación internos y externos de la 

Policía Nacional. Así mismo, el 20 de febrero de 2007, en la reunión de seguridad 

semanal que lidera a la Alcaldía del Municipio de Barrancabermeja, se difundió la 

información sobre la desaparición de la señorita González con las agencias y 

organismos de seguridad del Estado. 

485. El 12 de marzo de 2007, la víctima fue liberada en uno de los exámenes de un 

puente el Bueno sobre la autopista que comunica de Girón a Bucaramanga, 

departamento de Santander. 

486. Por su parte, la Procuraduría General de la Nación, adelanta la investigación 

No. 008157209 – 2007, por la presunta desaparición de Katherine González, con 

implicados por averiguar, la cual se encuentra en estudio preliminar de la queja. 

487. Medidas de Protección implementadas a favor de los miembros de 

Organización Femenina Popular (OFP): El Ministerio del Interior y de Justicia, 

informó que la Señora Sandra Gutiérrez, es beneficiaria del esquema colectivo de 

protección asignado a la OFP, compuesto de apoyo de transporte fluvial, equivalente a 

ciento noventa y dos horas mensuales, el cual fue prorrogado por doce meses 

adicionales en la sesión 01 del Comité de Reglamentación y Evaluación de Riesgos 

CRER, para Dirigentes Sociales y ONG’s, llevada a cabo el 3 de febrero de 2007, así 

como un medio de comunicación aventel.


Page 107 

488. Asimismo, las sedes de la OFP en los municipios de Barrancabermeja, Yondo, 

San Pablo, Puerto Wilches y Cantagallo se encuentran blindadas. Adicionalmente, se 

otorgaron 6 tiquetes aéreos nacionales mensuales y las directivas de la Organización 

recibieron talleres de autoprotección, autoseguridad manejo de equipos. 

489. Finalmente, el Comando de Policía del Magdalena Medio en Barrancabermeja 

de la Policía Nacional, prosigue con las medidas de seguridad y revistas perimetrales 

prestadas a las instalaciones de la OFP, así como a los lugares de residencia de sus 

integrantes. De igual manera, la referida autoridad mantiene establecidos los canales 

de comunicación con la OFP, con el fin de prestar apoyo oportuno de ser requerido. 


490. El 13 de abril 2007, la Representante Especial, señaló a la atención urgente 

del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con la Sra. Jahel Quiroga Carrillo, 

Directora de REINICIAR, una organización que trabaja en defensa de los derechos 

humanos en Colombia. 

491. De acuerdo con la información recibida, el 30 de marzo de 2007, REINICIAR 

habría recibido información de parte de un individuo a quien le habría constado que se 

estaría desarrollando un plan para asesinar a la Sra. Carrillo. Se manifestó que el 

grupo paramilitar, autodenominado ‘Bloque Capital’, que opera en Bogotá, habría 

encargado el acto criminal, a un hombre conocido como ‘Diego’. 

492. Según se informa, estos hechos habrían sido puestos en conocimiento, desde el 

día 4 de abril, del Vicepresidente de la República, de la Embajadora Directora de 

Derechos Humanos y del Derecho Humanitario (DIH) del Ministerio de Relaciones 

Exteriores, del Director del Programa de Protección del Ministerio del Interior y de 

Justicia, del Coordinador de la Unidad de DDHH y DIH de la Fiscalía General de la 

Nación y del Director del Departamento Administrativo de Seguridad (DAS). 

493. El 15 de Marzo de 2002, la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos 

otorgó que la Corporación REINICIAR beneficie de Medidas Cautelares. Desde esa 

fecha, la CIDH habría solicitado al Gobierno de Colombia la adopción de medidas 

para proteger la vida e integridad personal de los integrantes de REINICIAR así como 

la investigación efectiva de los orígenes de las amenazas y actos de hostigamiento. 


actividad en defensa de los derechos humanos de REINICIAR presidida por la Sra. 

Carrillo y se expresa profunda preocupación por su seguridad e integridad física así 

como la del resto de miembros de dicha organización. 


495. Mediante comunicaciones de 25 de junio de 2007 y 28 de septiembre de 2007, 

el Gobierno proporcionó información con respecto al llamamiento enviado. El 

Gobierno informó de que la Sra. Jahel Quiroga Carrillo posee un esquema de 

seguridad consistente en un carro blindado y dos unidades de escolta.


Page 108 

496. En relación con el presunto plan de asesinato de la Sra. Jahel Quiroga Carrillo, 

se informó que se adelanta la pertinente investigación penal en la Fiscalía 239 

Seccional, la cual se encuentra en etapa de indagación preliminar. El Ministerio del 

Interior y de Justicia informó que la Sra. Jahel Quiroga Carrillo posee un esquema de 

seguridad consistente en un carro blindado y dos unidades de escolta. 

497. Se informó también que se implementen las alianzas estratégicas de seguridad 

y las rondas policiales alrededor de la sede de REINICIAR, durante las veinticuatro 

horas del día. El Gobierno manifestó que estará atento al desarrollo de las 

investigaciones que por estos hechos vienen adelantando las diferentes autoridades 

nacionales, de cuyos resultados informaremos oportunamente a Su Excelencia. 

498. Mediante la comunicación de 25 de junio de 2007, el Gobierno adjuntó una 

nota conteniendo información respecto a las gestiones adelantadas por el Programa 

Presidencial de Derechos Humanos y DIH de la Republica de Colombia en el marco 

del seguimiento de las medidas cautelares solicitadas por la CIDH. 


499. El 26 de abril de 2007, la Representante Especial señaló a la atención urgente 

del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con 13 organizaciones civiles que 

trabajan por el respeto, la protección y la promoción de los derechos humanos en 

el departamento de Nariño, incluyendo el Pastoral Social de la Diócesis de Tumaco; 

la Unidad Indígena del Pueblo Awa (UNIPA); el Comité Permanente por la Defensa 

de Derechos Humanos (CPDH – Nariño); la Fundación Comité de Solidaridad con los 

Presos Políticos (FCSPP); el Movimiento por la Defensa de los Derechos del Pueblo 

(MODEP) y la Federación Universitaria Nacional (FUN). 

500. De acuerdo con la información recibida, el 20 de marzo de 2007, 13 

organizaciones que trabajan en defensa de los derechos humanos en el departamento 

de Nariño, habrían recibido vía correo electrónico amenazas de muerte, acusándolas 

de ser “terroristas en estafetas de derechos humanos”. Se alega que las amenazas 

habrían sido enviadas por un grupo paramilitar autodenominado Nueva Generación. 

501. Además, en el mes de febrero de 2007, varias organizaciones sociales que 

trabajan en Nariño, tales como el Consejo Regional de Indígenas del Cauca (ACIN) y 

la Organización Campesina (CIMA), fueron amenazadas por las Fuerzas Armadas 

Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC-EP) con que serían consideradas como 

“objetivo militar” si no dejaba su actividad. 


actividad en defensa de los derechos humanos de las 13 organizaciones que trabajan 

en el departamento de Nariño y se expresa profunda preocupación por la seguridad e 

integridad física de los miembros de dichas organizaciones. 


503. Mediante carta con fecha 14 de diciembre de 2007 el Gobierno transmitió la 

siguiente información en relación con el llamamiento urgente. El Gobierno informó 

que la Fiscalía General de la Nación había adelantado varias investigaciones penales


Page 109 

en relación con las amenazas, y que las investigaciones fueron unificadas, en 

consideración a que los hechos investigados conciernen a varias presuntas amenazas, 

de las que serían víctimas algunas ONGs de Nariño. La fiscalía del caso señaló que 

está trabajando para lograr obtener la dirección concreta de la computadora de donde 

se envió el correo amenazante. Actualmente, las autoridades están pendientes de la 

respuesta de la empresa Colombia Telecomunicaciones relacionada con una nueva 

orden de búsqueda selectiva de datos, con el fin de obtener toda la información 

biográfica del Protocolo de Internet (IP). 


504. El 25 de junio de 2007, la Representante Especial, señaló a la atención urgente 

del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con varias organizaciones civiles e 

indígenas que trabajan en la promoción y protección de los derechos humanos en el 

Departamento de Nariño, y en particular sus directivos, incluyendo el Sr. Javier 

Dorado, del Comité Permanente de Derechos Humanos - Nariño (CPDH); el Sr. 

William Girón Cruz, de la Pastoral Social de la Diócesis de Tumaco; el Sr. Gabriel 

Bisbicus Pascal, de la Unidad Indígena del Pueblo Awa (UNIPA); el Sr. Jesús 

Arciniegas, de la Fundación Desarrollo y Paz (FUNDEPAZ); la Sra. Martha 

Delgado, miembro del CPDH y de la Federación Universitaria Nacional (FUN) y del 

Movimiento por la Defensa de los Derechos del Pueblo (MODEP); el Sr. Harold 

Montufar, de la Alcaldía de Samaniego, defensor de los derechos humanos que lucha 

desde hace varios años contra las minas antipersonales y por el desminado de las 

mismas en la zonas de uso civil en Nariño; la Sra. Gloria Amparo Camilo, de la 

Corporación de Apoyo a Víctimas de Violencia Sociopolítica pro-Recuperación 

Emociona (AVRE), así como de los dirigentes y miembros de la Unidad Indígena del 

Pueblo Awá (UNIPA). El 26 de abril de 2007, la Representante Especial para los 

defensores de derechos humanos envió un llamamiento urgente al Gobierno 

pidiéndole que tomara medidas de protección para garantizar la seguridad de los 

integrantes de dichas organizaciones ante las amenazas de muerte que habrían 

recibido. A fecha de hoy, dicha comunicación no ha recibido respuesta por parte del 

Gobierno. 

505. De acuerdo con la nueva información recibida, el 6 de junio de 2007, hacia el 

mediodía, los señores Javier Dorado, William Girón Cruz, Gabriel Bisbicus Pascal, 

Jesús Arciniegas, Martha Delgado, Harold Montufar y Gloria Amparo Camilo habrían 

recibido por medio de correo electrónico un mensaje amenazante titulado “2DA 

ADVERTENCIA” en donde una presunta organización armada ilegal 

autodenominada Nueva Generación les habría declarado objetivo militar. El mensaje 

contenía supuestamente el siguiente texto: “Dado que no ha sido atendida nuestra 

ultima advertencia, declaramos objetivo militar a las siguientes organizaciones y 

personas colaboradoras de comunistas: por un Nariño libre de escoria 

guerrillera…Viva la libertad no a las viejas opresiones terroristas en estafetas de 

derechos humanos”. 

506. El 12 de junio de 2007, la sede de la organización Unidad Indígena del Pueblo 

Awá (UNIPA), en la ciudad de Pasto, Departamento de Nariño, habría recibido 

supuestamente una llamada telefónica de un desconocido, con el siguiente contenido: 

“Se advierte una vez más de la amenaza dirigida a la UNIPA, por ser colaboradores 

de la guerrilla ya estaban advertidos, deben atenerse a las consecuencias”.


Page 110 


actividad en defensa de los derechos humanos de las organizaciones civiles e 

indígenas que trabajan en el departamento de Nariño y se expresa profunda 

preocupación por la seguridad e integridad física de los señores Javier Dorado, 

William Girón Cruz, Gabriel Bisbicus Pascal, Jesús Arciniegas, Martha Delgado, 

Harold Montufar, y Gloria Amparo Camilo, así como de los miembros de la UNIPA y 

de las otras organizaciones arriba mencionadas. 


508. El 18 de mayo de 2007, la Representante Especial señaló a la atención urgente 

del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con el Sr. Gabriel González 

Arango, coordinador Seccional Santander de la Fundación Comité de Solidaridad con 

los Presos Políticos (FCSPP), una organización independiente que se dedica a la 

defensa de las víctimas de detenciones arbitrarias, torturas, malos tratos o condiciones 

infrahumanas en los centros de detención y penitenciaras del país. El 18 de enero de 

2006, la Presidente-Relatora del Grupo de Trabajo sobre la Detención Arbitraria, y la 

Representante Especial para la situación de los defensores de derechos humanos envió 

un llamamiento urgente al Gobierno sobre la detención del Sr. González. 

509. De acuerdo con la información recibida, el 4 de abril de 2007, el Sr. González 

fue dejado en libertad luego que fue emitida la absolución del delito de rebelión 

proferida por el Juzgado octavo penal del circuito de Bucaramanga el 30 de marzo de 

2007. Se alega que el Juez decidió que las acusaciones de rebelión contra el Sr. 

González se hicieron sin pruebas y fueron basadas en evidencia de testigos e informes 

gubernamentales que carecían de credibilidad e imparcialidad. Ambos testigos en el 

caso supuestamente fueron miembros de las FARC y habrían afirmado que el Sr. 

González fue un comandante de las FARC. Sin embargo, uno de los testigos no pudo 

nombrar ni identificar al Sr. González previo a su detención y el otro había confesado 

que había prestado su declaración bajo coacción de las autoridades. 

510. Según se informa, el 4 de enero de 2006, el Sr. González habría sido detenido 

por miembros de al fiscalía en la ciudad de Pamplona, departamento del Norte de 

Santander. Fue encarcelado en Bucaramanga departamento de Santander, acusado de 

rebelión y de ser miembro de las FARC. Se informa que el señor González Arango 

habría sido acogido dentro del Programa de Protección del Ministerio del Interior, 

previo a su detención. 


actividad en defensa de los derechos humanos del Sr. Gabriel González Arango y se 

expresa profunda preocupación por su seguridad e integridad física ya que el 

procedimiento le haya estigmatizado como miembro de una guerrilla y que se podría 

encontrar en alto riesgo de represalias por parte de fuerzas paramilitares. 


512. Mediante cartas fechadas 29 de agosto de 2007 y 26 noviembre de 2007 el 

Gobierno transmitió la siguiente información en relación con el llamamiento urgente. 

El Gobierno señaló que, de conformidad con la información por el Departamento


Page 111 

Administrativo de Seguridad DAS, había asignado para su protección un esquema 

individual de un escolta, en la ciudad de Bucaramanga. El Gobierno manifestó que 

desde el mes de enero de 2006, el Sr. Gabriel González Arango se encontraba recluido 

en el Instituto nacional Penitenciario y Carcelario – INPEC, en el Patio No. 4, por 

cuenta del juzgado Octavo Penal del Circuito de Bucaramanga sindicado del delito de 

rebelión. No obstante lo anterior, el día 30 de marzo de 2007, se profirió sentencia 

absolutoria a favor del Sr. Gonzalez Arango. De conformidad con lo anterior, la 

Procuraduría General de la Nación ha informado que un procurador Judicial en 

calidad de agente especial del proceso penal impugnó la sentencia en mención. Por 

otra parte, en relación con las presuntas amenazas de que habría sido víctima el Sr. 

González Arango, la Procuraduría General de la Nación informó que no cursa 

investigación disciplinaria alguna sobre el particular. 


513. El 23 de mayo de 2007, la Representante Especial, junto con el Relator 


Relator Especial sobre las ejecuciones extrajudiciales, sumarias o arbitrarias señalaron 

a la atención urgente del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con el asesinato 

del Sr. Francisco Puerta, líder campesino y ex-coordinador de la Zona Humanitaria 

de la vereda Miramar y los miembros de la Comunidad de Paz de San José de 

Apartadó, en el Departamento de Antioquia. 

514. De acuerdo con la información recibida, el 14 de mayo de 2007, hacia las 

07:00 de la mañana, el Sr. Puerta fue asesinado por dos individuos, con supuestos 

vínculos paramilitares, en una tienda frente del Terminal de Transportes de Apartadó. 

Los asesinos le habrían disparado varias veces. Los agresores habrían salido 

caminando tranquilamente a pesar de que hubiera una presencia policial en los 

alrededores. 

515. Así mismo, el 9 de mayo de 2007, tres paramilitares, vestidos de civil y 

portando armas de fuego y radios de comunicación, habrían detenido a tres mujeres 

partidarias de la Comunidad de Paz de San José de Apartadó. Estos tres individuos se 

les habrían presentado como miembros de las ‘Águilas Negras’, y les dijeron que las 

buscaban, amenazando en matarlas. Los paramilitares llevaron a las mujeres hacia la 

salida de Apartadó en donde se ubica el retén de la policía, y las pidieron 

identificaciones y efectuaron llamadas por radio dando datos de cada una. Resultó 

que las mujeres no eran las que buscaban y las soltaron tras una media hora de 

detención, insultos y amenazas. Se alega que, antes de liberarlas, los paramilitares les 

habrían dicho que ‘ya tenían orden de meterse a San Josesito, la Unión y las demás 

veredas para realizar una masacre’ y que ‘la orden se había coordinado con la policía 

y el Ejercito, quienes les habían dado los nombres de a quien tenían que “darle”’. Las 

mujeres fueron amenazadas con que algo les sucedería si dijeran algo sobre el 

incidente. 

516. Se teme que el asesinato del Sr. Puerta y las amenazas en contra de los 

miembros de la Comunidad de Paz de San José de Apartadó estén relacionados con 

sus respectivas actividades en defensa de los derechos humanos. Así mismo se 

expresa profunda preocupación por la seguridad e integridad física de los miembros 

de la mencionada comunidad.


Page 112 


517. Por carta con fecha 14 de diciembre de 2007 el Gobierno transmitió la 

siguiente información en relación con el llamamiento urgente. La Fiscalía General de 

la Nación ha asignado al Fiscal Delegado ante los jueces del Circuito Especializado 

adscrito a la Unidad Nacional de Derechos Humanos, para adelantar hasta su 

culminación la investigación penal por el homicidio del Sr. Francisco Puerta. La 

Unidad de Apartado del cuerpo técnico de investigación –CTI, asumió la indagación, 

realizando de manera urgente una inspección técnica al cadáver, inspección al lugar 

de los hechos, orden de necropsia y entrevistas. La Procuraduría General de la Nación 

señaló que recurrió a las entidades competentes con el fin de desplegar todos los 

mecanismos necesarios para prevenir la ocurrencia de hechos similares en la región. 

Por su parte, el Grupo de Asesores Disciplinarios de la Procuraría General de la 

Nación asumirá conocimiento de un informe en el que se contextualizan los hechos 

que rodearon la muerte del señor Puertas, a partir de información recibida de parte de 

personas residentes del Corregimiento de San José de Apartado. 

518. Según información recibida por el Comando General de las Fuerzas Militares, 

se han implementado varias acciones para contrarrestar situaciones de riesgo en contra 

de miembros de la Comunidad de Paz. Tropas de Batallón de Infantería trabajan para 

garantizar las condiciones de seguridad necesarias en el área. Se señala que debido a 

estas medidas de seguridad, se han evitado acciones de grupos armados ilegales en 

contra de personas civiles permitiendo la movilización de los productos en la ruta que 

cubre Apartado - San José de Apartado. Las fuerzas militares señalan su disposición 

para escuchar a los representantes de la Comunidad de Paz para adoptar las medidas 

de protección que se deben adoptar para asegurar sus derechos. 

519. La Policía Nacional informó que se había impartido instrucciones a los Jefes 

Seccionales de policía Judicial y Seccional de Inteligencia, con el fin de desarrollar 

todas las labores de su competencia, para contrarrestar cualquier acción que intente 

vulnerar a los habitantes de la comunidad de paz de San José de Apartado. 

520. Se elaboró por parte del Comando del Departamento de Policía de Urabá la 

orden de servicios denominada “Medidas Preventivas para contrarrestar Acciones de 

Grupos Delincuenciales Emergentes en San José de Apartado”, la cual establece 

dispositivos especiales en el Distrito Uno de Apartado, y la jurisdicción que se 

extiende hasta el corregimiento de San José de Apartado con el fin de preservar la 

seguridad ciudadana y contrarrestar acciones terroristas y delincuencias por los grupos 

armados emergentes. Así mismo se realicen coordinaciones de seguridad, aunadas 

entre la Policía nacional y el Ejército Nacional. 

521. La Seccional de Inteligencia no cuenta con elementos de información que 

indiquen la presencia de grupos ilegales de autodefensa en el área general de San José 

de Apartado, conociéndose únicamente la presencia de los frentes 5 y 58 del grupo 

guerrillero de las FARC. El Departamento de Policía de Urabá permanentemente 

dispone la recolección de información así como la alerta permanente, disposición de 

los uniformados y el incremento de las campañas comunitarias en la jurisdicción con 

el fin de mejorar el acercamiento y la confianza de la población civil en la Policía 

Nacional.


Page 113 

522. Asimismo se ha realizado coordinaciones con la Alcaldía Municipal, a fin de 

expedir los actos administrativos necesarios que apoyen la labor policial, para 

garantizar el orden y la tranquilidad de la localidad de San José de Apartado. Se ha 

activado planes de búsqueda de información y se activaron y alertaron los frentes de 

seguridad de los sectores de la salida de Apartado hacia San José de Apartado, con el 

fin de que se informe cualquier actividad sospechosa o acción por parte de los 

integrantes de grupos ilegales. El Gobierno precisó que las diferentes Fuerzas que 

componen la Fuerza Publica del orden nacional, actúan coordinadamente, con una 

política pública vigente no tolerante con los grupos armados ilegales, por lo cual se ha 

acudido a la continua divulgación del respeto por los Derechos Humanos de la 

población y de la comunidad de Paz. 


523. El 8 de Junio de 2007, la Representante Especial, junto con el Relator 

Especial sobre la situación de los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales de 

los indígenas señalaron a la atención urgente del Gobierno la información recibida en 

relación con las amenazas recibidas por el Sr. Darío Edgardo Tapasco, dirigente 

indígena y alcalde del municipio de Riosucio, en el departamento de Caldas; del Sr. 

Carlos Alberto González, líder sindical y dirigente indígena, residente en este mismo 

municipio; y del Sr. Héctor Jaime Vinasco, dirigente indígena y gobernador de la 

reserva indígena de Cañamono. 

524. De acuerdo con la información recibida, el 5 de mayo de 2007, hacia las 12:20 

pm, un individuo identificado como “Jonatan”, presunto comandante del Frente 

Cacique Pipintá (FCP), organización que forma parte del grupo armado ilegal 

Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC), habría llamado a la oficina del Sr. Darío 

Edgardo Tapasco, pidiendo comunicarse con él. Al ser informado que el Sr. Tapasco 

se encontraba ocupado, el individuo habría proferido las palabras siguientes: “Dígales 

a esos hijueputas, él y los concejales, que tienen hasta el lunes [7 de mayo] para que 

renuncien y si no les vamos a llenar la barriga de plomo”. 

525. Según se informa, el 8 de mayo de 2007, hacia las 7:30 am, cuatro hombres y 

una mujer, supuestamente vinculadas a grupos armados ilegales, se habrían 

presentado en la casa del Sr. Carlos Alberto González, en el municipio de Riosucio, y 

le habrían interrogado sobre los movimientos del Sr. Tapasco. 

526. Asimismo, se alega que un grupo de personas vinculadas a grupos 

paramilitares habría entrado en la reserva indígena de Cañamono el 9 de mayo de 

2007 pidiendo a un miembro de la comunidad que llevara engañado al Sr. Héctor 

Jaime Vinasco a un lugar aislado donde pudieran secuestrarlo. 

527. La Representante Especial y Relator Especial expresaron la preocupación de 

que estos eventos pudieran estar relacionados con las actividades del Sr. Vinasco, del 

Sr. González y del Sr. Tapasco en defensa de los derechos humanos, y en particular de 

los derechos indígenas en el municipio de Riosucio. 

Respuesta del Gobierno:


Page 114 

528. Mediante carta de 2 de octubre de 2007, la Misión Permanente de Colombia 

remitió nota de 14 de septiembre de 2007 mediante la cual la Dirección de Derechos 

Humanos y Derecho Internacional Humanitario del Ministerio de Relaciones 

Exteriores de Colombia dio respuesta a la comunicación de 8 de junio de 2007. 

529. El Gobierno informó de la investigación que se estaba llevando a cabo por el 

fiscal segundo seccional de Riosucio por la presunta comisión de amenazas en contra 

del Sr. Dario Edgardo Tabasco, alcalde del municipio de Riosucio. Igualmente, en 

relación con las presuntas amenazas que habrían recibido Héctor Jaime Vinasco y 

Carlos Alberto González, el Gobierno manifestó que la Fiscalía estaba llevando a 

cabo una investigación. Además, unidades de la Seccional de Inteligencia del 

Departamento de Policía de Caldas entraron en contacto con dichas personas con el 

fin de conocer sus problemas de seguridad y en consecuencia orientar las medidas 

pertinentes. 

530. Según informó el Gobierno, Dario Edgardo Tabasco señaló a la Policía 

Nacional que el día 5 de mayo, la secretaria ejecutiva recibió una llamada telefónica 

en la cual le manifestaron que el alcalde tenía hasta el 7 de mayo para renunciar a su 

cargo. No obstante, se informó de que el amenazado pensaba que se trataba de una 

estrategia intimidatoria, dada la cercanía de los comicios electorales. 

531. Héctor Jaime Vinasco informó de que nunca había sido víctima de amenazas 

en forma directa, a pesar de que en varias ocasiones comuneros indígenas de las 

comunidades El Rodeo y Tamayo, y el municipio de Supia, manifestaron que habían 

sido abordados por sujetos desconocidos, quienes manifestaron pertenecer a las 

autodefensas, solicitando hablar con el gobernador. 

532. Por su parte, el Sr. Carlos Alberto González negó, según informa el Gobierno, 

haber sido victima de amenazas, aunque hubiera señalado que el día 8 de mayo de 

2007, llegaron a su residencia cinco personas preguntándole su opinión sobre el 

alcalde de Riosucio, y si conocía sus propiedades y su situación económica. 

533. En lo concerniente al Sr. Gersain de Jesús Díaz, éste habría informado, según 

informa el Gobierno, no haber sido víctima de amenazas. 

534. El Gobierno, el Consejo de Seguridad Regional llevado a cabo en el municipio 

de Riosucio, el 8 de mayo, decidió revisar los esquemas de seguridad del alcalde de 

Riosucio, de los líderes y gobernadores indígenas y de todos los funcionarios que 

cuenten con esquemas de seguridad del Estado. Por su parte, el Comando del 

Departamento de Policía de Caldas puso en efecto un esquema de seguridad 

permanente, reforzado en caso de incrementarse el riesgo con el fin de garantizar et 

libre ejercicio de sus funciones. 

535. Asimismo, se llevaron a cabo varias reuniones de las Juntas de Inteligencia 

Preelectoral, en las cuales se tratan temas referentes a las últimas informaciones de 

inteligencia sobre amenazas a candidatos e informaciones sobre las perspectivas 

armadas de los grupos terroristas, en atención a las elecciones; así como del Comité 

Interinstitucional de Seguridad Ciudadana, las cuales han contado con la participación 

de diferentes autoridades del orden municipal, autoridades indígenas, representantes 

de la Defensora del Pueblo, del Programa de comunidades en alto riesgo del


Page 115 

Ministerio del Interior y de Justicia, delegaciones de la Oficina para Colombia de la 

Organización de las Naciones Unidas. 



del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con amenazas en contra de los 

líderes de la Federación Agro-minera del Sur de Bolívar, principalmente las recibidas 

por el Sr. Teofilo Manuel Acuña, presidente de dicha Federación y las 

organizaciones nacionales e internacionales que acompañan las comunidades del Sur 

de Bolívar en sus procesos sociales en defensa del territorio. 

537. De acuerdo con la información recibida, el 12 de mayo de 2007, se habría 

recibido en uno de los correos electrónicos de la Red Solidaridad de Hermandad y 

Solidaridad con Colombia (una coordinación de organizaciones que trabaja en defensa 

de los derechos humanos) un mensaje amenazante. Según se informa, este mensaje 

habría amenazado la vida y la integridad física de los líderes de la Federación Agrominera 

del Sur de Bolívar, en particular la del Sr. Acuña, acusándoles de haber 

desviado ‘los recursos de las minas para mantener y fortalecer a las organizaciones 

narcoterroristas como el ELN’. Asimismo, se amenaza a las organizaciones 

nacionales e internacionales que acompañan las comunidades del Sur de Bolívar, con 

que algo les sucedería si no cesaban sus actividades. 

538. Según se informa, los líderes de la Federación Agro-minera del Sur de 

Bolívar, habrían sido victimas de amenazas y hostigamientos constantes. El 26 de 

abril de 2007, el Sr. Acuña fue detenido por miembros del Batallón Antiaéreo Nueva 

Granada de la V Brigada, en las oficinas de la Federación Agro-minera del Sur de 

Bolívar, en el casco urbano de Santa Rosa. Según los informes, en el momento de la 

detención, el Sr. Acuña fue golpeado por uno de los efectivos militares. El Sr. Acuña 

fue detenido durante 10 días en las instalaciones de la base militar del Batallón 

Antiaéreo Nueva Granada, ubicado en el casco urbano del municipio de Santa Rosa. 

Fue liberado el 5 de mayo de 2007 por una orden de la Fiscalía Seccional 28 

Seccional de Simití. 

539. Se teme que estos eventos puedan estar relacionados con la actividad en 

defensa de los derechos humanos de la Federación Agro-minera del Sur de Bolívar, 

presidida por el Sr. Acuña, y se expresa una profunda preocupación por su seguridad e 

integridad física así como por la de los otros miembros de dicha organización. 


540. Mediante comunicaciones de 13 de noviembre de 2007 y 18 de diciembre de 

2007, el Gobierno proporcionó información con respecto al llamamiento urgente. El 

Gobierno informó que la Fiscalía 28 Seccional de Simiti, Departamento de Bolivar, 

adelanta el proceso número 138050, en la cual se investiga al Sr. Acuna Ribon por el 

presunto delito de Rebelión. El 12 de abril de los corrientes, se libró orden de captura 

en contra del Sr. Acuna Ribon, la cual se hizo efectiva por miembros del Batallón 

Nueva Granada del Ejército Nacional el 26 de abril de 2007, en las instalaciones de la 

Federación de Mineros del Sur de Bolivar. No obstante lo anterior, en providencia de 

fecha 4 de mayo de 2007, se resolvió la situación jurídica del sindicado, absteniéndose


Page 116 

la Fiscalía encargada, de imponerle medida de aseguramiento, y en consecuencia se 

ordenó su libertad. 


541. El 22 de junio de 2007 la Representante Especial, junto con el Relator 

Especial sobre la promoción del derecho a la libertad de opinión y de expresión, 

señalaron a la atención urgente del Gobierno la información recibida señalando que en 

la madrugada del 6 de junio de 2007, un grupo de criminales armados atacó en su 

propia casa a la familia del Sr. Hernando Melán Cardona, un destacado sindicalista 

de la empresa Textiles Rionegro, asesinando a su hijo, el Sr. Andrés Julián Melán, e 

hiriendo gravemente a su esposa, la Sra. Luz Ángela Velásquez, y a su otro hijo, en el 

municipio de Rionegro (Departamento de Antioquía). 

542. De acuerdo con las informaciones recibidas, el Sr. Melán Cardona, un 

defensor del proceso de unidad que se ha venido dando en todo el sector textil 

colombiano, proceso encabezado por la Central Unitaria de Trabajadores de Colombia 

(CUT), ya había recibido amenazas contra su vida anteriormente. 

543. Según fuentes, el Sr. Johan Jairo Arcila Parra, dirigente comunal y de los 

artesanos, y también líder político, habría sido asesinado el pasado 5 de junio de 2007, 

en la ciudad de Armenia, Departamento de Quindío. El Sr. Jairo habría hecho 

denuncias sobre la presunta corrupción que se venía presentando por parte de la 

administración municipal en el centro comercial popular, lugar donde estarían 

instalados los vendedores ambulantes, a los cuales él también dirigía. 



del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con el Sr. Iván Cepeda Castro, 

dirigente de la Fundación Manuel Cepeda Vargas, representante del Movimiento 

Nacional de Víctimas de Crímenes del Estado y columnista con el seminario El 

Espectador. El 12 de diciembre de 2006, la Representante Especial para los 

defensores de derechos humanos, envió un llamamiento urgente al Gobierno 

pidiéndole que tomara medidas de protección para garantizar la seguridad del Sr. 

Cepeda ante las amenazas de muerte que había recibido. 

545. De acuerdo con la nueva información recibida, el 3 de Mayo de 2007, el 

despacho del Fiscal 64 de la Unidad de Delitos Contra el Orden Económico, Derechos 

de Autor y otros, mediante el oficio 086-07, habría intentado realizar una diligencia de 

inspección judicial a la Comisión de Derechos Humanos del Senado de la Republica. 

Este procedimiento se habría justificado por parte del Fiscalía General de la Nación 

con motivo de la búsqueda de información relacionada al Sr. Cepeda actualmente 

investigado por dicha entidad oficial. 

546. Según se informa, el 27 de noviembre de 2006, el Sr. Cepeda habría 

participado en una Audiencia Pública, convocada por la Comisión de Derechos 

Humanos del Senado de la República en el municipio de San Onofre, departamento de 

Sucre. En dicha Audiencia miembros de la comunidad en la zona habrían


Page 117 

denunciado los presuntos vínculos de autoridades locales con el paramilitarismo. Al 

escuchar estas denuncias el Sr. Cepeda habría solicitado la dimisión del Alcalde del 

municipio de San Onofre, el Sr. Jorge Blanco. El Sr. Cepeda fue denunciado 

penalmente por los delitos de calumnia e injuria. 

547. Se teme que estos eventos puedan estar relacionados con las actividades del 

Sr. Iván Cepeda Castro en defensa de los derechos humanos, y en particular sus 

denuncias sobre el vínculo entre las autoridades y el paramilitarismo. 


548. El Programa Presidencial de Derechos Humanos y Derecho Internacional 

Humanitario de la Vicepresidencia de la Republica, conformó Comités de Evaluación 

de Riesgos en los que se analizó el caso de los integrantes de ANTHOC, así como 

reuniones individuales para la revisión de las medidas existentes de protección a favor 

de los mismos. 

549. La Policía Nacional realizó seguimiento a los mensajes amenazantes recibidos 

el 13 de junio del 2006 en la sede de ANTHOC en Bogotá, D.C., logrando establecer, 

a través de la Empresa de Telefonos de Bogota – ETB, que la dirección IP de los 

mismos corresponde a un usuario de Internet con el nombre “ANTHOC”, 

determinándose así que este correo electrónico tuvo su orígen en uno de los 

computadores de propiedad de la precitada asociación. 

550. Lo anterior se pudo corroborar mediante inspección realizada a las 

instalaciones se ANTHOC. Estas actuaciones se encuentran soportadas dentro de la 

investigación penal que adelanta la Fiscalía 241 Seccional en Bogotá, de la Unidad de 

Libertad individual y otras garantías. 



del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con la Corporación Jurídica 

Libertad (CJL), institución fundada por abogadas y abogados de distintas 

universidades que luchan por los derechos humanos en Colombia. 

552. De acuerdo con la información recibida, el 25 de mayo de 2007 se habría 

entregado una carta a la portera del edificio donde tiene su sede la CJL, en la ciudad 

de Medellín. En dicha carta, de tono amenazante, se habría declarado objetivo militar 

a los integrantes de la CJL, advirtiéndoles de les consecuencias de no renunciar a las 

defensas penales que ellos representan. La carta supuestamente contenía el siguiente 

texto: “no ensucien sus hojas de vida ni sus conciencias y sobre todo no hagan que 

nosotros ensuciemos las nuestras además de nuestras manos con la sangre de ustedes”. 

553. Según se informa, en marzo de 2007, la CJL Colombia-Europa-Estados 

Unidos, junto con el Colectivo de Derechos Humanos Semillas de Libertad – 

(CODEHSE), habría publicado un informe titulado “Ejecuciones extrajudiciales: caso 

Oriente antioqueño”, en el cual se denuncian los homicidios de 110 personas, 

presuntamente por parte de miembros de la IV Brigada del Ejército, que luego fueron 

presentadas ante la opinión pública como “guerrilleros dados de baja en combate”.


Page 118 

554. Se teme que estos hechos puedan estar relacionados con la actividad en 

defensa de los derechos humanos de la Corporación Jurídica Libertad y se expresa 

profunda preocupación por la seguridad e integridad física de los miembros de dicha 

organización. 


555. El 27 de julio de 2007 la Representante Especial, junto con el Relator Especial 

sobre las ejecuciones extrajudiciales, sumarias o arbitrarias señalaron a la atención 

urgente del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con Dairo Torres 

Sepúlveda, líder campesino de la Comunidad de Paz de San José de Apartadó y 

coordinador de la Zona Humanitaria de Alto Bonito desde el año 2004. 

556. De acuerdo con la información recibida, el 13 de julio de 2007, hacia las 

12.00, en la carretera entre Apartado y San José, Dairo Torres Sepúlveda fue 

asesinado por dos paramilitares reconocidos. Fue interceptado el vehículo de servicio 

público en que viajaba el Sr. Torres Sepúlveda. Los dos paramilitares pararon el 

vehículo y con armas cortas le dijeron al Sr. Torres Sepúlveda que bajara del vehículo 

y que el chofer del vehículo siguiera. Luego le asesinaron. 

557. El asesinato ocurrió muy cerca del retén de policía pero no había presencia 

policial en los alrededores. Según se informa, ese mismo día el 13 de julio de 2007 

hacia las 09:10, se habrían visto los dos paramilitares sentados y conversando con la 

policía en el retén en el Mangolo. Además el día anterior, el 12 de julio de 2007, se 

habrían visto los dos paramilitares, supuestamente miembros de las “Águilas Negras” 

en la localidad del asesinato amenazando a la comunidad. 

558. Se teme que el asesinato del Sr. Dairo Torres Sepúlveda está relacionado con 

su trabajo en defensa de los derechos humanos en la Comunidad de Paz de San José 

de Apartado. Así mismo se expresa profunda preocupación por la seguridad e 

integridad física del resto de los miembros de la mencionada comunidad. 


559. Por carta con fecha 30 de agosto de 2007 el Gobierno de Colombia transmitió 

la siguiente información en relación con el llamamiento urgente. El Gobierno informó 

que se han adelantado varias entrevistas con las hermanas del Sr. Torres y se habría 

conocido que el Sr. Torres pertenecía a la Comunidad de Paz de San José de 

Apartado, de donde salió hace un año, debido a que la Comunidad no le permitía el 

consumo de licor. Las hermanas del Sr. Torres desconocían si lo estaban amenazando 

y otra persona entrevistada señaló que la víctima venía bajando de la Vereda Caracoli, 

cuando fue envestido por unos hombres que le dispararon y huyeron, sin precisar el 

número de victimarios o la persona que le habría suministrado esta información. 


560. El 16 de agosto de 2007, la Representante Especial, junto con Relator 


señalaron a la atención urgente del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con


Page 119 

el Sr. Hector Torres y el Sr. Rigoberto Jiménez. El Sr. Jiménez es el director de la 

Coordinación Nacional de Desplazados (CND), una organización que trabaja en 

defensa de los derechos de los desplazados, y los dos son integrantes del Movimiento 

Nacional de Victimas de Crimines de Estado que se dedica a la denuncia de las 

violaciones de derechos humanos y derecho internacional humanitario cometidos 

contra ciudadanos o comunidades por miembros de la Policía Nacional o grupos 

paramilitares en Colombia. 

561. De acuerdo con la información recibida, el 31 de julio de 2007, individuos de 

un grupo paramilitar que se identificaron como “Águilas Negras”, habrían irrumpido 

en la casa del Sr. Héctor Torres en la ciudad de Villavicencio. Dichos individuos, que 

llevaban armas pequeñas, habrían amenazado a las personas que estaban adentro 

mientras buscaban al Sr. Héctor Torres, quien no se encontraba en la casa. Uno de los 

miembros de la familia habría avisado a un vecino que llamó a la policía. 

562. Según la información recibida, el 26 de junio de 2007, las “Águilas Negras de 

Bosa” habrían enviado un correo electrónico a la Coordinación Nacional de 

Desplazados (CND) con una amenaza de muerte contra el Sr. Jiménez. El 22 de junio 

de 2007, el Sr. Jiménez habría recibido un mensaje amenazante donde se le ordenaba 

que dejara sus actividades y que mantuviera la boca cerrada. El 12 de julio se habrían 

acercado dos individuos desconocidos al Sr. Jiménez en una calle en Bogotá. Le 

habrían dicho que trabajaban con las “Águilas Negras” con la intención de poner fin a 

todos los guerrilleros que estaban criticando al gobierno. 

563. Todos los incidentes antedichos ocurrieron durante la celebración del Tribunal 

Internacional de Opinión en Bogotá, una conferencia internacional que trató del tema 

de los desplazamientos forzados. La CND fue una de las instituciones que participaran 

en la conferencia. 

564. Se expresó profunda preocupación por la seguridad e integridad física y 

psicológica del Sr. Héctor Torres y el Sr. Rigoberto Jiménez. Se expresó temor de que 

estos eventos pudieran estar relacionados con sus actividades en la defensa de los 

derechos humanos, en particular con el trabajo que llevan a cabo en la investigación y 

la denunciación de violaciones de derechos humanos en la Coordinación Nacional de 

Desplazados (CND) y del Movimiento Nacional de Víctimas de Crímenes de Estado. 


565. El 29 de agosto de 2007 la Representante Especial, señaló a la atención 

urgente del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con Sr. Isaías López. El Sr. 

Isaías López es un agricultor y un miembro de la Junta de Acción Comunal (JAC), 

una organización comunitaria de la vereda la Floresta en el municipio de El Castillo. 

La JAC se dedica a la protección de los derechos humanos de los miembros de la 

comunidad de El Castillo que en los últimos años han sido víctimas de 

desplazamientos y desapariciones forzadas, supuestamente cometidas por grupos 

paramilitares. 

566. Según la información recibida, el 19 de agosto de 2007, aproximadamente a 

las 9.15pm, el Sr. Isaías López fue víctima de un ataque cometido por hombres 

desconocidos armados en la zona de Medellín del Ariari. Se alega que los hombres le


Page 120 

habrían disparado al menos ocho veces y en este momento se encuentra en estado 

grave en un hospital del municipio de Granada. 

567. Se teme que el mencionado suceso pueda estar relacionado con las actividades 

del Sr. Isaías López en la defensa de los derechos humanos, en particular de los 

derechos de los miembros de las comunidades de El Castillo. Se expresa profunda 

preocupación por la integridad física y psicológica del Sr. Isaías López, los miembros 

de su familia y de los miembros de la comunidad del El Castillo. 


568. El 19 de septiembre de 2007 la Representante Especial señaló a la atención 

urgente del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con el Sr. Andrés Gutiérrez 

Baldovino. El Sr. Andrés Gutiérrez Baldovino es integrante de la Fundación 

Franciscana Santo Tomás Moro, organización no gubernamental que se dedica a la 

protección y la promoción de los derechos humanos en la ciudad de Sincelejo, 

departamento de Sucre. 

569. Según la información recibida, el 10 de septiembre de 2007, aproximadamente 

a las 10 de la mañana, un individuo que se identificó como miembro del Bloque 

Central de las “Águilas Negras”, llamó a la sede de la Fundación Franciscana Santo 

Tomás Moro. Durante dicha llamada el individuo habría acusado al Sr. Andrés 

Gutiérrez Baldovino de ser colaborador de las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de 

Colombia (FARC) y lo habría amenazado con declararlo objetivo militar si no asistía 

a una reunión con otros informantes el martes 11 de septiembre de 2007 a las 3:00 

pm, en la carretera que conduce de Sincelejo al municipio de Chocó. 

570. Se teme que la amenaza de muerte contra el Sr. Andrés Gutiérrez Baldovino 

pueda estar relacionada a su trabajo en la defensa de los derechos humanos, así como 

el trabajo que realiza la Fundación Franciscana Santo Tomás Moro en la ciudad de 

Sincelejo. Se expresa profunda preocupación por la integridad física y psicológica del 

Sr. Andrés Gutiérrez Baldovino y todos los integrantes de la Fundación Franciscana 

Santo Tomás Moro. 


571. Mediante carta fechada 15 de enero de 2008, el Gobierno de Colombia 

respondió al llamamiento urgente arriba mencionado. El Gobierno informó de que los 

hechos son de conocimiento de la Fiscalía Sexta ante los Juzgados del Circuito de 

Sincelejo. A través del Comando de Policía nacional en el departamento de sucre, 

adelantó el estudio de riesgo y grado de amenaza del señor Gutiérrez Baldovino, el 

cual fue enviado al comité Técnico de Evaluación de Nivel de Riesgo Departamento 

de Sucre, para su pertinente revisión y análisis. Con base en los resultados de los 

estudios de riesgo en mención, la policía quedó encargado de ordenar a su personal 

bajo mando la realización de revistas periódicas al lugar de residencia y de trabajo del 

señor Gutiérrez, así como la creación de canales de comunicación, con el fin de 

atenderle de manera inmediato. Se le entregaron por escrito algunas medidas de 

autoprotección. La precitada autoridad informó que adelanta las investigaciones 

pertinentes, tendientes a capturar a las personas responsables.


Page 121 


572. El 24 de septiembre de 2007, la Representante Especial, señaló a la atención 

urgente del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con Sr. José Manuel 

Gómez y el Sr. José Ramiro Orjuela Aguilar. El Sr. José Manuel Gómez y el Sr. 

José Ramiro Orjuela Aguilar son miembros del Comité Permanente por la Defensa de 

los Derechos Humanos (CPDH) 

573. Según la información recibida, el 11 de septiembre de 2007, el Sr. José 

Manuel Gómez recibió en Barranquilla una amenaza a través de su correo electrónico. 

El mensaje, firmado por las “Águilas Negras”, un conocido grupo paramilitar, 

supuestamente acusaba al Sr. José Manuel Gómez de ser colaborador de las Fuerzas 

Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC) y lo amenazaba con declararlo 

objetivo militar. El mensaje igualmente decía: “No hay paso suyo que no 

conozcamos. Los terroristas como usted merecen es la muerte”. Según nuestras 

fuentes, el Sr. José Manuel Gómez ha sido objeto de actos de hostigamiento y 

amenazas por parte de organismos de inteligencia oficial y por miembros de grupos 

paramilitares. Adicionalmente, se nos informa que su nombre se mencionaba en una 

lista de presuntas personas afiliadas a las FARC, lista que se habría encontrado en el 

computador de un miembro de un grupo paramilitar el 11 de marzo de 2006. 

574. El 12 de septiembre de 2007, aproximadamente a las 7.45 pm, el Jurista José 

Ramiro Orjuela Aguilar, se dirigía al Servicio Seccional de Investigaciones de la 

Policía Judicial (SIJIN) en Bogotá para visitar una persona detenida, cuando notó que 

dos taxis lo venían siguiendo. Los dos taxis lo habrían esperado 45 minutos en frente 

de las oficinas de la SIJIN y habrían continuado siguiéndolo después de que él saliera 

de las oficinas. El Sr. José Ramiro Orjuela Aguilar decidió denunciar este hecho al 

Departamento Administrativo de Seguridad (DAS). Luego de que uno de los taxis lo 

siguiera hasta la sede del DAS, un agente del DAS obligó al chofer a que entrara al 

parking y le mostrara su identificación. Según los informes, el chofer del taxi afirmó 

ser un agente de la SIJIN O DIJIN y dijo que estaba “cumpliendo con su deber” al 

seguir al Sr. José Ramiro Orjuela Aguilar. Los agentes del DAS lo habrían dejado ir al 

no encontrar nada irregular en sus documentos y le habrían asegurado al Sr. José 

Ramiro Orjuela Aguilar que iban a comunicar los detalles del caso a su superior. 

575. Se teme que la amenaza de muerte contra el Sr. José Manuel Gómez y los 

actos de hostigamiento contra el Sr. José Ramiro Orjuela Aguilar puedan estar 

relacionados a sus actividades en la defensa de los derechos humanos. Se expresa 

profunda preocupación por la integridad física y psicológica del Sr. José Manuel 

Gómez, del Sr. José Ramiro Orjuela Aguilar y todos los miembros del CPDH en 

Colombia. 


576. El 4 de octubre 2007 la Representante Especial, junto con el Relator Especial 

sobre la promoción del derecho a la libertad de opinión y de expresión y la Presidente- 

Relatora del Grupo de Trabajo sobre la Detención Arbitraria, señalaron a la atención 

urgente del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con la situación siguiente:


Page 122 

577. De conformidad con las informaciones recibidas, las siguientes personas 

fueron detenidas el 29 de septiembre de 2007 en la vereda El Cagüí, Ciénaga de San 

Lorenzo, zona rural de Cantagallo, Departamento de Bolívar, mientras se encontraban 

reunidos con campesinos miembros de la Comunidad, por agentes del Departamento 

Administrativo de Seguridad (DAS) y miembros del Ejército: Sr. Andrés Gil, 

Coordinador de la Asociación Campesina del Valle Cimitarra (ACVC) en 

Barrancabermeja; Sr. Oscar Enrique Duque, dirigente fundador de la ACVC; y el Sr. 

Evaristo Mena, miembro de la ACVC y de la Junta de Acción Comunal de la vereda 

La Poza. 

578. Se informa que durante la detención de estas personas, y ante las protestas de 

los campesinos de la Comunidad, los agentes realizaron disparos al aire. Luego de su 

detención, estas tres personas fueron conducidas al cuartel del Batallón Nueva 

Granada de Barrancabermeja. Se informa también que el Sr. Oscar Enrique Duque fue 

ya detenido el 5 de octubre de 2006 en su vivienda por soldados del Ejército Nacional, 

al parecer, pertenecientes a unidades de la Quinta Brigada, en la vereda La 

Concepción, en el valle del río Cimitarra, siendo posteriormente liberado. Se informa 

también que el Sr. Mario Martínez, Tesorero de la ACVC, fue detenido el mismo día 

en su domicilio en Barrancabermeja, Departamento de Santander, por agentes del 

DAS, siendo conducido a la sede de dicha entidad en Barrancabermeja. 

Posteriormente los cuatro detenidos habrían sido conducidos a la Cárcel Modelo de 

Bucaramanga, donde actualmente se encontrarían. 

579. Según las informaciones recibidas, la ACVC es una organización legalmente 

constituída y registrada y ampliamente conocida en la región del Magdalena Medio. 

En julio de 2007 fue interlocutora del Gobierno durante las negociaciones de un 

acuerdo regional de carácter humanitario. Su oficina regional en Barrancabermeja, 

ubicada en el Edificio La Tora, fue allanada el 1 de octubre por soldados y agentes del 

DAS. La ACVC postularía la constitución de zonas de reserva campesina, orientadas 

a la propiedad comunal de las tierras y a la protección ambiental. 

580. Se ha expresado preocupación por la seguridad y la integridad física y 

psicológica de las cuatro personas mencionadas, por los campesinos miembros de la 

ACVC y por los actuales actos de hostigamiento contra la Asociación. 

Repuesta de Gobierno 

581. Mediante carta con fecha de 8 de enero de 2008, el gobierno respondió a la 

comunicación más arriba. La respuesta afirmó que las detenciones mencionadas se 

efectuaron en virtud de varias órdenes de captura por el delito de rebeldía, 

relacionadas con una investigación penal, iniciada el 4 de mayo de 2005 y a la fecha 

en cursa en la Fiscalía 3 de Barrancabermeja, contra algunos integrantes de la 

Asociación Campesina del Valle del Río Cimitarra (ACVC) el 29 de septiembre de 

2007, se le detuvo al Sr Andrés Gil, junto con otra persona, en cumplimiento de 

órdenes judiciales de captura. El gobierno quiso aclarar que en ningún momento 

durante la detención los agentes policiales realizaron tiros al aire. Además los 

detenidos no fueron traslados al Batallón Nueva Granada de Barrancabermeja, sino a 

las instalaciones del Departamento Administrativo de Suguridad (DAS) en esta 

ciudad, donde les visitaron la Defensora del Pueblo, un abogado, y un representante 

de la ONG CREDHOS de la ciudad. En relación con la detención del Sr Oscar


Page 123 

Enrique Duque, el DAS aclaró que sus agentes no participaron en la captura del 

susodicho. 

582. La carta informó que el 29 de septiembre de 2007, se efectuó la detención del 

Sr Mario Martinez Mahecha en cumplimiento de una orden judicial de captura por el 

delito de rebelión. Por otra parte, el 1 de octubre de 2007, detectives del DAS 

allanaron las oficinas de la Asociación Campesina del Valle del Rió Cimitarra 

(ACVC), con el acompañamiento del Ejeército Nacional, que prestó seguridad en el 

perímetro del primer piso del edificio. En el curso del registro, se incautó material 

importante para la investigación y el DAS informó que no había recibido queja 

ninguna relacionada con el procedimiento mencionado. 


583. El 4 de octubre de 2007, la Representante Especial, señaló a la atención 

urgente del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con los Sres. Miguel Hoyos 

y Hoyos. Los Sres. Miguel Hoyos y Ualberto Hoyos son miembros de la Comisión 

Intereclesial de Justicia y Paz (CIJP), en la Zona de Curbaradó, Chocó. 

584. Según la información recibida, el 17 de septiembre de 2007, aproximadamente 

a las 9.00 pm, entró una persona no identificada en la casa de Miguel Hoyos y 

Ualberto Hoyos que se encuentra en Belén de Barija. Después de haber verificado la 

identidad de los dos hombres, esta persona les habría disparado varias veces, 

hiriéndolos gravemente. 

585. Este atentado contra la vida de los Sres. Miguel Hoyos y Ualberto Hoyos 

ocurrió al mismo tiempo que la finalización de las audiencias del proceso judicial 

sobre el asesinato del líder comunitario Orlando Valencia, de Curbaradó. Los Sres. 

Miguel Hoyos y Ualberto Hoyos participaron como testigos en dicho proceso. 

Además en el mes de agosto de 2007, los dos estuvieron muy involucrados en un 

proyecto para el regreso de 80 familias que fueron forzadas a desplazarse en 1997 por 

grupos paramilitares en el caserío de Cano Manso, en jurisdicción de Carmen del 

Darién. 

586. Se teme que el atentado contra la vida de los Sres. Miguel Hoyos y Ualberto 

Hoyos pueda estar relacionado con sus actividades en la defensa de los derechos 

humanos, en particular los derechos de las comunidades en Colombia y su trabajo con 

las víctimas del desplazamiento forzado. Se expresa profunda preocupación por la 

integridad física y psicológica de los Sres. Miguel Hoyos y Ualberto Hoyos, los 

miembros de su familia, y los otros integrantes de la CIJP. 


587. Mediante comunicación de 10 de enero de 2008, el Gobierno de Colombia 

proporcionó información con respecto al llamamiento urgente anteriormente 

mencionado. El Gobierno infomó que el personal de la Policía de Belén de Bajirá, 

inició las actividades operativas tendientes a la identificación del agresor, dirigiéndose 

una patrulla al lugar de los hechos a realizar labores de vecindario y recolección de 

información y saliendo otra al Centro de Salud a complementar los elementos de 

información necesarios para esclarecer los hechos. De igual modo, se concertó con el


Page 124 

comandante del distrito para que se efectuara el desplazamiento desde el 

Corredimiento de Belén de Bajirá hacia el municipio de Mutatá, Departamento de 

Antíoquia con todas las medidas de seguridad, en coordinación con el Comando de la 

Brigada XVII del Ejército Nacional, y sus tropas del Batallón Bejarano Muños con 10 

unidades. En la actualidad, se mantiene comunicación permanente con los lesionados 

a quienes de les ofrece apoyo. Por su parte, la Fiscalía inició indagación penal por el 

delito de tentativa de homicidio contra los señores Walberto y Miguel Ángel Hoyos 

Rivas, la cual se encuentra en etapa de indagación. 


588. El 11 de octubre de 2007, la Representante Especial, señaló a la atención 

urgente del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con el Sr. Javier Correa y 

el menor Andrés Damián Flores Rodríguez. El Sr. Javier Correa es el Presidente del 

Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de la Industria de Alimentos (SINALTRAINAL) 

y el menor Andrés Damián Flores Rodríguez es el hijo de dieciséis años del Sr. José 

Domingo Flores, dirigente del SINALTRAINAL en el departamento de Santander. 

589. Según la información recibida, el 27 de septiembre de 2007, alrededor de las 

3.00 de la tarde, el menor Andrés Damián Flores Rodríguez habría sido secuestrado y 

atacado por tres hombres armados no identificados. Después de recibir instrucciones 

por radio, los hombres lo habrían golpeado y habrían amenazado de muerte a su 

padre, el Sr. José Domingo Flores. El menor Andrés Damián Flores habría sido 

dejado en libertad dos horas después de su secuestro en la vía Lebrija, en un sitio 

conocido con el nombre de El Palenque. 

590. De acuerdo a nuestras fuentes, El Sr. José Domingo Flores ya había sido 

amenazado de muerte el 20 de septiembre de 2007, fecha en la que recibió una 

amenaza firmada por un grupo paramilitar conocido como las “Águilas Negras”, en 

Bucaramanga, departamento de Santander. 

591. El 25 de septiembre de 2007, se habría recibido otra amenaza de muerte en las 

oficinas del SINALTRAINAL. Dicha amenaza iba dirigida al Sr. Javier Correa, 

también estaba firmada por las Águilas Negras e incluía el acrónimo AUC 

(Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia). La amenaza contenía el siguiente texto: “Javier 

Correa, callen el discurso ideológico guerrillero – se van del departamento – de lo 

contrario nos veremos obligados a cumplir el objetivo [sic] militar y le entregamos en 

Navidad a sus familias los cadáveres en una fosa común”. 

592. Los integrantes de SINALTRAINAL habrían recibido amenazas de muerte 

con anterioridad. Se informa que SINALTRAINAL habría denunciado las amenazas 

ante las autoridades competentes. 

593. Se expresó temor de que el secuestro y el ataque contra el menor Andrés 

Damián Flores Rodríguez y las amenazas de muerte contra los Sres. José Domingo 

Flores y Javier Correa pudieran estar relacionados con las actividades en defensa de 

los derechos humanos del SINALTRAINAL, y en particular de los Sres. José 

Domingo Flores y Javier Correa. Asimismo, se expresó profunda preocupación por la 

integridad física y psicológica de los Sres. José Domingo Flores y Javier Correa, los 

miembros de sus familias, así como los integrantes de SINALTRAINAL.


Page 125 


594. El 22 de octubre de 2007 la Representante Especial, señaló a la atención 

urgente del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con los Sres. Luis Javier 

Correa Suárez y Luis Eduardo García. El Sr. Luis Javier Correa Suárez es el 

Presidente Nacional del Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de la Industria de 

Alimentos (SINALTRAINAL) y el Sr. Luis Eduardo García es integrante de 

SINALTRAINAL, Seccional Bucaramanga, en el departamento de Santander. El Sr. 

Luis Javier Correa Suárez fue objeto de una comunicación enviada el 11 de octubre de 

2007 al Gobierno colombiano por la Representante Especial del Secretario General 

sobre la situación de los defensores de los derechos humanos. 

595. Según la información recibida, el 12 de octubre de 2007, alrededor de las 

10.00 de la mañana, se habría recibido una amenaza de muerte en las oficinas de 

SINALTRAINAL en Bucaramanga. Se informa que dicha amenaza estaba firmada 

por las Águilas Negras e iba dirigida al Sr. Nelson Pérez, trabajador de la 

embotelladora de Coca Cola y Presidente de SINALTRAINAL, Seccional 

Bucaramanga. La amenaza incluía el siguiente texto: “Los desmovilizados fuimos 

reconocidos por el gobierno de Álvaro Uribe en el progra de justicia y paz – 

comunistas – guerrilleros – Javier Correa – Luis García…en Navidad tus familias los 

reconocerán en una fosa común…Las Águilas Negras cumplimos porque existimos – 

ya lo demostramos – los queremos a ustedes los dos que joden tanto contra las 

multinacionales y viven de ellas…serán descuartizados – no lo duden paz en la tumba 

– frente Águilas Negras”. 

596. Adicionalmente se informa que los trabajadores de Coca Cola afiliados a 

SINALTRAINAL, Seccional Bucaramanga, así como sus familiares, habrían venido 

recibiendo recientemente amenazas de muerte. 

597. Se teme que las amenazas de muerte contra los Sres. Luis Javier Correa 

Suárez y Luis Eduardo García puedan estar relacionadas con las actividades en 

defensa de los derechos humanos de SINALTRAINAL. Se expresa profunda 

preocupación por la integridad física y psicológica de los Señores arriba mencionados, 

de sus familiares y de los otros integrantes de SINALTRAINAL. 


598. El 6 de noviembre de 2007, la Representante Especial, señaló a la atención 

urgente del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con el Sr. Oscar Maussa, 

dirigente de la Cooperativa de Trabajadores Agropecuarios de Blanquicet 

(COOTRAGROBLAN). Dicha cooperativa se dedica a la protección de los derechos 

humanos de los trabajadores de la granja La Esperanza, en el departamento de 

Antioquia. 

599. Según la información recibida, el 6 de octubre de 2007, un desconocido le 

habría informado a un miembro de COOTRAGROBLAN que el dirigente del grupo 

paramilitar las “Águilas Negras” buscaba al Sr. Oscar Maussa con la intención de 

matarlo.


Page 126 

600. El Sr. Oscar Maussa ha sido anteriormente sujeto de amenazas y actos de 

intimidación por parte de algunos miembros de grupos paramilitares. En marzo de 

2007, la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CIDH) habría exhortado al 

Gobierno colombiano a que tomara medidas para garantizar la seguridad del Sr. Oscar 

Maussa, de su familia, y de las otras tres familias que componen 

COOTRAGROBLAN. 

601. Se teme que la amenaza de muerte contra el Sr. Oscar Maussa pueda estar 

relacionada con sus actividades en defensa de los derechos humanos, en particular su 

trabajo para proteger los derechos de los trabajadores y sus denuncias sobre las 

violaciones de derechos humanos cometidas por los grupos paramilitares. 


602. El 8 de noviembre de 2007 la Representante Especial, señaló a la atención 

urgente del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con la Sra. Diana Teresa 

Sierra. La Sra. Diana Teresa Sierra trabaja como abogada para la Comisión 

Intereclesial de Justicia y Paz en Bogotá. 

603. Según la información recibida, el 29 de octubre de 2007, a las 21.15pm, la Sra. 

Diana Teresa Sierra salía de las oficinas de la Comisión Intereclesial de Justicia y Paz 

cuando se dio cuenta que un desconocido la estaba siguiendo. La Sra. Sierra habría 

sido seguida durante una hora mientras se dirigía en autobús hacía su casa, situada al 

sur de la ciudad de Bogotá. Cuando se bajó del autobús la Sra. Sierra habría 

escuchado al desconocido decirle a alguien por teléfono: “Sí, la estoy siguiendo”. 

Temiendo por su seguridad, la Sra. Sierra habría decidido refugiarse en un 

supermercado hasta que el desconocido desapareciera. 

604. La Sra. Diana Teresa Sierra trabaja por la defensa de los derechos humanos de 

las comunidades afrocolombianas de las cuencas de los ríos Jiguamiandó y Curvaradó 

en el departamento de Chocó. En octubre del 2005, el Sr. Orlando Valencia, uno de 

los líderes de dichas comunidades, habría sido asesinado por grupos paramilitares. 

605. Los miembros de la Comisión Intereclesial de Justicia y Paz han sido 

anteriormente sujeto de amenazas de muerte y actos de intimidación por parte de 

paramilitares. En agosto y septiembre de 2007, en cuatro ocasiones diferentes, se 

habrían observado desconocidos tomando fotos al frente de las oficinas de la 

Comisión. 

606. Se teme que el seguimiento de la Sra. Diana Teresa Sierra pueda estar 

relacionado con sus actividades en defensa de los derechos humanos, en particular su 

trabajo para proteger los derechos de las comunidades afrocolombianas en Colombia. 

Se expresa preocupación por la integridad física y psicológica de la Sra. Diana Teresa 

Sierra, así como la de los otros miembros de la Comisión Intereclesial de Justicia y 

Paz. 



urgente del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con la Sra. Yolanda


Page 127 

Becerra Vega, la Sra. Jackeline Rojas Castañeda y el Sr. Juan Carlos Galvis. La 

Sra. Yolanda Becerra Vega es la Directora de la Organización Femenina Popular 

(OFP) en la ciudad de Bucaramanga y es una reconocida y premiada defensora de 

derechos humanos; la Sra. Jackeline Rojas Castañeda es miembro del Equipo de 

Dirección de la OFP; y el Sr. Juan Carlos Galvis es Vicepresidente Nacional del 

Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de las Industrias de los Alimentos 

(SINALTRAINAL). La Sra. Yolanda Becerra Vega y la Sra. Jackeline Rojas 

Castañeda han sido objeto de comunicaciones enviadas por la Representante Especial 

del Secretario General sobre la situación de los defensores de los derechos humanos el 

5 de febrero de 2004 y el 7 de julio de 2006 (véanse los informes de la Representante 

E/CN.4/101/Add.1, párrafos 141 y 170 y A/HRC/4/37/Add.1, párrafos 185 y 201). 

608. Según la información recibida, el día 4 de noviembre de 2007, 

aproximadamente a las 7.30 de la mañana, dos hombres armados, encapuchados y 

vestidos de civil, habrían entrado al apartamento de la Sra. Yolanda Becerra Vega en 

Bucaramanga. Los hombres habrían empujado a la Sra. Becerra contra una pared, la 

habrían golpeado y la habrían amenazado con un arma de fuego diciéndole: 

“hijueputa el cuento se le acabó, tiene 48 horas para que se vaya, sino, vamos a acabar 

con su familia y usted no se nos escapa”. Se informa que los hombres se fueron a los 

15 minutos, después de desordenar con violencia el apartamento y destruir varias 

posesiones de la Sra. Becerra. Ese mismo día la puerta del apartamento de la Sra. 

Jackeline Rojas Castañeda y de su esposo, el Sr. Juan Carlos Galvis, habría sido 

bloqueada desde el exterior, impidiendo que salieran. 

609. Se informa que los integrantes de la OFP ya habían sido objeto de varias 

amenazas y actos de intimidación. Desde hace varios años, la OFP es beneficiaria de 

medidas cautelares de protección otorgadas por la Comisión Interamericana de 

Derechos Humanos. El grave incidente ocurrido revela la urgencia de que se adopten 

medidas adicionales de parte de las autoridades competentes para garantizar la vida de 

las y los integrantes de la OFP y del SINALTRAINAL. 

610. Se teme que los actos de intimidación contra la Sra. Yolanda Becerra Vega, la 

Sra. Jackeline Rojas Castañeda y el Sr. Juan Carlos Galvis, puedan estar relacionados 

con sus actividades en defensa de los derechos humanos, en particular con su trabajo 

en la promoción de los derechos humanos de las mujeres y de los trabajadores en 

Colombia. Se expresa profunda preocupación por la integridad física y psicológica de 

la Sra. Yolanda Becerra Vega, de la Sra. Jackeline Rojas Castañeda y del Sr. Juan 

Carlos Galvis, así como de los otros integrantes de la OFP y de SINALTRAINAL. 



urgente del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con el Sr. José Jesús Marín 

Vargas. El Sr. José Jesús Marín Vargas era miembro del Sindicato Nacional de 

Trabajadores de la Industria de Alimentos (SINALTRAINAL), El SINALTRAINAL 

fue objeto de comunicaciones enviadas al Gobierno colombiano por la Representante 

Especial del Secretario General sobre la situación de los defensores de los derechos 

humanos el 11 y el 22 de octubre de 2007.


Page 128 

612. Según la información recibida, el 22 de noviembre de 2007, aproximadamente 

a las 2:20pm, el Sr. José Jesús Marín Vargas, fue asesinado por desconocidos que le 

habrían disparado con un arma de fuego, mientras se desplazaba de su lugar de 

trabajo, la Comestible de la Rosa, una fabrica filial de Nestlé en el Municipio de 

Dosquebradas Risaralda, hacia su casa en el barrio Los Naranjos, ubicado en el mismo 

Municipio. 

613. Se teme que el asesinato del Sr. José Jesús Marín Vargas pueda estar 

relacionado con sus actividades en la defensa de derechos humanos, en particular su 

trabajo en la defensa de los derechos de trabajadores en Colombia. 



urgente del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con la Sra. Jahel Quiroga 

Carrillo. La Sra. Jahel Quiroga Carrillo es la Directora de REINICIAR, una 

corporación que se dedica a la defensa y promoción de los derechos humanos en 

Colombia. 

615. Según la información recibida, el 26 de noviembre de 2007, aproximadamente 

a las 9:30am, tres desconocidos habrían disparado tres veces al edificio donde reside 

la Sra. Jahel Quiroga Carrillo en Bogotá, desde una camioneta de color gris con 

vidrios polarizados. 

616. Se informa que minutos más tarde llegaría al edificio una patrulla de la 

policía, sin embargo, ésta no habría iniciado ninguna investigación acerca de los 

responsables del ataque. 

617. La Sra. Jahel Quiroga Carrillo, así como los otros miembros de la corporación 

REINICIAR habrían sido anteriormente objetos de amenazas de muerte y actos de 

intimidación. El 6 de noviembre de 2007 las oficinas de la corporación habrían sido 

allanadas y se habría robado información relacionada al trabajo de dicha institución. 

Además, el grupo paramilitar llamado “Bloque Capital”, habría informado el 30 de 

marzo de 2007 acerca de un plan para asesinar a la Sra. Jahel Quiroga Carrillo. 

618. Se teme que este ataque en contra de la Sra. Jahel Quiroga Carrillo pueda estar 

relacionado con sus actividades en defensa de los derechos humanos y el trabajo que 

hace en la corporación REINICIAR en defensa de los derechos humanos en 

Colombia. Se expresa profunda preocupación por la integridad física y psicológica de 

la Sra. Jahel Quiroga Carrillo, así como de la de los otros miembros de REINICIAR. 


619. El 4 de diciembre de 2007 la Representante Especial, junto con el Relator 

Especial sobre la independencia de magistrados y abogados, señalaron a la atención 

urgente del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con la Corporación Jurídica 

Yira Castro (CJYC) y la Coordinación Nacional de Desplazados (CND), la Sra. 

Blanca Irene López y el Sr. Rigoberto Jiménez. La CJYC es una institución que se 

dedica a la defensa de los derechos humanos en Colombia, en particular, desarrolla 

actividades dirigidas a la protección de las victimas del desplazamiento forzado y de


Page 129 

las organizaciones que las representan, como la CND. La Sra. Blanca Irene López es 

la abogada de la CJYC y el Sr. Rigoberto Jiménez es el dirigente de la CND y fue 

objeto de un llamamiento urgente enviado por el Relator Especial sobre la promoción 

del derecho a la libertad de opinión y de expresión y la Representante Especial del 

Secretario-General para los defensores de los derechos humanos el 16 de agosto de 

2007. 

620. Según la información recibida, el 15 de octubre de 2007, la Sra. Blanca Irene 

López habría recibido un mensaje en su casa que le amenazaba de muerte: “Bas a 

morir, disiembre 24 firma el popo” [sic]. 

621. El 2 de octubre de 2007, se habría enviado al correo electrónico de la CND un 

mensaje amenazante contra el Sr. Rigoberto Jiménez y los integrantes de la CJYC, 

advirtiendo que se les habían declarado objetivo militar. El mensaje habría sido 

firmado por un grupo paramilitar conocido, las “águilas negras”. y contenía el texto 

siguiente: “Señor Rigoberto Jiménez creemos que usted avia echo caso de las 

arbentencias hechas por nosotros asia días que no lo beimos por Bogotá es que usted 

sigue ablando mierda del gobierno ya basta no siga haciéndole daño a la sociedad este 

se le orbido que esta declarado objetivo militar por las aguilas negras de Bogotá usted 

y sus asesoras de la yira castro…” [sic]. 

622. Desde el mes de junio del 2006, la CYJC habría sido objeto de actos de 

intimidación, que conllevaran al traslado de la sede de la Corporación a otro lugar que 

actualmente comparte con la CND. Sin embargo, los actos de hostigamiento contra 

los integrantes de dicha organización continúen y se siguen recibiendo con frecuencia 

llamadas y visitas sospechosas. 

623. Se teme que los actos de intimidación y las amenazas de muerte contra el Sr. 

Rigoberto Jiménez, la Sra. Blanca Irene López, y los integrantes de la CJYC puedan 

estar relacionados con las actividades desarrolladas por la CND y la CJYC en la 

defensa de los derechos de las victimas del desplazamiento forzado en Colombia. 



urgente del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con los Sres. Leonidas Silva 

Castro y Jairo Giraldo Rey, y la Sra. Mercedes Consuelo Restrepo Campo. El Sr. 

Leonidas Silva Castro era dirigente sindical de los educadores y Presidente de la 

Subdirectiva de la Asociación Sindical de Institutores Nortesantandereanos, del 

municipio de Villacaro, en el Norte de Santander; el Sr. Jairo Giraldo Rey, era 

Presidente de la Subdirectiva del Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de la Industria 

Frutera, Agroindustrial, Pecuaria, Hotelera y Turística del Grupo empresarial 

Grajales, (SINALTRAIFRUT), en el Valle del Cauca; y la Sra. Mercedes Consuelo 

Restrepo Campo, era profesora de la Institución Educativa “Hernando Botero 

O’Byrne”, y miembro de la Subdirectiva del Sindicato Único de Educadores del 

Valle, en el municipio de Cartago. 

625. Según la información recibida, el 7 de noviembre de 2007 la Sra. Mercedes 

Consuelo Restrepo Campo fue asesinada cerca de las instalaciones de la Escuela de 

San Juan Bosco, en el barrio San Vicente de Cartago, Departamento del Valle de


Page 130 

Cauca. Se informa que dos hombres habrían llegado en una moto y le habrían 

disparado cinco veces. La Sra. Mercedes Consuelo Restrepo Campo falleció 

inmediatamente. 

626. El 3 de noviembre de 2007 el Sr. Jairo Giraldo Rey fue asesinado en el 

municipio de Torro, en el Departamento del Valle de Cauca. 

627. El 2 de noviembre de 2007, entre las 19.00 y 20.00 de noche, el Sr. Leonidas 

Silva Castro fue asesinado en su lugar de residencia en el Barrio Prados del Norte. 

Luego de asistir en las instalaciones de Villa Silvana, con la delegación del municipio 

de Villacaro, a la inauguración de las 13 Olimpiadas Departamentales de la 

Asociación Sindical de Institutores Nortesantandereanos (Asinort), y habría estado 

solo en la calle donde hacía reparaciones a su vehículo cuando varios hombres le 

habrían disparado. El Sr. Leonidas Silva Castro falleció un poco después. 

628. Se teme que los asesinatos de los Sres. Leonidas Silva Castro y Jairo Giraldo 

Rey, y de la Sra. Mercedes Consuelo Restrepo Campo puedan estar relacionados con 

sus actividades en defensa de los derechos humanos, en particular su trabajo en 

defensa de los derechos de trabajadores en Colombia. Se expresa preocupación por los 

miembros de la Asociación Sindical de Institutores Nortesantandereanos; el Sindicato 

Nacional de Trabajadores de la Industria Frutera, Agroindustrial, Pecuaria, Hotelera y 

Turística del Grupo empresarial Grajales; y Sindicato Único de Educadores del Valle, 

en el municipio de Cartago. 


629. Mediante llamamiento urgente de 31 de mayo de 2006, la Representante 

Especial, junto con el Relator Especial sobre la cuestión de la tortura, el Relator 

Especial sobre la promoción del derecho a la libertad de opinión y de expresión, el 

Relator Especial sobre las ejecuciones extrajudiciales, sumarias o arbitrarias, y el 

Relator Especial sobre la situación de los derechos humanos y las libertades 

fundamentales de los indígenas, señalaron a la atención urgente del Gobierno la 

información recibida en relación con una serie de incidentes ocurridos con motivo de 

una serie de manifestaciones celebradas en los departamentos del Cauca, Nariño, 

Neiva y Huila en el marco de la “Gran Cumbre de organizaciones sociales en defensa 

de la vida, del territorio, la dignidad, la autonomía y la soberanía nacional”. 

630. Mediante carta de 26 de julio de 2007, la Misión Permanente remitió nota del 

Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de 5 de julio de 2007. El Gobierno informa de 

que el Grupo de Derechos Humanos de la Policía Nacional disiente de lo expresado 

en la comunicación relativo a que “más de 50.000 persona1s de distintos sectores de 

la sociedad civil se habrían congregado en distintos puntos del país para protestar de 

manera pacífica contra et Tratado de Libre Comercio, la reelección presidencial de 

Álvaro Uribe Vélez y la adopción de la Ley de justicia y paz”. Según el Gobierno, los 

hechos difieren notoriamente de lo señalado en la comunicación de los Relatores 

Especiales y de la Representante Especial, por cuanto las manifestaciones se 

caracterizaron por su violencia, al agredir los manifestantes a integrantes de la Policía 

Nacional.


Page 131 

631. Según la nota del Gobierno, entre 600 y 700 personas, miembros de las 

centrales obreras, campesinos desplazados y grupos indígenas, se concentraron frente 

a las instalaciones del SENA y el barrio La Paz de Popayán (departamento del Cauca). 

Los manifestantes habrían utilizado palos y piedras, y habrían hecho rodar un cilindro 

de gas encendido en contra de la policía. El Gobierno informó de que la fiscalía 

quinta delegada ante los juzgados penales municipales de Popayán, estaba llevando a 

cabo una investigación contra 41 personas, pertenecientes en su mayoría a cabildos 

indígenas del Cauca, por el delito de lesiones personales y daño en bien ajeno. 

632. En relación con la finca La María, municipio de Piendamó, vía Panamericana 

(departamento del Cauca), el Gobierno manifestaba que los manifestantes habrían 

arrojado rocas y bombas incendiarias (cócteles molotov) contra una tanqueta policial, 

y que habrían secuestrado a tres patrulleros de la policía. Igualmente, el Gobierno 

informó que en la finca El Pital, vía Mondomó, se agredió con palos, canicas, piedras, 

bombas molotov, y demás elementos contundentes al cuerpo de policía, y hubo dos 

casos de intento de incendio. 

633. En la localidad de Remolinos (departamento de Nariño), se incendió según 

informó el Gobierno, a tres vehículos de servicio público. Los manifestantes 

utilizaron bombas molotov armadas con acido sulfúrico con las cuales pretendían 

incinerar las instalaciones de la estación de policía. El Gobierno informa de que 

resultaron gravemente heridos varios policías, con quemaduras en el rostro. 

634. En vista de lo anterior, el Gobierno concluyó que los hechos de los días 14 y 

15 de mayo de 2006 difirieron notoriamente de lo señalado en la comunicación de los 

Relatores Especiales y de la Representante Especial, por cuanto las manifestaciones se 

habrían caracterizado por la violencia y se habrían producido agresiones en contra de 

la Policía Nacional. 

635. Sobre el presunto homicidio y una desaparición forzada, la Policía Nacional 

informó de que tuvo conocimiento de la muerte de una persona indígena de nombre 

José Pedro Pascue Canas (que podría ser Pedro Mauricio Coscue). Las circunstancias 

de su muerte estaban. 


636. Mediante llamamiento urgente de 23 de junio de 2006 la Representante 

Especial señaló a la atención urgente del gobierno de Colombia la información 

recibida en relación con la Sra. Gloria Amparo Suárez, integrante desde hace 15 

años de la Organización Femenina Popular (OFP) y miembro del Equipo Directivo. 

En respuesta fechada 4 de enero de 2007 el Gobierno informó de que la Fiscalía 

adelanta investigación penal, por el delito de amenazas en contra de la señora Suárez, 

por parte de desconocidos. Hasta el momento no se cuenta con elemento alguno que 

permita determinar el origen de amenazas, así como los presuntos agresores y móviles 

teniendo en cuenta que de acuerdo con lo manifestado por la víctima no se tiene 

conocimiento sobre la existencia de persona alguna que pueda servir como testigo de 

los hechos. La Procuraduría de la Nación solicitó protección de la Señora Suárez, así 

como adelantar el proceso penal en relación con las presuntas amenazas. El 26 de 

mayo de 2000, la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos otorgó medidas 

cautelares a favor de los miembros de la Organización Femenina Popular (OFP). La 

Señora Suárez es beneficiaria de estas medidas cautelares. El Ministerio del Interior y


Page 132 

de Justicia solicitó a la Policía Nacional la realización del Estudio de Nivel de Riesgo 

y Grado de Amenaza. Al respecto, el Departamento de Policía del Magdalena Medio 

concluyó que la Señora Suárez presenta un tipo ordinario de riesgo. El caso de la 

Señora Suárez fue presentado ante el Comité de Reglamentación y Evaluación de 

riesgos (CRER), quien 8 de octubre de 2006 recomendó no aprobar un apoyo de 

transporte a favor de la Señora Suárez teniendo en cuenta el resultado del referido 

Estudio. La Señora Suárez tiene asignado como medida de protección un medio de 

comunicación avantel. 


637. Mediante comunicación de 2 de octubre de 2007, el Gobierno de Colombia 

proporcionó información con respecto al llamamiento urgente enviado el 28 de Junio 

de 2006 en relación con miembros de la Asociación Nacional de Trabajadores de 

Hospitales y Clínicas (ANTHOC). El Gobierno infromó de que el Programa de 

Derechos Humanos y Derecho Internacional Humanitario de la Vicepresidencia de la 

República, conformó Comités de Evaluación de Riesgos en los que se analizó el caso 

de los integrantes de ANTHOC, así como reuniones individuales para la revisión de 

las medidas existentes de protección a favor de los mismos. Por su parte, la Policía 

Nacional realizó seguimiento a los mensajes amenazantes recibidos el 13 de junio de 

2006 en la sede de ANTHOC en Bogotá. Lo anterior se pudo corroborar mediante 

inspección realizada a las instalaciones de ANTHOC. Estas actuaciones se encuentran 

soportadas dentro de la investigación penal que adelanta la Fiscalía 241 Seccional en 

Bogotá, de la unidad de Libertad individual y otras garantías. 


638. El 9 de agosto de 2006, la Representante Especial señaló a la atención urgente 

del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con hechos ocurridos en la sede del 

Comité Permanente por la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos (CPDH), situada en 

Bogotá, Colombia. 

639. Mediante carta fechada 2 de abril de 2007 el Gobierno transmitió información 

en relación con el llamamiento urgente. El Gobierno informó que la policía 

Metropolitana de Bogota D.C. constató que el 2 de agosto de 2006 una patrulla realizó 

una visita a la sede de CPDH, la cual fue atendida y autorizada por la Señora Andrea 

Barrera Valencia. Los miembros de la policía solo ingresaron el día relacionado en la 

comunicación, dando cumplimiento a la orden de servicio. Los policías entraron en 

contacto el 16 de noviembre de 2006 con el señor Luis Jairo Ramírez Hernández. Las 

acciones de la policía correspondieron a un registro voluntario, con el fin de verificar 

que varios lugares no resultaran vulnerables frente a actividades terroristas, actividad 

realmente preventiva realizada por la Policía Nacional, con el fin de implementar 

medidas de seguridad para la celebración de 20 de julio de 2006, y día de la posesión 

del Presidente de la Republica. El grupo de Procesos disciplinarios de la Inspección 

General de la Policía Nacional informó que no se encontró registro disciplinario 

alguno en relación con los hechos referidos. La Fiscalía General de la Nación informo 

que en relación con los hechos en mención la Fiscalía 214 de la unidad segunda de 

delitos contra la Administración pública adelanta una indagación por el delito de 

abuso de función pública. El Programa de Protección del Ministerio del Interior y de 

Justicia informa que el CPDH cuanta con varias medidas de protección asignadas y

entregadas, entre las cuales se encuentran la entrega de varios medios de 

comunicación avantales y celulares a favor de sus miembros. 



Page 133 

640. Mediante carta con fecha de 21 de diciembre de 2008, el gobierno de 

Colombia respondió a un llamamiento urgente enviado por la Representante Especial 

el 7 de julio de 2006 en relación con la Sra María Jackeline Rojas Castañeda, 

miembro de la Organización Feminina Popular (OFP). 

641. El gobierno afirmó que la Fiscalía de Bucaramanga adelantaba investigación 

penal por el delito de amenazas en contra de la susodicha, por parte de desconocidas, 

encontrándose la investigación en etapa de indagación. La Procuraduría General de la 

Nación solicitó al Ejército Nacional, al Departamento de Policía, al Departamento de 

Administrativo de Seguridad (DAS) y a la Fiscalía de Barrancabermeja, llevar a cabo 

la protección de la Sra Rojas, recordando las medidas cautelares otorgadas el 26 de 

mayo de 2000 a los miembros de la OFP por la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos 

Humanos. La Procuraduría pidió a éstos también que adelanten el proceso penal 

relacionado con las amenazas en contra de ella. En este contexto, el Ministerio del 

Interior y Justicia solicitó a la Policía Nacional la realización de un estudio de nivel de 

riesgo y grado de amenazas. 

642. El Departamento de Policía del Magdalena Medio informó acerca de las 

actividades desarrolladas a su cargo: El 6 de julio de 2006, personal del Grupo de 

Análisis de Riesgo se entrevistó con a Sra Rojas a fin de evaluar su nivel de riesgo.Se 

le recomendó medidas de autoprotección en las actividades que realiza diariamente, 

con el fin de mejorar su seguridad y la de sus familia. Se le dieron a concer números 

telefónicos de la entidad para poder reaccionar de forma inmediata ante situaciones 

que puedan vulnerar su integridad física. Se le recomendó no atender citas con 

personas desconocidas en lugares lejos del casco urbano o deshabitados. 

643. De acuerdo con la información recibida por el Ministerio, la Sra Rojas 

manifestó telefónicamente no necesitar medidas de protección adicionales. No 

obstante, el Ministerio reiteró el 5 de octubre de 2006 su disposición frente a su caso, 

remitiendo de este modo las recomendaciones de protección. La Sra Rojas tiene com 

medio de protección un medio de comunicación avantel. 

644. El gobierno añadió que en cuanto recibiera información acerca de la citada 

investigación, la pondría a la disposición de la Representante Especial. 


645. Mediante carta fechada 20 junio de 2006 el Gobierno de Colombia 

proporcionó información en relación con el llamamiento urgente del 15 de agosto de 

2006, concerniente a las presuntas amenazas en contra de los señores Orlando Raúl 

Flórez Orjuela, dirigente de la Asociación Juvenil de Ibague y trabajador de la 

Corporación Nuevo Arco Iris, Carlos Alberto Castaño Martínez, integrante del 

Proyecto Planeta Paz de la Corporación Derechos para la Paz (CDPAZ), Jhon Jairo 

Nieto Rodríguez, y las organizaciones nones gubernamentales la Corporación 

Colectivo Jose Alvear Restrepo (CCAJAR), la Consultoría para los Derechos 

Humanos y Desplazamiento (CODHES), Minga, Compromiso, Medios para la


Page 134 

Paz, Movimientos de Víctimas de Crímenes de Estado, Organización Nacional 

Indígena de Colombia (ONIC), Etnias de Colombia y las agencias de la prensa 

Voz y Prensa Rural. 

646. El Gobierno informó de lo siguiente: 

647. Orlando Raúl Flórez Orjuela y Jhon Jairo Nieto Rodríguez: Investigaciones: 

Se encuentra adelantado investigación penal, la cual se encuentra en etapa previa, en 

practica de pruebas tendiente al esclarecimiento de los hechos y la individualización e 

identidad de los presuntos responsables. 

648. Medidas de protección: Los referidos ciudadanos son beneficiarios del 

Programa de Protección del Ministerio del Interior y de Justicia. En septiembre de 

2006 se aprobó un apoyo de reubicación temporal, a favor de cada una de estas 

personas. Se encuentra bajo coordinación de la Policía nacional el establecimiento de 

rondas policiales preventivas permanentes con el fin de disminuir cualquier situación 

de riesgo. 

649. Sobre presuntos allanamientos de inmuebles de su propiedad: Al respecto, la 

Fiscalía ordenó la práctica de varios allanamientos a diferentes inmuebles en dos de 

los cuales se encontraban como moradores los precitados ciudadanos. Los precitados 

allanamientos fueron practicados por la referida Fiscalía y en presencia de los 

mencionados ciudadanos quienes suscribieron las actas en las que se expresó no haber 

maltratados ni objeto de daños o perjuicios, ni vulnerado derecho fundamental. 

650. Carlos Alberto Castaño Martínez: No se encontró solicitud por parte del señor 

Carlos Alberto Castaño Martínez con el fin de ser incluido en el precitado Programa 

de Protección. Se encuentra en trámite la asignación de la investigación de los hechos 

a cargo de una Fiscalía delegada. 

651. Acción Genérica del Gobierno de Colombia en relación con las presuntas 

amenazas de vía Internet contra varias ONG: La Dirección Central de Policía Judicial 

ha realizado visitas la las sedes de diferentes organizaciones amenazadas para validar 

a la información recibida. 

652. Corporación Colectivo José Alvear Restrepo (CCAJAR): Se adoptó la revisión 

de las medidas de protección existentes y el refuerzo de otras complementarias a favor 

de la misma. Se esta coordinando acciones con el fin de impulsar una investigación 

eficiente que permita esclarecer el origen de las amenazas, en conjunto con la Fiscalía 

General de la Nación. Algunas medidas actuales que existen a favor de los ONG son: 

dos identificadores de llamadas, blindaje de la sede, varios radios avénteles, un 

teléfono celular, dos blindajes de residencias, cinco esquemas duros de protección 

individual, así como varias medidas de protección a favor de algunos de sus 

miembros. 

653. Consultoría para los Derechos Humanos y Desplazamiento (CODHES): Se ha 

realizado acciones preventivas con el fin de prevenir cualquier acción en contra de la 

integridad de estas organizaciones logró localizar un café de Internet desde cual 

habrían sido enviados los mensajes amenazantes. El Gobierno toma todas las acciones 

necesarias para dar garantías reales y efectivas para el manejo de correos electrónicos 

a través de un grupo de inteligencia informática, de la mejor capacidad en


Page 135 

Latinoamérica. El Ministerio del Interior y de Justicia informó de que desde 1999 se 

han realizado gestiones especiales para garantizar la seguridad de los integrantes de 

CODHES. En 2006 fueron otorgadas varias medidas protectivas. 

654. MINGA: Se revisó las medidas protectivas con que cuenta MINGA desde 

hace varios años, con el fin de reforzarlas. La Policía Nacional viene adelantando 

acciones en conjunto con la Fiscalía General de la Nación, con el fin de establecer el 

origen de las amenazas y proceder a judicializar a los perpetradores los hechos 

delictivos. 

655. COMPROMISO: La Policía Nacional ha realizado de manera permanente 

revisitas y patrullajes por la sede de COMPROMISO, así como por los lugares de 

residencia de algunos de sus directivos, a los cuales se les ha realizado estudio técnico 

de seguridad, nivel de riesgo x grado de amenaza. LA DIJIN de la Policía Nacional 

se encuentra realizando las averiguaciones pertinentes para establecer el presunto 

autor de las amenazas. El Ministerio del Interior y de justicia informó que fueron 

otorgados varios medios de comunicación a favor de todos los directivos de la 

organización. Se realizó la revisión de seguridad de la sede, con el fin de reforzar las 

medidas que cuenta COMPROMISO actualmente. 

656. ONIC: La Policía Nacional se encuentre realizando rondas preventivas y 

revistas permanente en la sede de ONIC de Bogota, para evitar cualquier situación 

que perjudique la seguridad de los integrantes de esta organización. 


657. El 26 de febrero de 2007 el Gobierno proporcionó información adicional en 

relación con el llamamiento urgente del 6 de octubre de 2006, en relación con las 

amenazas y actos de intimidación en contra de los señores Luz Adriana González 

Correa, Walter Álvarez Ossa, Martha Sofía Castaño y Guillermo Castaño 

Arcila, integrantes del Comité Permanente por la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos 

(CPDH) en varias partes a lo largo de Colombia. 

658. El Gobierno hizo referencia a la información proporcionada en su carta del 9 

de enero de 2007. Además, el Gobierno informó que para proteger a la vida del señor 

Castaño se realizaron los siguientes procedimientos: Entrevistas con el afectado con el 

objeto de realizar un estudio de riesgo y grado de amenazas, alianzas estratégicas de 

seguridad con otras autoridades de seguridad del Estado; planes permanentes de 

vigilancia y patrullaje en los sitios aledaños a la residencia y lugar de trabajo al 

afectado. De igual modo, en aquella oportunidad se solicitó a la víctima contactarse de 

inmediato con la Policía en el evento de recibir nuevas amenazas, con el fin de 

realizar las investigaciones tendientes a la individualización identificación y 

judicialización de los responsables. 


659. Mediante comunicación de 7 de febrero de 2007, el Gobierno de Colombia 

proporcionó información con respecto al llamamiento urgente enviado 20 octubre de 

2006 en relación con el presunto homicidio del señor Julián Andrés Hurtado 

Castillo. El Gobierno informó de que tan pronto conoció que el señor Castillo había 

denunciado presuntas amenazas contra su vida, solicitó a la Fiscalía General de la


Page 136 

Nación la iniciación de las investigaciones y gestiones pertinentes para dar con el 

paradero de los responsables, y a la Policía nacional la adopción de medidas de 

prevención y seguridad. La Procuraduría de la Nación informó que debido a la muerte 

del señor Castillo, revisó las gestiones adelantadas por el Ministerio del Interior y de 

justicia, en punto a las medidas de seguridad adoptadas y solicitó al Procurador 

Delegado para la Vigilancia Administrativa, evaluar dichas gestiones para los efectos 

disciplinarios a que haya lugar. La Defensoría del Pueblo remitió el caso a la Oficina 

Regional del Departamento del Valle del Cauca, con el fin de que suministre la 

información que tenga sobre los hechos. La Fiscalía General de la Nación informó 

que la Dirección Seccional de Fiscalías de la ciudad de Cali adelanta investigación 

penal, por el homicidio del Señor Hurtado, la cual se encuentra en etapa previa, en 

práctica de pruebas tendientes al esclarecimiento de los hechos y a la identificación de 

los autores o partícipes del crimen. 


660. Mediante comunicación de 26 de febrero de 2007, el Gobierno proporcionó 

información con respecto al llamamiento enviado el 10 de noviembre de 2006 en 

relación con las amenazas de muerte en contra de varios miembros del Movimiento 

Nacional de Victimas de Crimenes de estado, entre ellos Arnold Gomez, Carmelo 

Agamez, Juan David Diaz, Adolfo Berbel, Roberto Serpa, Amauri Vidual y 

Jackeline Moguea. 

661. Se menciona que el 8 de noviembre de 2006 la CIDH otorgó medidas 

cautelares a favor de las personas mencionadas. Dichas medidas conllevaron: 

Reuniones de concertación de medidas de protección: con fecha 29 de noviembre del 

2006 se realizó una reunión en la cual se asumieron compromisos tales como brindar 

sistemas de comunicación y seguridad para los miembros de dicho movimiento. 

Igualmente se adelantó una reunión el 12 de diciembre de 2006 en el municipio de 

San Onofre, con la concurrencia de varios miembros del movimiento, en la cual se 

discutieron temas relativos a los esquemas de seguridad, frecuencia de las reuniones 

de seguimiento, se establecieron canales de comunicación directas para casos 

necesarios y se dieron recomendaciones apara el uso de celulares y auxilios 

extraordinarios de transporte aéreo. 

662. Medidas de protección: El Departamento Administrativo de Seguridad (DAS) 

informó que las personas en mención tienen la posibilidad de ser aspirantes a 

conformar su esquema de seguridad luego del proceso de selección requerido y la 

posibilidad de cupos. También este mismo Departamento informó que el 27 de 

noviembre del 2006 ordenó la evaluación de riesgo de dichas personas. La Seccional 

de la Policía departamental de Sucre obtuvo datos de teléfonos y direcciones para los 

Estudios de Nivel de Riesgo de dichas personas con los siguientes resultados: 

663. Juan David Díaz Chamorro: Coordinador de dicho Movimiento, con un nivel 

de riesgo extraordinario por lo cual cuenta con un esquema compuesto por dos 

policías fijos las 24 horas del día en su vivienda, dos escoltas del Departamento 

Administrativo de Seguridad, vehículo y celular del Ministerio del Interior y medidas 

de auto protección y seguridad a ser aplicadas en sus actividades diarias y la 

asignación de un vehículo a su disposición pendiente de la aceptación de los 

miembros de dicho movimiento.


Page 137 

664. Carmelo Agamez Berrio: Riesgo ordinario, revistas periódicas a su residencia, 

equipo celular para situaciones de emergencia. Jaqueline Moguera Berrio: Riesgo 

ordinario, revistas periódicas a su residencia, equipo celular para situaciones de 

emergencia. Adolfo Verbel Rocha: Riesgo ordinario, revistas periódicas a su 

residencia, equipo celular para situaciones de emergencia. Arnold Gomez Ayala: 

Riesgo ordinario, revistas periódicas a su residencia, equipo celular para situaciones 

de emergencia. Roberto Serpa Berrio: Riesgo ordinario, revistas periódicas a su 

residencia, equipo celular para situaciones de emergencia. 

665. El 29 de diciembre del 2006 la Seccional de Policía realizó una revista de 

verificación a la aplicación de las medidas de seguridad en San Onofre con los 

siguientes resultados: Red de comunicación: funcionando en niveles 1 y 2. Las 

llamadas han sido atendidas de inmediato por el encargo en el primer nivel. Rondas 

periódicas de Seguridad: realizadas a solicitud de los beneficiarios alrededor de las 

cuadras de los sectores donde habitan y no directamente en sus residencias, 

adelantándose periódicamente desde el 20 de noviembre del 2006 a la fecha. Entradas 

y salidas del municipio: Patrullajes semanales conjuntos con la primera brigada de 

infantería marina y la policía comunitaria en actividades de acercamiento con la 

comunidad y peticionaros del Movimiento de Víctimas. Control Perimetral Pajonal: 

Acciones de control perimetral para seguridad colectiva del municipio y la finca El 

Palmar. Información sobre el contexto de la Comunicación: No se ha logrado 

determinar la existencia de la lista de exterminio en contra de dichas personas según 

el DAS. 

666. Referente al rearme de grupos emergentes de autodefensas en Sucre, la 

Seccional informó que en San Onofre no se han presentado casos de este tipo. Solo 

acciones de neutralización contra una banda criminal con interese de narcotráfico y 

finanzas. Dicha Seccional informó de acciones adicionales de seguridad: Instalación 

de tres subestaciones de Policía en zona rural de San Onofre con 40 policías 

profesionales, dispositivos rurales con Escuadrón de Carabineros controlando las 24 

horas los ejes viales. Instalación de una Red Investigativa para labores investigativas 

del caso en coordinación con la Fiscalía. Acción para tender la recuperación del orden 

público a través de la búsqueda, verificación e investigación para esclarecer las 

denuncias sin perjuicio de los dispositivos de seguridad implementados y los 

esquemas asignados a favor de las personas mencionadas. Respecto a la alianza entre 

autodefensas y líderes políticos locales, se han producido capturas de particulares y un 

funcionario público por delitos de concierto para delinquir, testaferrazo, falsedad en 

documento público y desplazamiento forzado, junto a otros funcionarios de San 

Onofre vinculados penalmente por este tipo de hechos delictivos. 


667. El 15 de noviembre de 2006 la representante Especial, junto con el Relator 

Especial sobre las ejecuciones extrajudiciales, sumarias o arbitrarias, señaló a la 

atención urgente del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con las amenazas 

de muerte en contra de los Señores Medardo Cuesta y Oswaldo Cuadrado, 

integrantes de la junta directiva del Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de la Industria 

Agropecuaria (SINTRAINAGRO); así como de las muertes de los Señores Carlos 

Arciniegas Niño, miembro de SINTRAINAGRO, y Jesús Marino Mosquera, líder de


Page 138 

dicho sindicato y miembro de la Comisión Obrero Patronal en Urabá. 

SINTRAINAGRO promueve y protege los derechos de los trabajadores 

agropecuarios. 

668. Mediante cartas fechadas el 26 de febrero de 2007, 2 de abril de 2007 y 24 de 

agosto de 2007 el Gobierno transmitió información en relación con el llamamiento 

urgente. El Gobierno informó de lo siguiente: 

669. Medardo Cuesta y Oswaldo Cuadrado: El Ministerio del Interior y Justicia 

informó que estas personas cuentan con un esquema de seguridad colectivo, medios 

de comunicación y protección a cargo de la Policía Nacional. La Fiscalía de la Nación 

informo que cursa investigación penal previa por el delito de amenazas en el despacho 

del Fiscal 97 Seccional del municipio de Apartadó, quien se dispone a escuchar a los 

ofendidos en declaración, diligencia que no ha sido posible llevar a cabo, a pesar de 

que los referidos ciudadanos han sido citados en varias ocasiones. En relación con 

estos hechos no se ha constituido parte civil alguna dentro del proceso. 

670. José Marino Mosquera: Desde el 17 de octubre de 2006 la investigación penal 

previa por el delito de homicidio en contra de imputados por determinar, la cual se 

encuentra en practica de pruebas. En la actualidad ninguna persona se ha constituido 

en parte civil dentro de la investigación. 

671. Carlos Arciniegas Niño: La Unidad Nacional de Derechos Humanos y 

Derecho Internacional Humanitario de la Fiscalía General de la Nación, con sede en 

Bucaramanga, Santander, adelanta investigación penal por el delito de homicidio en 

contra de la mencionada persona. La investigación se encuentra en etapa previa. El 

Fiscal de conocimiento del caso verifico que el Sr. Carlos Arciniegas Niño no 

pertenecía al SINTRAINAGRO al momento de su muerte. Trabajo hasta el 15 de 

noviembre de 2004 y su retiro laboral fue de carácter voluntario. 


672. Mediante cartas fechadas 22 de enero de 2007 y 2 de febrero de 2007 el 

Gobierno respondió a la carta de alegaciones de 23 de noviembre de 2006 en relación 

con la muerte del Señor Juan Daniel Guerra Camargo, líder comunitario y miembro 

del Comité de Integración Social del Catatumbo (CISCA). Según el Gobierno la 

Fiscalía Tercera Seccional del municipio de Ocaña informó que se encuentra 

adelantada una investigación penal por los hechos, la cual se encuentra en práctica de 

pruebas. El Comando de Policía de Norte de Santander remitió un informe al 

Programa Presidencial de Derechos Humanos de la Vicepresidencia de la República, 

iniciando que de acuerdo con las investigaciones adelantadas dichos homicidios 

fueron cometidos por el grupo armado ilegal FARC. Conforme a la información 

recibida hasta el momento todo indica que el homicidio del Señor Camarga fue 

cometido por miembros de las FARC. La Procuraduría General de la Nación informó 

que no cursa investigación disciplinaria alguna por estos hechos. Finalmente, el 

Programa de protección del Ministerio del Interior y de Justicia informó que en lo que 

respecta al Señor Camargo, el Ministerio no encontró registro ninguno, ni solicitud de 

protección a esta persona. El lo referente al señor José Trinidad Torres, el Comité de 

Reglamentación y Evaluación de Riesgos recomendó el 22 de julio de 2002 tres 

apoyos de reubicación temporal, pagaderos mes a mes, y un apoyo de trasteo a favor


Page 139 

de la persona en mención, el cual fue notificado por el medio de oficio del 12 de 

agosto del mismo año. 


673. Mediante comunicación de 2 de abril de 2007, el Gobierno de Colombia 

proporcionó información con respecto al llamamiento urgente enviado el 30 de 

noviembre de 2006 por parte de la representante especial sobre la información 

recibida en relación con supuestas actos de hostigamiento en contra de Willington 

Cuero Solis, Astolofo Aramburo y Elizabeth García Carrillo, miembros del 

Proceso de Comunidades Negras en Colombia (PCN). 

674. Sobre este caso el Gobierno de Colombia responde que la Comisión 

Interamericana de Derechos Humanos otorgó medidas cautelas el 7 de marzo del 2003 

a favor de siete miembros del PCN pero que las personas arriba citadas no son 

beneficiarias de las mismas. No obstante informa que el 31 de octubre del 2006 

analizaron la situación de las personas mencionadas y el 3 de noviembre del 2006 el 

Ministerio del Interior asignó un celular a Elizabeth Carrillo y otra persona no referida 

en el llamado del Alto Comisionado. Así mismo se dio un medio de comunicación 

Avantel para Wahington Vladimir Anglo Cuero y Willington Cuero Solis, dos 

apoyos de reubicación para Willington Cuero Solis y dos apoyos de traslado a 

Washibgton Vladimir Angulo Cuero Y Willington Cuero Solis junto a otras dos 

personas no referidas. Agrega que la entrega de dicho equipo es para la comunicación 

oportuna en situaciones de emergencia. Los procesos de apoyo todavía no han sido 

utilizados. 

675. En lo referente al caso de PCN se dio un apoyo de transporte terrestre durante 

cierto número de horas al mes, tiquetes aéreos nacionales mensuales, medios de 

comunicación y el blindaje de la sede. Respecto a los hechos de los cuales fuera 

víctima Washington Vladimir Angulo Cuero: se le ofreció acompañamiento, 

presencia y apoyo de transporte y se encuentra en curso la investigación penal. 

También se cursa investigación por los hechos en contra de la Sra. Elizabeth García 

Carrillo. Informa también que luego de revisar sus sistemas de información se 

determinó que no existe antecedentes del caso y que estará atento al desarrollo de las 

investigaciones e informará en su oportunidad de los resultados. 

Observaciones 

676. La Representante Especial agradece las respuestas detalladas que el Gobierno 

de Colombia ha proporcionado y expresa su satisfacción por el hecho de que se hayan 

iniciado investigaciones en varios casos en cuestión. Expresa también su satisfacción 

por los procesos de protección que se han iniciado en varios casos. 

677. Sin embargo, la Representante Especial insta al Gobierno que proporcione 

información adicional y resultados concretos de las investigaciones mencionadas en 

las respuestas enviadas, incluyendo las medidas que se hayan impuesto para sancionar 

a los responsables y para indemnizar a los familiares de las víctimas, refiriéndose 

especialmente a los casos del asesinato de la Sra. Yolanda Izquierdo y el Sr. Francisco 

Puerta. También, la Representante Especial urge al gobierno proporcionar una 

respuesta en los casos de asesinato de los Sres Leonidas Silva Castro y Jairo Giraldo 

Rey, la Sra. Mercedes Consuelo Restrepo Campo y el Sr. José Jesús Marín Vargas.


Page 140 

678. La Representante Especial reitera su preocupación por las violaciones contra 

el derecho a la vida y la integridad física (tanto asesinatos como amenazas de muerte, 

así como las desapariciones forzadas) y los actos de acoso e intimidación contra 

defensores de derechos humanos de Colombia. Está especialmente preocupada por 

varios casos de asesinato y amenazas de muerte en contra de defensores de derechos 

humanos acaecidos últimamente. 

679. La Representante Especial expresa también su grave preocupación por actos 

de hostigamiento que se han llevado a cabo desde hace varios años contra los 

miembros de la Organización Femenina Popular (OFP), y agradecería recibir del 

Gobierno una respuesta sobre las acciones emprendidas para proteger los derechos de 

la Sra. Yolanda Becerra Vega, Sra. Jackeline Rojas Castañeda y del Sr. Juan Carlos 

Galvis, así como los de los otros integrantes de la OFP y de SINALTRAINAL, (véase 

llamamiento urgente enviado el 14 de noviembre de 2007). 

Appel urgent 

Congo 

680. Le 16 janvier 2007, la Représentante spéciale, conjointement avec le 

Rapporteur spécial sur la promotion et la protection du droit à la liberté d’opinion et 

d’expression, a envoyé un appel urgent sur la situation de M. Christian Mounzéo, 

président de l’organisation non-gouvernementale Rencontre pour la paix et les droits 

de l’Homme (RPDH) et de M. Brice Makosso, secrétaire permanent de la 

Commission épiscopale Justice et Paix à Pointe-Noire. Un appel urgent concernant 

M. Mounzéo et M. Makosso avait déjà été envoyé le 13 avril 2006 par la 

Représentante spéciale du Secrétaire général concernant la situation des défenseurs 

des droits de l'homme. 

681. Selon les informations reçues, le 27 décembre 2006, MM. Mounzéo et 

Makosso auraient été condamnés à un an de prison avec sursis et 300.000 francs CFA 

d’amende par le tribunal de Pointe-Noire, pour «abus de confiance», «faux et usage de 

faux» et «complicité». MM. Mounzéo et Makosso auraient immédiatement fait appel 

de cette décision. Incarcérés le 7 avril 2006 à la Maison d’arrêt de Pointe-Noire, M. 

Christian Mounzeo et M. Brice Makosso avaient été inculpés pour « faux en écriture 

privée » et « abus de confiance » par le Procureur de la République auprès du 

Tribunal de grande instance de Pointe-Noire. Le 28 avril 2006, ils avaient été remis en 

liberté provisoire. Le Procureur de la République aurait agi à la suite d’une plainte 

déposée le 17 février 2006 par l’ancien Secrétaire général de la RPDH. Le 13 

novembre 2006, M. Christian Mounzéo avait été arrêté à nouveau alors qu’il revenait 

d’un séjour en Europe où il avait rencontré, en compagnie de M. Makosso, plusieurs 

représentants de gouvernements étrangers. Il aurait été interrogé et maintenu au secret 

par la police sans accès à son avocat jusqu’à sa libération le lendemain matin. M. 

Christian Mounzeo et M. Brice Makosso ont été particulièrement actifs dans la 

campagne « Publiez ce que vous payez » qui vise à assurer une meilleure 

transparence des activités liées au commerce du pétrole dans le pays. 

Réponse du Gouvernement à une communication envoyée avant le 2 décembre 

2006


Page 141 

682. Le 29 janvier 2007, le Gouvernement a répondu à l’appel urgent du 13 avril 

2006 envoyé par la Représentante spéciale au sujet de la situation de MM. Christian 

Mounzeo et Brice Makosso. Le Gouvernement informe que les faits relatés dans 

l’appel urgent ne sont pas exacts. En l’occurrence, les faits reprochés à MM. Christian 

Mounzeo et Brice Makosso sous les qualifications d’abus de confiance, de faux en 

écriture de banque et de complicité de faux, sont prévus et punis par le code pénal en 

vigueur, d’une part, et n’ont aucun lien avec leurs activités de défense de droits de 

l’homme, d’autre part. La procédure judiciaire en cours se déroule dans le strict 

respect des lois nationales en vigueur, d’autant plus que MM. Christian Mounzeo et 

Brice Makosso bénéficient de l’assistance de leurs avocats depuis le début de la 

procédure judiciaire et comparaissent libres devant le tribunal. 

Observations 

683. La Représentante spéciale remercie le Gouvernement de sa réponse. Elle 

regrette néanmoins l’absence de réponse à ce jour à sa communication en date du 16 

janvier 2007 et demande au Gouvernement de répondre aux craintes exprimées dans 

celle-ci. 


Cuba 

684. El 8 de diciembre de 2006 la Representante Especial, señaló a la atención 

urgente del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con los actos de 

hostigamiento en contra de los Señores Miguel Valdés Tamayo, presidente de la 

asociación Hermanos Fraternales por la Dignidad y integrante de la Asamblea para 

Promover la Sociedad Civil en Cuba y Juan Carlos González Leiva, abogado y 

presidente de la Fundación Cubana de Derechos Humanos. 

685. De acuerdo con la información recibida, el 27 de octubre de 2006, el Sr. 

Valdés Tamayo fue victima de ataques verbales y físicos cuando una multitud se 

reunió frente a su casa situada en La Habana. Cuando el Sr. Valdés Tamayo habría 

intentado a salir de su casa, miembros de la multitud le habrían golpeado en la cabeza, 

el pecho y la espalda. Según los informes la mayor parte del grupo consistía en 

mujeres, presuntamente integrantes de las Brigadas de Respuesta Rápida, un grupo 

armado de voluntarios que lucha contra la delincuencia y la oposición política. 

686. Por otra parte, el 2 de noviembre de 2006, el Sr. González Leiva, que es ciego, 

habría sido sujeto de un “acto de repudio” cuando una muchedumbre habría 

congregado afuera de su domicilio en Ciego de Ávila, en el centro de Cuba. 

Supuestamente el Sr. González Leiva ha sido victima de varios de los denominados 

“actos de repudios” que son reuniones de partidarios del gobierno afuera de las casas 

de activistas u oponentes políticos, organizadas en muchos casos por las autoridades. 

687. Además se señala que en enero de 2006, el Sr. González Leiva no podía salir 

de su casa durante cinco días debido a un “acto de repudio” y presuntamente los 

culpables le cortaron la electricidad, el agua y el teléfono y no permitieron a ninguno


Page 142 

de entrar en la casa y al mismo tiempo gritaban eslóganes progubernamentales y 

ponían música a gran volumen. 

688. Según los informes, el Sr. González Leiva ha sido amenazado, acosado y 

detenido en el pasado, supuestamente debido a sus actividades en defensa de los 

derechos humanos. El 26 de abril de 2004 habría sido condenado a cuatro años de 

prisión en régimen de arresto domiciliario por causa de su participación en una 

protesta en contra del mal trato del periodista Jesús Álvarez Castillo presuntamente 

por la policía. 

689. Igualmente, el 19 de marzo de 2006, el Sr. Valdés Tamayo habría sido 

condenado a 15 años de prisión por “actos contra la independencia o la integridad 

territorial del Estado”, sin embargo, el 9 de junio de 2006 habría sido puesto en 

libertad condicional por motivos de salud. 

690. Se expresó preocupación de que los actos de hostigamiento en contra de los 

Sres. Miguel Valdés Tamayo y Juan Carlos González Leiva pudieran estar 

relacionados con sus actividades en defensa de los derechos humanos, en particular su 

participación en las organizaciones no gubernamentales que promuevan los derechos 

humanos en Cuba. 


691. El 1 de febrero de 2007, la Representante Especial, junto con el Relator 



el Sr. Juan Carlos González Leiva, abogado de derechos humanos y Presidente de 

la Fundación Cubana de Derechos Humanos y de la Fraternidad de Ciegos 

Independientes Cubanos. El Sr. González Leiva ha sido el objeto de una carta de 

alegaciones enviada por la Representante Especial del Secretario-General para los 

defensores de los derechos humanos el 8 de diciembre de 2006. 

692. De acuerdo con la información recibida, el 15 de enero de 2007, el director de 

inteligencia del Departamento de Seguridad del Estado en la provincia de Ciego de 

Ávila habría amenazado con encarcelar al Sr. González Leiva a menos que renuncie a 

su trabajo de defensa de los derechos humanos en Cuba. Según se informa, el Sr. 

González Leiva habría sido previamente encarcelado en marzo de 2002 y en abril de 

2004 habría sido condenado a cuatro años de arresto domiciliario. 

693. Se informa que el Sr. González Leiva habría sido sometido a una vigilancia 

persistente por parte de las autoridades así como al hostigamiento y agresiones 

violentas por grupos de ciudadanos, actuando supuestamente con el consentimiento de 

las autoridades cubanas. Además, el Sr. González Leiva habría denunciado que el 

teléfono de su casa se estaría interrumpiendo frecuentemente y pareciera que estuviese 

intervenido. 

694. Se expresó profunda preocupación por la seguridad del Sr. Juan Carlos 

González Leiva. Se expresó temor de que los incidentes descritos pudieran estar 

relacionados con sus actividades en defensa de los derechos humanos en Cuba.


Page 143 


695. Mediante comunicación del 28 de marzo de 2007, el Gobierno de Cuba 

remitió una respuesta con respecto al llamamiento urgente. El Gobierno informó de 

que son falsas las alegaciones de hostigamiento, amenazos o agresiones al Sr. 

González Leiva. Juan Carlos Gonzales no ha sido objecto de violación a sus derechos 

humanos y su vida no corre peligro alguno. 

696. El Sr. González Leiva fue en el pasado responsable de actos graves de 

violaciones del orden público y obstrucción de servicios médicos en instalaciones 

hospitalarias en Cuba. Por estos delitos, fue condenado a 4 años de arresto 

domicilario; esto ultimo atendiendo a su condición de discapacitado físico. El Sr. 

González Leiva no es en lo absoluto un defensor de derechos humanos. No ha sido 

sancionado como consecuencia del disfrute del derecho a su libertad de opinión y de 

expresión. No milita ni se encuentra afiliado a las organizaciones que se mencionan 

en la comunicación recibida; esas supuestas organizaciones no existen. 


697. El 26 de junio de 2007, la Representante Especial, junto con el Relator 

Especial sobre la tortura y el Relator Especial sobre la independencia de magistrados 

y abogados señalaron a la atención urgente del Gobierno la información recibida en 

relación con la situación del Sr. Francisco Chaviano Gonzalez, ciudadano cubano de 

50 años de edad quien esta cumpliendo una sentencia en la prisión del Combinado del 

Este en La Habana, luego de haber sido condenado el 15 de abril de 1995 por “revelar 

secretos concernientes a la Seguridad del Estado”. El Sr. Chaviano González fue el 

fundador de la organización llamada Consejo Nacional por los Derechos Civiles en 

Cuba. De acuerdo a los informes recibidos: 

698. El estado de salud del prisionero se ha agravado seriamente en los últimos 

días. Los reportes indican que sufre de un tumor en el pulmón de crecimiento 

alterado, de serios problemas de circulación sanguínea, hipertensión, cardiopatía 

isquémica, artrosis, y de graves problemas estomacales a raíz de una úlcera duodenal 

que padeció durante su primer año en la cárcel. Se alega que el prisionero no recibe la 

atención médica apropiada y que vive en condiciones insalubres, abusivas y 

negligentes que deterioran aún más su estado de salud. Los reportes sostienen que 

desde diciembre 2005, fecha en que le diagnosticaron el tumor pulmonar, no se le ha 

hecho una nueva tomografía para evaluar el crecimiento del mismo. Además, se alega 

que las condiciones de prisión durante estos 13 años de encarcelamiento ha tenido un 

fuerte impacto negativo sobre la salud física y mental del Sr. Chaviano González. 

699. Por otra parte, se alega que desde su encarcelamiento, el 7 de mayo de 1994 y 

hasta ser juzgado por un tribunal militar en abril de 1995, el Sr. Chaviano González 

fue mantenido en detención incomunicada y sin tener acceso a un abogado. 

700. Al momento de ser arrestado, el Sr. Chaviano González tenía a su cargo la 

compilación de información, conducción de entrevistas y documentación de casos de 

personas desaparecidas en Cuba para el Consejo Nacional por los Derechos Civiles en 

Cuba.


Page 144 


701. Mediante carta fechada el 9 de julio de 2007, el Gobierno informó que el Sr. 

Francisco Chaviano disfrutaba de todas las garantías procesales establecidas en la Ley 

de procedimiento Penal. Según el Gobierno, el Sr. Chaviano fue declarado culpable de 

los delitos de revelación de secretos concernientes a la seguridad del Estado y 

falsificación de documentos. El Sr. Chaviano fue sancionado a 15 años de privación 

de la libertad. Su sanción extingue el 2 de mayo del 2009. El Gobierno informa que el 

estado de salud del Sr. Chaviano es perfectamente compatible con sus condiciones de 

internamiento. Se menciona que el Sr. Chaviano ha beneficiado de servicios de salud 

de calidad y ha sido atendido sistemáticamente y de modo gratuito por especialistas 

que cuentan con todos los medios técnicos y los medicamentos necesarios. Según el 

Gobierno, en febrero de 2007 el Sr. Chaviano recibió la atención de un médico 

especialista en medicina interna, quien confirmó mediante Rx de Tórax que se 

mantiene la imagen nodular calcificada diagnosticada con anterioridad, descartando 

cualquier posibilidad de tumoración asociada, sin otras alteraciones y con buen estado 

general. Se informa que en el presente año se le han realizado varias consultas 

médicas, en las que se le ha indicado el tratamiento médico adecuado dirigido 

arevertir la sintomatología respiratoria que presenta. e afirma que el Sr. Chaviano no 

ha sido objeto de castigo alguno. También se menciona que durante el año 2006 

recibió visitas cada 21 días y que se le ha permitido visitar su residencia en el periodo 

de extinción de su sanción. 

702. El Gobierno informa que desde noviembre del 2006 el Sr. Chaviano se 

encuentra cumpliendo su sanción en un centro de rehabilitación, en el que tiene la 

posibilidad de laborar en un huerto agrícola. 



urgente del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con Lazaro Evelio 

Gonzales Sufo, miembre de la Asociasión de los Derechos Humanos en Boyeros. 

704. Mediante comunicación 28 de marzo de 2007 el Gobierno respondió al 

llamamiento urgente. El Gobierno informó de que las alegaciones de hostigamiento y 

totalmente infundados los temores de supuesto asesinato mencionados en la citada 

carta. 

705. El ciudadano Lazaro Evelio Gonzalez Sufo no tenía vínculo con ninguna 

organización de promocion de los derechos humanos. Tampoco pertenecía a ningun 

grupo contrarevoluncionario. La organizacion Asociación de los Derechos Humanos 

en Boyeros no existe.A partir de las investigaciones realizadas, se pudo comprobar 

que Lazaro Evelio Gonzalez, alias “El loco”, nació el 18 de enero del 1961 y era 

mecánico de profesión. Al momento de su muerte, se encontraba desocupado y residía 

en el municipio de Boyeros. 

706. Durante la investigación después de encontrar su cuerpo sin vida el día 4 de 

julio de 2006 en el puente del ferrocarril de la desembocadura de la Presa del Parque 

Lenin, no se encontró indicio alguno de hecho criminal. Pareció suicidio por causa de 

las contradicciones con su esposa.


Page 145 

707. Sr. Camilo Cairo, mercenario en la nomina de la Sección de Intereses se 

Estados Unidos en La Habama, se ha pretendido fabricar un supuesto caso de 

asesinato, en el que se intenta involucrar a las autoridades cubanas. Nada más lejos de 

la realidad. 

Observaciones 

708. La Representante Especial agradece al Gobierno de Cuba las respuestas 

proporcionadas y solicita información sobre las comunicaciones que siguen sin 

respuesta. 

Democratic Republic of Congo 

Appel urgent 

709. Le 26 octobre 2007, la Représentante spéciale, conjointement avec la 

Rapporteuse spéciale chargée de la question de la violence contre les femmes, y 

compris ses causes et ses conséquences, a envoyé un appel urgent sur la situation de 

Mme Justine Masika Vihamba, défenseur des droits de l’homme et coordinatrice de 

l’organisation non-gouvernementale Synergie des Femmes contre les Violences 

Sexuelles, basée à Goma au Nord-Kivu. Selon les informations reçues: 

710. Dans la soirée du 18 septembre 2007, six hommes armés en tenue militaire à 

la recherche de Mme Masika Vihamba se seraient rendus à son domicile, en vain. Ils 

auraient alors tenté de violer ses deux jeunes filles et leur auraient porté des coups 

ainsi qu’aux garçons qui habitent la maison. Les assaillants auraient menacé de mort 

avec leurs fusils tous les occupants de la maison. 

711. Les forces de l’ordre auraient identifié les assaillants comme appartenant à la 

garde rapprochée d’un officier militaire résidant dans les environs de la résidence de 

Mme Masika Vihamba. Celle-ci aurait déposé une plainte à l’auditorat militaire de 

Goma. 

712. Des craintes ont été exprimées que les menaces à l’encontre de Mme Masika 

Vihamba et sa famille seraient liées aux activités non-violentes de Mme Masika 

Vihamba en matière de promotion et protection des droits de l’homme. Des craintes 

ont été également exprimées quant à l’intégrité physique et morale de Mme Masika 

Vihamba et de sa famille. 

Appel urgent 

713. Le 29 octobre 2007, la Représentante spéciale, conjointement avec le 


d’expression, a envoyé un appel urgent sur la situation de M. Dismas Kitenge Senga, 

président du Groupe Lotus, une organisation de défense des droits de l’Homme basée 

à Kisangani. M. Kitenge Senga a fait l'objet d'appels urgents envoyés par le 


d’expression et la Représentante spéciale du Secrétaire général concernant la situation 

des défenseurs des droits de l'homme le 28 novembre 2006, le 29 septembre 2005 et le 

13 juillet 2005. Selon les informations reçues :


Page 146 

714. Le 18 octobre 2007, alors que M. Kitenge Senga se rendait en voiture à 

l’université de Kisangani où il travaille, son véhicule aurait été immobilisé par un 

groupe d’étudiants qui l’auraient accusé d’être un opposant au régime du Président 

Kabila, de soutenir le général Nkunda engagé dans le conflit armé au Nord-Kivu et 

d’être un « traître corrompu par ces insurgés ». Ces assaillants auraient menacé M. 

Kitenge Senga de brûler son domicile si les factions du général Nkunda progressaient 

et auraient jeté des pierres contre sa voiture. M. Kitenge Senga aurait été contraint de 

s’enfuir en abandonnant son véhicule. 

715. Cette attaque ferait suite aux propos tenus par M. Kitenge Senga le 11 octobre 

2007 sur Radio France International au cours de l’émission Appels sur l’actualité, lors 

de laquelle M. Kitenge Senga aurait préconisé une solution négociée au conflit armé 

du Nord-Kivu, afin de consolider la paix en République démocratique du Congo et 

dans toute la région des Grands Lacs. 

716. Des craintes ont été exprimées que les menaces proférées à l’encontre de M. 

Kitenge Senga seraient liées à ses activités non-violentes en matière de promotion des 

droits de l’homme en RDC. 


717. Le 2 novembre 2007, la Représentante spéciale a envoyé une lettre 

d’allégations sur la situation de M. René Kabala Mushiya, ancien Directeur de 

cabinet à l’Observatoire national des droits de l’homme et secrétaire général du 

Comité pour la démocratie et les droits de l’Homme, ainsi que les membres de sa 

famille. Selon les informations reçues : 

718. Le 2 septembre 2007, M. Kabala Mushiya aurait été interpellé à son arrivée à 

l’aéroport de N’djili à Kinshasa par six agents de la Direction générale des migrations. 

Il aurait été interrogé sur les activités de droits de l’homme qu’il venait de mener au 

Royaume-Uni et sur les contacts qu’il avait eus lors de son séjour en Europe avec M. 

Paul Nsapu, secrétaire général de la Fédération international des droits de l’homme 

chargé de la zone Afrique, aujourd’hui en exil en Belgique. Lors de cet interrogatoire, 

M. Kabala Mushiya aurait été accusé d’avoir nuit à l’image du pays à l’étranger et 

d’avoir critiqué les institutions de la RDC. 

719. Dans la nuit du 5 septembre 2007, trois agents en civil se seraient rendus au 

domicile de M. Kabala Mushiya dans le but de l’arrêter, en vain. Ils auraient alors 

proféré des menaces de mort à l’encontre des membres de sa famille. Depuis, des 

visites régulières seraient conduites par les agents au domicile de M. Kabala Mushiya, 

qui aurait de ce fait décidé d’entrer en clandestinité. 

720. Des craintes ont été exprimées que les actes d’intimidation contre M. Kabala 

Mushiya et sa famille seraient liés à ses activités non-violentes de promotion et 

protection des droits de l’homme. 


721. Le 2 novembre 2007, la Représentante spéciale, conjointement avec le


Page 147 

722. Rapporteur spécial sur la promotion et la protection du droit à la liberté 

d’opinion et d’expression, a envoyé une lettre d’allégations sur la situation de MM. 

Donat Mbaya Tshimanga et Tshivis Tshivuadi, respectivement président et 

secrétaire général de l’organisation non-gouvernementale Journalistes En Danger 

(JED). Selon les informations reçues : 

723. Depuis juillet 2007, MM. Mbaya Tshimanga et Tshivuadi auraient reçu de 

nombreuses menaces de mort pour leurs activités de dénonciation des meurtres des 

journalistes MM. Franck Ngyeke Kungundu le 3 novembre 2005 et Serge Maheshe le 

13 juin 2007. 

724. M. Tshivis Tshivuadi aurait notamment reçu un appel téléphonique, dont 

l’auteur aurait déclaré “bien connaître sa femme et ses enfants”, et l’aurait mis en 

garde contre la possibilité de voir “une roquette tomber sur [sa] maison”. 

725. En août 2007, JED aurait même été qualifié «d’organisation antipatriotique 

qu’il faut à tout prix anéantir » par le Ministre de l’Information et Presse dans une 

interview accordée à la chaîne privée Antenne A. MM Mbaya Tshimanga et 

Tshivuadi auraient alors été amenés à quitter momentanément le pays et leurs familles 

contraintes de se déplacer à l’intérieur de la RDC. 

726. De retour au pays, MM. Mbaya Tshimanga et Tshivuadi auraient reçu le 20 

août 2007 un fax anonyme dans lequel il leur aurait été ordonné « de ne plus plonger 

[leur] doigt dans le dossier de [leur] confrère Franck Ngyeke Kungundu [ ;] …votre 

temps viendra et nous saurons quoi faire de vous deux ». 

727. Des craintes ont été exprimées que les menaces proférées contre MM. Mbaya 

Tshimanga et Tshivuadi seraient liées à leurs activités non-violentes de promotion des 

droits de l’homme et de protection des journalistes en RDC. Des craintes ont 

également été exprimées que ces événements s’inscriveraient dans un contexte de 

répression contre les défenseurs. 



d’allégations concernant les membres de l’Association africaine de défense des 

droits de l’homme, section du Katanga (ASADHO/Katanga), organisation nongouvernementale 

qui œuvre pour la promotion et protection des droits de l’homme en 

RDC. Selon les informations reçues : 

729. Dans un communiqué de presse en date du 18 septembre 2007, 

l’ASADHO/Katanga aurait dénoncé les abus allégués de pouvoir du Ministre des 

affaires humanitaires de la RDC dans l’affaire qui l’oppose à M. Mpulu, condamné le 

l5 avril 2007 par le tribunal de paix de Kamalondo suite à une plainte déposée par 

celui-ci pour « spoliation de Maison d’Etat », et incarcéré à la prison centrale de 

Kasapa à Lumbashi. 

730. Le 20 septembre 2007, un tract intitulé « L’ASADHO/Katanga induite en 

erreur par Cituka Mpulu » et signé par le « Cabinet » dans lequel l’ASADHO/Katanga


Page 148 

aurait été accusée de partialité, aurait été publié à Lubumbashi, ainsi que sur le site de 

Solidarité katangaise, organisation présidée par le Ministre des affaires humanitaires. 

731. Le 21 septembre 2007, une lettre de menace aurait été adressée à 

l’ASADHO/Katanga par le directeur de cabinet du Ministre des affaires humanitaires. 

Cette lettre aurait fait notamment état de la détermination du Ministre « d’aller 

jusqu’au bout avec tous les délinquants qui doivent répondre de leurs faits car 

l’honneur et la dignité de sa personne doivent être respectés ». 

732. Le 5 octobre 2007, des membres de Solidarité katangaise, certains armés de 

bâtons, se seraient rendus devant le siège de l’ASADHO/Katanga en proférant des 

menaces. 

733. Des craintes ont été exprimées que les actes d’intimidation contre les membres 

de l’ASADHO/Katanga seraient liés à leurs activités non-violentes de promotion et 


Observations 

734. La Représentante spéciale regrette l’absence, au moment de la finalisation du 

présent rapport, de réponse à toutes ses communications envoyées en 2007 ainsi que 

celles en date du 28 novembre 2006, 20 novembre 2006, 4 octobre 2006, 16 juin 

2006, 9 mai 2006, et 18 avril 2006. Elle presse le Gouvernement de coopérer avec le 

mandat en apportant des réponses détaillées aux communications susmentionnées. 

Appel urgent 

Djibouti 

735. Le 14 mars 2007, la Représentante spéciale, conjointement avec le Rapporteur 

spécial sur la promotion et la protection du droit à la liberté d’opinion et d’expression, 

a envoyé un appel urgent sur le cas de M. Jean-Paul Noël Abdi, président de la 

Ligue djiboutienne des droits humains (LDDH). Selon les informations reçues : 

736. Dans la matinée du 9 mars 2007, M. Abdi aurait été arrêté à son domicile par 

des policiers de la brigade criminelle, puis aurait été emmené dans les locaux de la 

brigade criminelle. En début d’après-midi, M. Abdi aurait été officiellement placé en 

garde à vue sans aucun motif ne lui soit notifié. Lors de l’interrogatoire, les forces de 

l’ordre se seraient particulièrement intéressées à une communication de la LDDH 

concernant la découverte d’un charnier dans le village du Day (district de Tadjourah) 

comprenant le corps de sept civils qui auraient été tués par les forces 

gouvernementales le 1er janvier 1994. 

737. Le 10 mars, M. Abdi aurait été emmené à la prison de Gabode sur décision du 

Ministère public. 

738. Le 11 mars, le président de la Chambre des flagrants délits du Tribunal de 

première instance de Djibouti aurait décidé la mise en liberté provisoire de M. Abdi et 

aurait ordonné au Parquet de procéder à une enquête. Son cas aurait été mis au rôle du


Page 149 

Tribunal pour le 18 mars 2007. Par ailleurs, le directeur de la Sécurité Publique aurait 

ordonné à deux officiers de saisir le passeport de M. Abdi à son domicile. 

739. Des préoccupations ont été exprimées que l’arrestation et la détention de M. 

Abdi ainsi que l’enquête diligentée à son encontre seraient liées à ses activités de 

défense des droits de l’homme et ne viseraient à empêcher celui-ci de se rendre à 

Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso) afin de participer les 14 et 15 mars 2007 à la conférence 

régionale de presse organisée par l’Observatoire pour la protection des défenseurs des 

droits de l’homme à l’occasion de la sortie de son rapport annuel 2006, et au congrès 

de l’Union interafricaine des droits de l’Homme. 


740. Le 23 mars 2007, le Gouvernement a répondu à l’appel urgent, en informant 

que l’exposé des faits, la procédure suivie et les conclusions du Tribunal de première 

instance de Djibouti font, entres autres, clairement ressortir que : 

- le principe de base de toute loi pénale qui est la présomption d’innocence a été 

scrupuleusement observé ; 

- chaque étape de la procédure a été mené avec la diligence, la précaution et la 

promptitude adéquate ; 

- le temps nécessaire a été accordé au défendeur afin de réunir les éléments 

matériels pouvant corroborer ses allégations et de conduire ainsi convenablement sa 

défense ; 

- le délit pénal de diffamation a été reconnu après qu’il ait été prouvé que les 

déclarations contestées sont fausses et ont été faites avec malice ; 

- M. Abdi a pris la responsabilité de publier ces déclarations diffamatoires sur 

support écrit et en toute connaissance de l’illégalité de son action car les articles 425 

et 427 du Code Pénal et les articles 77 et 79 de la loi No2/AN/92/2 ème L/ du 15 

septembre 1992 sont suffisamment clairs et explicites. 

Observations 

741. La Représentante spéciale remercie le Gouvernement de sa réponse. Toutefois, 

celle-ci ne dissipe pas entièrement ses inquiétudes quant à la situation de M. Abdi et 

rappelle au Gouvernement que l’Article 6 alinéas b) et c) dispose que chacun a le 

droit, individuellement ou en association avec d’autres, conformément aux 

instruments internationaux relatifs aux droits de l'homme et autres instruments 

internationaux applicables, de publier, communiquer à autrui ou diffuser librement 

des idées, informations et connaissances sur tous les droits de l'homme et toutes les 

libertés fondamentales; d'étudier, discuter, apprécier et évaluer le respect, tant en droit 

qu'en pratique, de tous les droits de l'homme et de toutes les libertés fondamentales et, 

par ces moyens et autres moyens appropriés, d'appeler l'attention du public sur la 

question. 


Dominican Republic 

742. El 5 de Marzo de 2007 la Representante Especial, señaló a la atención urgente 

de su Gobierno la información recibida en relación con la Sra. Sonia Pierre,


Page 150 

defensora de derechos humanos y ganadora del Premio a los Derechos Humanos JFK 

en el 2006. La Sra. Pierre es fundadora y directora del Movimiento de Mujeres 

Domínico-Haitianas, MUDHA, una organización que trabaja en favor de las personas 

de ascendencia haitiana en la República Dominicana. 

743. De acuerdo con la información recibida, el 30 de marzo de 2007, el Gobierno 

de la República Dominicana habría amenazado con despojar de la ciudadanía a la Sra. 

Pierre y a la de sus hijos. Una investigación realizada por la Junta Central Electoral 

(JCE) y organismos de inteligencia del país, habría solicitado la nulidad del acta de 

nacimiento de Sra. Pierre. 

744. En 2005, Sra. Pierre llevó al Estado a la Corte Interamericana de los Derechos 

Humanos, en Costa Rica, por la retención de actas de nacimiento a hijos de 

inmigrantes nacidos en la República Dominicana. La Corte ordeno a la Republica 

Dominicana con sentencia vinculante de reformar su sistema de registro civil para 

garantizar el derecho a la nacionalidad dominicana a los niños con ascendencia 

haitana nacidos en territorio dominicano. 


actividad en defensa de los derechos humanos de la Sra. Pierre, en particular su 

trabajo en favor de las personas de ascendencia haitiana en la República Dominicana. 

Además se expresa preocupación por la seguridad de la Sra. Pierre y de su familia. 

Observaciones 

746. La Representante Especial lamenta no haber recibido respuesta a su 

comunicación de 5 de marzo de 2007 en el momento de finalización del presente 

informe e insta al Gobierno a que proporcione una respuesta a las alegaciones 

resumidas. 


Ecuador 

747. El 17 de Septiembre de 2007 la Representante Especial, junto con Relatora 

Especial sobre la violencia contra la mujer y el Relator Especial sobre la situación de 

los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales de los indígenas señalaron a la 

atención urgente de su Gobierno la información recibida en relación con el supuesto 

ataque sufrido por la Sras. Gloria Ushigua y Rosa Gualinga. La Sra. Gloria Ushigua 

es una lideresa del pueblo indígena zapara e integrante de la organización 

Nacionalidad Zapara de la Amazonia Ecuatoriana (NAZAE), que se dedica a la 

protección de los derechos humanos y los recursos naturales de las comunidades 

zapara. La Sra. Gualinga es lideresa de las comunidades indígenas andoas, que 

trabajan conjuntamente con las comunidades zaparas en la defensa de sus derechos 

humanos y sus territorios tradicionales. 

748. Según la información recibida, el 26 de agosto de 2007, en la ciudad de Puyo, 

en el transcurso de los Juegos Indígenas, la Sra. Eliza Nango se acercó a la Sra. Gloria 

Ushigua en la calle, invitándola a ella y a la Sra. Rosa Gualinga a su casa para hablar 

sobre la posibilidad de colaboración en su trabajo con las comunidades indígenas.


Page 151 

749. Aproximadamente a las 9.00 pm del mismo día, estando reunidas las Sras. 

Ushigua y Gualinga en el patio de la casa de la Sra. Nango, en la calle Santo 

Domingo, un hombre habría entrado y les habría atacado con gas lacrimógeno. En ese 

momento, otros tres hombres habrían entrado en el patio y habrían golpeado a ambas 

con los puños, con los pies y con porras. La Sra. Ushigua habría sido también 

golpeada en la cabeza con una piedra. Posteriormente, los asaltantes habrían 

encerrado a las Sras. Ushigia y Gualinga en el maletero de un auto y las habrían 

abandonado en la carretera durante la madrugada. Las dos mujeres habrían sido 

supuestamente violadas durante su secuestro. 

750. Dos de los asaltantes habrían sido identificados por las víctimas como los 

Sres. Nelson Santander Viteri y Juan Carlos Freire, quien es miembro de la policía. 

751. Se alega que las Sras. Ushigua y Gualinga habrían tratado de denunciar el 

incidente a la policía en Puyo, pero que su denuncia habría sido ignorada. Se alega 

asimismo que no habrían recibido un tratamiento médico adecuado en relación con las 

graves secuelas físicas del ataque. 

752. Según las informaciones, las Sras. Ushigua y Gualinga habrían recibido 

amenazas de muerte en los últimos meses después de que NAZAE iniciara acciones 

legales para la defensa de sus comunidades frente a intereses comerciales. 

753. Se teme que el ataque en contra de la Sras. Gloria Ushigua y Rosa Gualinga 

pueda estar relacionado con sus actividades en la defensa de los derechos humanos, y 

en particular de los derechos de las comunidades indígenas. Se expresa profunda 

preocupación por su integridad física y psicológica, así como la de otros miembros de 

la NAZAE. 


754. El 14 Noviembre de 2007 la Representante Especial, junto con El Presidente 

del Grupo de Trabajo sobre la utilización de mercenarios como medio de violar los 

derechos humanos y obstaculizar el ejercicio del derecho de los pueblos a la libre 

determinación, el Relator Especial sobre la situación de los derechos humanos y las 

libertades fundamentales de los indígenas y el Relator Especial sobre los efectos 

nocivos para el goce de los derechos humanos del traslado y vertimiento ilícitos de 

productos y desechos tóxicos y peligrosos señalaron a la atención urgente de su 

Gobierno la información recibida en relación con sobre la supuesta ejecución sumaria 

del Sr. Segundo Francisco Loor Intriago y supuestos malos tratos inflingidos al Sr. 

Juan Carlos Esmeraldas Alcívar, en hechos ocurridos en las instalaciones de la 

empresa Petrobell en la Parroquia de Tiguino. 

755. De acuerdo con las informaciones recibido, desde 2002, la compañía Petrobell 

lleva a cabo actividades de explotación petrolífera gracias a una concesión otorgada 

por el Gobierno, en el área conocida como Campo Marginal Tigüino, en el sur de la 

provincia de Orellana, en la Amazonía ecuatoriana. 

756. El día 28 de septiembre de 2007 se habría producido una fuga en la plataforma 

Tigüino 3, conduciendo al derrame accidental de grandes cantidades de petróleo y


Page 152 

agua de formación en el río Cristal. Más de 40 fincas pertenecientes a las 

comunidades indígenas de Cristalino, Loma del Tigre y Tigüino se vieron afectadas 

por la contaminación ambiental. Además, dichas comunidades se vieron privadas del 

acceso al agua de la que dependen para su subsistencia y de la de su ganado. Desde 

entonces, las comunidades afectadas habrían presentado una serie de denuncias ante la 

Dirección Nacional de Protección Ambiental y ante las autoridades locales. 

757. El 2 de octubre, ante la supuesta negativa por parte de la empresa de proceder 

a la reparación del daño causado al medioambiente de las comunidades arriba 

mencionadas, éstas habrían decidido bloquear la carretera de ingreso a la plataforma 

Tigüino 3 como forma de protesta pacífica, impidiendo el ingreso de un taladro de 

perforación petrolera a la plataforma, e interrumpiendo así las actividades de 

extracción. 

758. El día 4 de octubre, aproximadamente a las 12.00 del mediodía, el Ejército 

habría procedido al levantamiento forzoso del bloqueo, con el uso de gas lacrimógeno 

y disparos al aire, generando el enfrentamiento entre los comuneros y las fuerzas del 

orden. Según las informaciones, en dicho operativo habrían actuado también guardas 

privados contratados por la compañía Petrobell, al mando del general retirado del 

Ejército Sr. Fausto Bravo. 

759. En el curso del operativo, a las 14.30, el Sr. Segundo Francisco Loor Intriago, 

de 37 años de edad, originario de Quinindé (Esmeraldas) habría fallecido 

instantáneamente como resultado de un disparo de arma de fuego en el abdomen. Se 

alega que la bala que costó la vida del Sr. Loor era de la cartuchera repetidora 

mosbert, calibre doce, usado normalmente por el Ejército ecuatoriano. El cuerpo sin 

vida del Sr. Loor habría sido trasladado posteriormente en helicóptero hasta la morgue 

del cementerio de la ciudad de Coca. Las autoridades habrían presentado ante la 

Fiscalía de Coca una denuncia formal por su muerte. 

760. Asimismo, durante el operativo de retirada de los manifestantes, el Sr. Juan 

Carlos Esmeraldas Alcívar, de 29 años de edad, habría sido detenido por el Ejército, 

bajo la acusación de haber disparado una pistola de 9 mm, siendo trasladado 

posteriormente a la Comisaría de Policía de Orellana. Según las alegaciones, durante 

su detención el Sr. Esmeraldas fue objeto de malos tratos por parte de miembros del 

Ejército y de guardias privados de la compañía Petrobell. Según las informaciones, el 

Sr. Esmeraldas habría sido puesto en libertad luego que la autoridad municipal, la 

alcaldesa de Orellana, otorgara un hábeas corpus a su favor. 

761. Se alega que la muerte de Sr. Loor Intriago y los supuestos malos tratos 

inflingidos al Sr. Esmeraldas Alcívar son el resultado de un uso excesivo de la fuerza 

por parte de las Fuerzas Armadas en contra de civiles no armados. Se alega asimismo 

que los hechos que tuvieron lugar en las instalaciones de la compañía Petrobell 

forman parte de una dinámica más amplia de intervención del Ejército en casos de 

conflicto ambiental entre empresas petroleras transnacionales y comunidades 

indígenas o locales afectadas por la explotación petrolera, dando lugar a serias 

acusaciones de agresión física, malos tratos y tortura por parte de miembros del 

Ejército y de miembros de las compañías de seguridad empleadas por las empresas 

petroleras. A este respecto, los Relatores Especiales y la Representante Especial del 

Secretario-General se refieren a las comunicaciones enviadas al Gobierno de Su


Page 153 

Excelencia con fechas de 19 de junio de 2006 (ECU 3/2006) y de 10 de noviembre de 

2006 (ref. ECU 10/2006), relativas a supuestas violaciones de los derechos humanos o 

amenazas contra las comunidades indígenas afectadas por las industrias extractivas en 

sus territorios tradicionales o contra sus organizaciones de apoyo. 


762. Mediante comunicación 5 de abril de 2007 el Gobierno respondió a un 

llamamiento urgente enviado 28 de junio de 2006. El Gobierno informa que la 

comunicación de 28 de junio 2006, señalada en el párrafo 206 del informe del periódo 

anterior, nunca fue recibida por la Misión Permanente. 

763. El Gobierno refiere a la supuesta detención arbitraria del Sr. Jiménez Salazar: 

Dicha medida fue tomada por el Gobierno del Ecuador en cumplimiento de su 

obligación de garantizar la seguridad e integridad ciudadana, preservar el orden 

público, y proteger los bienes del Estado. 

764. El dia 19 de junio del 2006, mientras el Estado de Emergencia se encontraba 

vigente, el Sr. Jiménez Salazar participó de la medida de hecho adoptada por los 

campesinos de las comunidades “15 de abril”, “Asociación Campesina Payamino”, y 

“Punino” que habían ocupado los alrededores de la Estación petrolera Coca en la 

Provincia de Orellana, con la intención de apoderarse de ella. De hecho, al momento 

de su detención, el Sr. Jiménez Salazar estaba “haciendo uso de e incitando a la 

violencia, formando parte de los disturbios y había ingresado a la fuerza y de forma 

ilegal a la instalación petrolera de propiedad privada. 

765. Durante el proceso se observó estrictamente la suspensión de garantías que 

contempla la propia Convención Americana de Derechos Humanos, Articulo 27. El 

Sr. Jiménez Salazar fue trasladado de forma inmediata al Hospital de la Provincia de 

Orellana para certificar su buen estado de salud antes de ser puesto a órdenes del Juez 

de la Zona Militar según lo dispone la ley. 

766. El 7 de julio se comunicó oficialmente de la liberación del Sr. Jiménez Salazar 

por parte de las autoridades militares. 

767. Es preciso señalar que el Ministerio de Defensa del Ecuador ha presentado una 

acción penal por injurias, en el mes de julio de 2006, en contra de la Sra. Alexandra 

Almeida, Presidenta de Accion Ecologica quien informo a la prensa sobre una 

supuesta desaparición, tortura, y detención arbitraria del Sr. Jiménez Salazar a manos 

de las Fuerzas Armadas ecuatorianas. 

Observaciones 

768. La Representante Especial lamenta que en el momento de finalizar este 

informe, el Gobierno no le haya remitido información en respuesta a las 

comunicaciones de 17 de Septiembre de 2007 y del 14 Noviembre de 2007. Insta al 

gobierno a que adopte todas las medidas necesarias para proteger los derechos y las 

libertades de las personas mencionadas en estos casos e investigar, procesar e imponer 

las sanciones adecuadas a cualquier persona responsable de las violaciones alegadas.


Page 154 

769. La Representante señala el artículo 12, párrafos 2 y 3, de la Declaración de los 

defensores de los derechos humanos, que estipula que el Estado garantizará la 

protección, por las autoridades competentes, de toda persona, individual o 

colectivamente, frente a toda violencia, amenaza, represalia, discriminación, negativa 

de hecho o de derecho, presión o cualquier otra acción arbitraria resultante del 

ejercicio legítimo de los derechos mencionados en la presente Declaración. A este 

respecto, toda persona tiene derecho, individual o colectivamente, a una protección 

eficaz de las leyes nacionales al reaccionar u oponerse, por medios pacíficos, a 

actividades y actos, con inclusión de las omisiones, imputables a los Estados que 

causen violaciones de los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales, así como 

a actos de violencia perpetrados por grupos o particulares que afecten el disfrute de 

los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales. 


Egypt 

770. On 30 April 2007 the Special Representative sent a letter of allegations 

concerning the Centre for Trade Union and Worker Services (CTUWS), an 

independent civil society organization which supports the establishment of an 

independent labour movement and assists vulnerable groups. The CTUWS is also a 

member of the National Civil Society Alliance to Monitor the Elections. 

771. According to information received, on 22 April 2007, the CTUWS 

headquarters in Helwan, Cairo, was visited by police officers who ordered the closure 

of the office. The decision for such action was based on an administrative decree 

issued by the Ministry of Social Affairs. Previously, on 10 April 2007, the CTUWS 

city branch in Mahalla was closed by order of the Governor of El-Gharbiya. On 29 

March 2007, Administrative Decision No. 44, was issued by General Al-Sherbeeny 

Hasheesh, Chairman of the City of Naj Hamadi, Southern Egypt, to shut down the 

CTUWS branch of the city. 

772. According to reports, the authorities have accused the Naj-Hamedi branch of 

CTUWS of inciting workers to strike and organizing demonstrations which took place 

in December 2006 and January 2007. In recent months, the Egyptian Trade Union 

Federation (ETUF) has reportedly been targeting the CTUWS in a campaign to 

discredit the organization by claiming that it is responsible for provoking workers’ 

strikes. 

773. The CTUWS monitored the results of the constitutional referendum which 

took place on 26 March 2007. An independent report was issued by the organization 

on the results of the referendum, including the alleged infringements and the 

interventions that occurred during the course of the referendum. 

774. Concern was expressed that the afore-mentioned events might be directly 

related to the work of the CTUWS in its legitimate defence of human rights in Egypt, 

in particular labour rights. Further concern was also expressed at reports that the 

action against CTUWS might be related to its role in monitoring the constitutional 

referendum in March 2007.


Page 155 


775. In letter dated 3 of July 2007, the Egyptian Government responded to the 

above mentioned letter of allegations. The Government informed that the Centre for 

Trade Union and Worker Services is a civil undertaking founded in 1990 and 

restructured in 1993. The statutes of the undertaking were registered with the land 

registration office on 21 March 1995. The Centre carries out studies, provides legal 

assistance, promotes and protects workers’ rights and raises legal, trade union and 

social awareness. Article 4 of Act No. 84 of 2002, regulating civil society 

associations, lays down the criteria for the establishment of associations and 

institutions in accordance with the Act. In 2003, representatives of the Centre applied 

to the Department of Social Solidarity in Cairo to register the Centre as a civil society 

institution. Apparently, the application was rejected, because the object of the 

institution included trade-union activities, which is contrary to Act No. 74 of 2002. 

776. On 8 February 2007, a committee from the Ministry of Social Solidarity 

visited the headquarters of the Centre in Helwan in order to verify its legal status, in 

light of allegations of incitement of workers which had been made against the Centre. 

The committee recommended that the Centre’s status be regularized in accordance 

with the law. A meeting was held in April last with a number of the Centre’s 

representatives and agreement was reached on regularizing the Centre’s legal status 

by eliminating the contested activities. In furtherance of that agreement, the Centre’s 

legal representative submitted registration papers on 29 April 2007. The registration 

procedures are moving forward on the basis of the agreement reached at the 

aforementioned meeting. The above-mentioned Egyptian Act provides the legal 

framework for the activities of civil society organizations, catering for all areas 

relating to the protection of workers’ rights, the development of legal and trade-union 

awareness and the protection of human rights defenders. The following are the 

activities of the Centre on which agreement was reached: 

(a) Raising awareness of constitutional and legal rights; 

(b) Conducting studies and research into economic rights and translating materials 

about these rights; 

(c) Promoting and advocating economic and social rights and improving social 

awareness; 

(d) Organizing training seminars to develop awareness and skills in the areas of 

economic and social rights; 

(e) Producing publications, printed matter and leaflets drawing attention to 

constitutional rights and to international treaties and norms relating to economic and 

social rights; 

(f) Following up on, and disseminating information about, international activities 

relating to economic, social and workers’ rights. 


777. On 8 November 2007 the Special Representative, together with the Special 


expression, sent a letter of allegations concerning Mr Kamal Abbas and Mr 

Mohamed Helmy. Mr Kamal Abbas is the General Coordinator of the Centre for 

Trade Unions and Workers’ Services (CTUWS) and Mr Mohamed Helmy is a lawyer 

who has worked to represent the CTUWS. The CTUWS was the subject of an


Page 156 

allegation letter sent by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the 

situation of human rights defenders on 30 April 2007 when the Egyptian authorities 

ordered the closure of its headquarters in Cairo. 

778. According to information received, on 11 October 2007, Mr Kamal Abbas and 

Mr Mohamed Helmy were sentenced to one year’s imprisonment. Mr Kamal Abbas 

and Mr Mohamed Helmy were charged with slander and defamation of character after 

a lawsuit was filed against them by Mr Mohamed Ibrahim, the Chairman of the board 

of directors of a youth centre about which Mr Kamal Abbas and Mr Mohamed Helmy, 

through the CTUWS magazine Kalam Sinai’ia, had published a report detailing 

accusations of financial and administrative irregularities. These accusations were 

reportedly corroborated by an internal investigation 

779. Concern was expressed that the aforementioned sentence imposed upon Mr 

Kamal Abbas and Mr Mohamed Helmy may be related to their non-violent human 

rights activities, in particular their work in the defence of workers’ rights in Egypt. 


780. On 19 September 2007, the Special Representative sent a letter of allegations 

concerning the Association for Human Rights and Legal Aid (AHRLA) in Cairo. 

The AHRLA is a non-Governmental organisation dedicated to the provision of legal 

assistance to victims of human rights violations in Egypt. 

781. According to information received, on 7 September 2007, a decree was issued 

by the Egyptian Government calling for the closure of the offices of the AHLRA in 

Cairo. This decree was allegedly issued as a result of suspicions that the AHLRA was 

receiving foreign funding without state authorisation. The AHRLA has denied these 

allegations however, affirming that they have consistently requested approval from 

the authorities concerning financial contributions from international sources. 

782. Concern was expressed that the decree calling for the closure of the offices of 

AHLRA in Cairo may be directly related to the association’s peaceful work in the 

defence of human rights, in particular its provision of legal assistance to the victims of 

human rights violations in Egypt. 

Urgent appeal 



expression, sent an urgent appeal regarding Mr Mohammed al-Dereini who runs the 

Shiite Aal Beit research centre in Cairo and Mr Adhmad Sohb, who is the director of 

the Imam Ali Centre for Human Rights. Both advocate for the rights of Egypt's Shi`a 

minority. 

784. According to information received, mr Mohammed al-Dereini and Mr 

Adhmad Sohb were arrested on 8 October and 28 August 2007 on charges of having 

published “false information aimed at agitating public opinion” relating to torture in 

Egyptian prisons. They are reportedly both currently being detained under a decree 

issued under Egypt’s Emergency Law, and are being held in solitary confinement in


Page 157 

Tora Prison outside Cairo. It is further alleged that Mr al-Dereini was arrested without 

a search warrant. 

785. Both Mr Mohammed al-Dereini and Mr Adhmad Sohb have been previously 

detained by the Egyptian authorities. Mr Sobh was released in 2005 following fifteen 

years’ detention without trial on the basis of his alleged membership in an armed 

Islamic group. In 2004, Mr al-Dereini was detained without charges for fifteen 

months. In 2006, Mr al-Dereini published a book entitled “Hell’s Capital” (“Asimat 

Jahanam”) in which he detailed his experiences of torture while in detention. These 

claims of torture have reportedly not been investigated by the Public Prosecutor. 

786. Concern was expressed that the arrest and detention of Mr Mohammed al- 

Dereini and Mr Adhmad Sohb may be directly related to their human rights activities, 

in particular their work in defence of the victims of torture in Egypt. 

Observations 

787. The Special Representative thanks the Government of Egypt for its reply of 3 

July 2007. She regrets, however, that the Government has not replied to the three 

other communications sent. She remains concerned by the alleged restrictions of 

freedom of association affecting human rights defenders, and she wishes to remind the 

Government of Article 5 of the Declaration of Human rights defenders, which 

provides that “For the purpose of promoting and protecting human rights and 

fundamental freedoms, everyone has the right, individually and in association with 

others, at the national and international levels: (a) To meet or assemble peacefully; (b) 

To form, join and participate in non-Governmental organizations, associations or 

groups;(c) To communicate with non-Governmental or interGovernmental 

organizations.” 


El Salvador 

788. El 17 de Julio de 2007 la Representante Especial, junto con el Relator Especial 

sobre la promoción del derecho a la libertad de opinión y de expresión, señalaron a la 

atención urgente de su Gobierno la información recibida en relación con la Sra. 

María Haydee Chicas, periodista y encargada de la comunicación de la Asociación 

de Comunidades Rurales para el Desarrollo de El Salvador (CRIPDES), fue detenida 

junto con otras trece personas por “actos de terrorismo”. Al parecer, la periodista fue 

detenida el 2 de julio de 2007 cuando iba a Suchitoto, con intención de cubrir un 

forum asociativo contra las nuevas medidas gubernamentales de privatización de la 

distribución del agua. 

789. Según fuentes, un centenar de campesinos que debían participar en el forum, 

cerraron varias calles para protestar por la privatización del agua. El movimiento, en 

principio pacífico, degeneraría en una manifestación violenta que causaría veinticinco 

heridos en el momento de la intervención policial. En el acto, las fuerzas del orden 

detendrían a catorce personas. La Sra. Chicas, según las informaciones recibidas, se 

disponía en ese momento a grabar la escena. Los catorce detenidos serían enviados a


Page 158 

la cárcel en aplicación de la nueva ley antiterrorista, adoptada este año, que establece 

hasta cuarenta años de cárcel. 

790. Se expresaron temor de que dichas detenciones puedan estar relacionadas con 

las actividades de la Sra. María Haydee Chicas en defensa de los derechos humanos, 

en particular, con su trabajo de documentación sobre el supuesto uso excesivo de la 

fuerza empleado durante la protesta. 


791. Mediante comunicación de 17 de agosto de 2007, el Gobierno de El Salvador 

proporcionó información con respecto al llamamiento enviado el 12 de enero de 2007. 

El Gobierno informa que en ningina manera puede catalogarse que fue una “protesta 

pacifica”, realizada por “campesinos”, ya que se trataba de grupos organizados, 

algunos pertenecientes al Sindicato Empresa de Trabajadores de ANDA-SETA otros a 

organicasiones no gubernementales, entre ellas CRIPDES, a la que pertenece la 

señora María Haydee Chicas, y personas vinculadas al partido FMLN, quienes 

relaizaron dicha actividad policitca en forma organizada y emplearon métodos 

violentas para protestar en contra de la actividad publica que realizara el Presidente. 

792. El Gobierno desea dejar claramente establecido que las personas involucradas 

no fueron detenidas por razones políticas, sino por la comisión de un ilícito penal, es 

decir, por haber realizado actos violentos y vandálicos en contra de la integridad de 

funcionarios del Estado y de bienes del Estado, debiendo mencionarse que a efecto de 

la detención de que fueron objeto, se siguieron los procesos policiales existentes; 

procesados con todas las garantías necesarias propias del debido proceso, garantizados 

en todo momento, el respeto a sus derechos humanos y garantías individuales. 


793. Mediante carta con fecha de 4 de junio de 2007, la Misión Permanente de El 

Salvador en Ginbra respondió a un llamamiento urgente emitido por la Representante 

el 14 de junio de 2006 en relación con el Sr David Ernesto Morales Rivera, Secretario 

de Prensa y Propaganda de la Confederación Sindical de Trabajadores Salvadoreños 

(CSTS), y otros miembros de la CSTS y supuestos malos tratos sufridos por éstos a 

manos de agentes policiales.El gobierno respondió que las alegaciones de malos tratos 

no eran ciertas, y que el registro que se efuctuó en las oficinas de la CSTS no era ni 

ilegal ni arbitrario. 

794. El registro estuvo autorizado con una Ordén de Registro de Allanamiento por 

el Juzgado 8º de Paz. El allanamiento y posterior detención del Sr Morales Rivera 

estaban relacionados con disturbios callejeros ocurridos el 5 de julio de 2006, en los 

cuales resultaron heridos dos agentes de la Policía Nacional, Rogelio Antonio 

Meléndex Castillo y José Joel Argueta Campos y murieron otros dos, Miguel Angel 

Argueta Rubi y José Pedro Misael Rivas Navarrete, por disparos de una arma, en 

particular por un Sr Ramón Belloso, quien se encuentra a la fuga. 

795. El 5 de julio la Policia recibió información que en la citada oficina, se 

encontraban objetos relacionaods con los incidentes del 5 de julio, a consecencia de 

que, se pidió el ordén de registro y al día siguiente, se efectuó el allanamiento. El Sr


Page 159 

Morales Rivera trató de darse a la fuga pero se le identificó, y en un armario del 

cuarto en que se encontraba, se halló una arma de fuego con cargador y cartuchos. Se 

le detuvo al Sr Morales Rivera por Tenencia, Portación y Condducción Ilegal o 

Irresponsable de Armas de Fuego, previsto en el Art. 346-B de Código Penal. 

796. El Sr Morales Rivera presentó queja ante la Fiscalía General de la República 

el 6 de julio de 2006 en contra de los agentes policiales por el delito de Actos 

Arbitrarios en perjuicio de la Administración Pública y la CSTD. Se había concluído 

que no existió arbitrariedad policial el los hechos citados. Los fundamentos jurídicos 

para la detención del Sr Morales Rivera están establecidos en los Artículos 1, 6, 17, 

18 y 346-B del Código Penal de El Salvador. 

797. Se reiteró que la detenció de Sr Morales Rivera no estaba vinculada ni tenía 

motivacines en que quehacer sindical. Asimismo la detención no llevó a cabo a fin de 

restringir la libertad de opinión ni de expressión consagradas en la Constitución de la 

Repúblia y en los distintos instrumentos internacionales de Derechos Humanos. La 

dentención tenía su fundamento jurídica en un ilícito comun tipificado como tal en el 

Código Penal al que debía responder el Sr Morales Rivera como cualquier persona. 

Observaciones 

798. La Representante Especial agradece al Gobierno por las respuesta a sus 

comunicación del 17 de agosto de 2007 y 14 de junio de 2006, sin embargo quiere 

recordar al Gobierno el Artículo 5 de la Declaración sobre los defensores de los 

derechos humanos que señala que “A fin de promover y proteger los derechos 

humanos y las libertades fundamentales, toda persona tiene derecho, individual o 

colectivamente, en el plano nacional e internacional: a) A reunirse o manifestarse 

pacíficamente; b) A formar organizaciones, asociaciones o grupos no 

gubernamentales, y a afiliarse a ellos o a participar en ellos; c) A comunicarse con las 

organizaciones no gubernamentales e intergubernamentales. 

799. En este respecto se refiere también a los informes anuales de la Representante 

Especial a la Asamblea General, A/61/312 y A/62/225 en los cuales se examinan el 

derecho de los defensores de los derechos humanos a la libertad de reunión. 

Urgent appeal 

Ethiopia 

800. On 9 January 2007 the Special Representative, together with the Chairperson- 


the question of torture, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and 

lawyers, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom 

of opinion and expression sent an urgent appeal concerning the Chairperson- 


the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the 

Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and the Special Rapporteur on the 

independence of judges and lawyer sent an urgent appeal concerning the situation of 

Messrs Tilahun Ayalew, Anteneh Getnet and Meqcha Mengistu, prominent 

members of the Ethiopian Teachers' Association (ETA), Ethiopia's main teachers’


Page 160 

trade union. Mr. Getnet was previously the subject of an urgent appeal sent by the 



expression, the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and the Special 

Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders on 

28 September 2006. That communication, in which we brought to your Government’s 

attention allegations that Mr. Getnet was abducted and beaten by members of the 

security forces in May 2006 and again abducted and taken to an undisclosed location 

on 23 September 2006, has unfortunately remained without a reply from the 

Government. 

801. According to the information received, Mr Tilahun Ayalew was arrested on 14 

December 2006 and Mr Anteneh Getnet on 29 December 2006. Both have since been 

held incommunicado by police at the headquarters of the Central Investigation Bureau 

(Maikelawi) in Addis Ababa. Mr Tilahun Ayalew and Mr Anteneh Getnet appeared 

before a judge, but they were reportedly neither charged, nor given access to legal 

counsel or their relatives. 

802. Since 15 December 2006 Mr Meqcha Mengistu has reportedly been detained 

by the police at a secret location after being under police surveillance for several days. 

His exact whereabouts are not known and the authorities deny all knowledge about his 

whereabouts. 

803. In view of their incommunicado detention, concern was expressed as to the 

physical integrity of Messrs Tilahun Ayalew, Anteneh Getnet, and Meqcha Mengistu. 

Further concern was expressed that their arrest and detention of may be related to 

their legitimate activities in defence of human rights, in particular the promotion of 

labour rights of teachers. 


804. By letter dated 24 January 2007, the Government informed that Messrs 

Tilahun Ayalew, Anteneh Getnet and Meqcha Mengistu were detained by Addis 

Ababa Police Commission for alleged violations of the criminal law in accordance 

with the Criminal Procedure Code and accepted international standards. Ethiopian law 

enforcement agencies have scrupulously followed appropriate legal procedures and 

due process rights while taking the aforementioned individuals to custody. Hence, the 

concern expressed regarding their physical integrity is unfounded. The detainees were 

brought before the Federal High Court within 48 hours. In accordance with the 

Criminal Procedure Code, the Court has allowed a remand period for police to 

undertake the necessary investigations. The men are now held at Addis Ababa Police 

Commission headquarters. The Government assures that they are being treated 

humanely and in accordance with international norms and standards. While in 

detention they are allowed visits by their family, friends and religious counselors. 

Urgent appeal 



expression, sent an urgent appeal concerning the following situation: on 11 June 2007,


Page 161 

four editors, Andualem Ayele, editor of Ethiop, Mesfin Tesfaye, editor of Abay, 

Wonakseged Zeleke, editor of Asqual, and Dawit Fassil deputy editor of Satanaw, 

were found, by a court, guilty of political offences, including "outrages against the 

constitution or constitutional order" and "impairment of the defensive power of the 

state". Reportedly, these charges are related to the publication of editorials on the 

parliamentary elections in 2005 and the Government's conduct in the electoral period. 

Three other journalists, Solomon Aregawi (Hadar), Dawit Kebede (Hadar) and Goshu 

Moges (Lisane Hezeb) and thirty-four opposition leaders and civil society activists 

were convicted in the same affair. Among them, two academics: Berhanu Nega, 

economist, vice chairman of the opposition Coalition for Unity and Democracy and 

elected mayor of Addis Ababa, and Mesfin Wolde Mariam, author and former 

chairperson of the Ethiopian Human Rights Council. According to the information 

received, all the above-mentioned media professionals and academics were arrested in 

November 2005 and are presently detained. 

806. Moreover, it has been reported that Andualem Ayele and Mesfin Tesfaye, 

could face possible execution or life imprisonment for “outrages against the 

constitutional order". Wonakseged Zeleke, could be sentenced to up to 10 years in 

prison on similar charges and Dawit Fassil could be sentenced to up to three years for 

“inciting the public through false rumors”. 

807. Mr. Dawit Fassil was the subject of an allegation letter sent by the Special 


expression on 11 July 2005, Mr. Dawit Kebede was the subject of a joint urgent 

appeal sent by the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary 

Detention, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to 

freedom of opinion and expression and the Special Representative of the Secretary- 

General on the situation of human rights defenders on 18 November 2005 and Mr. 

Mesfin Wolde Mariam was included in a joint urgent appeal sent by the Chairperson- 



Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and the Special Representative of the 

Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders on 3 November 2005, a 

joint urgent appeal sent by the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on 

Arbitrary Detention, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the 


Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders on 18 November 2005, a 

joint urgent appeal sent by the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and 

lawyers, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to 

freedom of opinion and expression and the Special Representative of the Secretary- 

General on the situation of human rights defenders on 5 May 2006 and a joint urgent 

appeal sent by the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers and 

the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights 

defenders on 8 September 2006. 

808. Serious concern was expressed that the conviction of the aforementioned 

persons might be related to their activities in defence of human rights. 

Urgent appeal


Page 162 

809. On 6 July 2007, the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal concerning 

Mr Daniel Bekele, Head of the Policy Research and Advocacy Department for Action 

Aid International in Ethiopia, and Mr Netsanet Demissie, human rights and 

environmental lawyer based in Addis Ababa. Both men were arrested in November 

2005, together with numerous human rights defenders and journalists, following 

demonstrations against alleged fraud in the general elections of May 2005 in which 

over 190 protestors were reportedly killed in clashes between demonstrators and law 

enforcement authorities. They are currently detained and are facing the charge of 

“crimes of outrage against the constitutional order” which carries a possible life 

sentence or death penalty. 

810. Mr Bekele was the subject of a joint urgent appeal sent by the Special 



human rights defenders on 25 October 2005. Both Mr Bekele and Mr Demissie were 

the subjects of a joint urgent appeal sent by the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the 

Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and 



18 November 2005; a joint urgent appeal sent by the Special Rapporteur on the 

independence of judges and lawyers, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and 



5 May 2006; and a joint urgent appeal sent by the Special Rapporteur on the 

independence of judges and lawyers and the Special Representative of the Secretary- 

General on the situation of human rights defenders on 8 September 2006. I/we regret 

that the last communication is left unanswered as of today. 

811. According to new information received, on 12 July 2007, Mr Bekele and Mr 

Demissie will begin their defence to try to secure their acquittal. Serious concern was 

reiterated that Mr Bekele and Mr Demissie may not get a fair trial because of their 

legitimate and peaceful activities in defence of human rights. 

Urgent appeal 



expression, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers sent an 

urgent appeal concerning the situation of Mr Daniel Bekele, Head of the Policy 

Research and Advocacy Department for ActionAid International in Ethiopia, and Mr 

Netsanet Demissie, human rights and environmental lawyer based in Addis Ababa, 

founder and director of the Organization for Social Justice in Ethiopia. Both men were 

arrested in November 2005, together with numerous human rights defenders and 

journalists, following demonstrations against alleged fraud in the general elections of 

May 2005 in which over 190 protestors were reportedly killed in clashes between 

demonstrators and law enforcement authorities. They are currently detained and are 

facing the charge of “crimes of outrage against the constitutional order” which carries 

a possible life sentence or death penalty.


Page 163 

813. Mr Bekele was the subject of a joint urgent appeal sent by the Special 



human rights defenders on 25 October 2005. Both Mr Bekele and Mr Demissie were 

the subjects of a joint urgent appeal sent by the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the 

Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and 



18 November 2005; a joint urgent appeal sent by the Special Rapporteur on the 

independence of judges and lawyers, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and 



5 May 2006; a joint urgent appeal sent by the Special Rapporteur on the independence 

of judges and lawyers and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the 

situation of human rights defenders on 8 September 2006; and a joint urgent appeal 

sent by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human 

rights defenders on 6 July 2007. We regret that the last two communications are left 

unanswered as of today. 

814. According to the information received, in mid-July 2007, the 38 principal 

defendants in the trial were reportedly found guilty as charged, and most were 

sentenced to life imprisonment. Having signed a statement admitting their activities 

had been unconstitutional, they received a pardon and were freed with their civil 

rights restored. It is reported that international observers were barred from attending 

the trial. 

815. In August 2007, all the others accused, still on trial in the same case, were 

freed having gone through the same procedure of conviction, sentencing, pardon and 

release. However, Mr Bekele and Mr Demissie declined to sign any kind of statement 

admitting guilt. They appealed for bail, but on 6 August the Supreme Court heard and 

rejected their bail appeal. Few days later, the Court closed the defence case, and a 

verdict was scheduled to be delivered when the Court resumed its sessions on 9 

October 2007. 

816. On 9 October 2007, the Court adjourned its verdict for a further 46 days to 

consider the evidence. A verdict is then expected to be given on 22 November. The 

charge against Mr Bekele and Mr Demissie carries a possible life sentence or death 

penalty. 

817. Serious concern was reiterated that Mr Bekele and Mr Demissie might not 

enjoy a fair trial because of their legitimate and peaceful activities in defence of 

human rights and because of their refusal to sign a statement admitting that their 

activities had been unconstitutional. 

Observations 

818. The Special Representative thanks the Government for its reply of 24 January 

2007. The Special Representative remains concerned about the case of Mr Daniel 

Bekele and Mr Netsanet Demissie, subjects to several communications by her. She 

received further information indicating that on 26 December 2007, Mr Daniel Bekele


Page 164 

and Mr Netsanet Demissie were sentenced to two and a half years’ imprisonment each 

- which is expected to be completed at the beginning of May 2008. Because they have 

already spent more than two thirds of their sentence in prison, they have reportedly 

applied for a release on parole. The Special Representative urges the Government to 

apprise her on the fate of such application. 

Urgent appeal 

Fiji 


Rapporteur on violence against women, sent an urgent appeal to the Government 

concerning Ms Imrana Jalal and Ms Virisilia Baudromoa. Ms Jalal is an 

international lawyer and Human Rights Advisor for the United Nations Development 

Programme(UNDP) / Regional Rights Resource Team (RRRT) in Fiji. She is also a 

former Commissioner of the Fiji Human Rights Commission and Commissioner of 

the Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists. She is a Board member of the 

Geneva-based International Council of Human Rights Policy and the Fiji Women’s 

Rights Movement (FWRM). Ms Baudromoa is the Executive Director of FWRM. 

She was one of six pro-democracy activists who were arrested by the military on the 

night of 24 December 2006. 

820. According to information received, on 15 December 2006, Commodore 

Voreqe Bainmarama, reportedly issued a warning against Ms Jalal and Ms Virisilia 

Baudromoa, to ‘stop saying things that could incite civil unrest’, and further implied 

that if they did not heed his warning the military would take action against them. 

821. Furthermore, on 14 December 2006, Ms Jalal’s husband, Mr Ratu Sakiusa 

Tuisolia, was informed that his contract as Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Air Fiji 

Limited (AFL) would be terminated as of 31 December 2006, under a Directive 

issued by Commodore Bainmarama. In the same Directive, Commodore Bainmarama 

announced that Ms Jalal was to be removed from the Board of Post Fiji (PSL). Ms 

Jalal refused to accept the legitimacy of her termination as Board member of PFL, and 

responded on 20 December 2006, by conveying her apologies to the Chief Executive 

for not attending board meetings, as she would be out of the country. However, on 11 

January 2007, Ms Jalal was informed through the FWRM that a travel ban had been 

issued against her and Ms Baudromoa, preventing both women from leaving Fiji. 

822. On 4 December 2006, whilst participating in the annual National Judicial 

Conference, Ms Jalal reportedly received a call to her mobile phone during which the 

caller warned her to be careful and threatened to rape her. According to reports the 

call was traced to a phone booth outside the military barracks in Nabua, Suva. It is 

believed that the call was in response to a report published by Ms Jalal in the Fiji 

Times on 30 November 2006, which criticized the military coup in the country. 

823. Concerns were expressed that the series of acts of intimidation and harassment 

including the dismissal of Ms Imrana Jalal’s husband, as outlined above, form part of 

an ongoing campaign against human rights defenders in Fiji, and in particular Ms 

Imrana Jalal, Ms Virisilia Baudromoa and members of the FWRM, the Fiji Women’s 

Crisis Centre (FWCC) and the Pacific Centre for Public Integrity (PCPI). Serious


Page 165 

concerns were expressed that the afore-mentioned events, in particular the threat of 

sexual violence may be the latest attempts to silence women human rights defenders 

because of their legitimate activities in monitoring the human rights situation in Fiji. 

Urgent appeal 

824. On the 29 January 2007 the Special Representative, together with the Special 

Rapporteur on the question of torture, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and 



concerning Ms Laisa Digitaki, a Fijian businesswoman. Ms Digitaki is associated 

with the pro-democracy movement in Fiji for turning her own office into a 'Pro- 

Democracy Shrine' that has featured quite often in the media. Banners covered the 

outside of her office with statements such as, “Democracy is our right”, “Yes to 

Democracy, No to guns”, "Ballots not bullets" and "By the vote we elect the 

Government by the vote we remove the Government". According to information 

received: 

825. On Christmas Eve, 24 December 2006, at approximately 23:20, Ms Digitaki’s 

home was visited by a group of military soldiers. The soldiers requested that Ms 

Digitaki accompany them to a military camp for questioning. She was told that if she 

did not comply with their request she would be taken by force. On arrival at the camp 

Ms Digitaki was escorted through a passageway lined with cells, one of which 

contained her business partner Mr Imraz Iqbal. Ms Digitaki was subsequently 

detained in a dark cell. After a period of 20 minutes she was taken from the cell and 

asked to accompany a number of soldiers to Mr Pita Waqavonovono’s house, a friend 

and fellow pro-democracy supporter. Ms Digitaki complied with the request. 

826. On her return to the camp, Ms Digitaki was led to a dark hall where Ms 

Virisila Baudromo, Executive Director of the Fiji Women’s Rights Movement 

(FWRM) was waiting. Ms Baudromo was the subject of an urgent appeal sent on 25 

January 2007 by the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and 


of human rights defenders. Ms Digitaki and Ms Baudromo were subsequently 

subjected to a barrage of verbal abuse and torture, during which Ms Digitaki was 

threatened at gunpoint and made to lie face down on the ground. After enquiring if 

she was pregnant, one of the soldiers proceeded to jump on her back. The ordeal 

lasted approximately 45 minutes, after which Ms Digitaki and Ms Baudromo, along 

with four other pro-democracy activists, including Mr Iqbal and Mr Waqavonovono, 

were ordered to run to the camp gate. The group was followed outside the camp by 

two military trucks and they were forced to run some distance by the soldiers. 

827. Before returning home, Ms Digitaki passed by her office in. The office had 

been trashed and raided and the pro-democracy banners were removed. Graffiti was 

on the wall saying "Merry Xmas Happy New Year Laisa Chang". (The reference is a 

derogatory one, referring to one of her male business clients. Ms Digitaki is one of the 

few businesswomen dealing in a male dominated corporate world in Fiji and she is 

often accused of sleeping with all her male associates. Similar comments were made 

by officers while she was in detention on 24-25 December 2006).


Page 166 

828. Previously on 9 December 2006, a group of armed men broke into the prodemocracy 

shrine, tearing down banners and damaging the property. 

829. Ms Digitaki is currently in hiding, in order to protect herself from arrest after a 

statement she made outlining the events of 24 December 2006, was made public, and 

fears for her physical integrity. 

830. Concerns were expressed that the series of acts of intimidation and 

harassment, as outlined above, form part of a growing campaign against human rights 

defenders in Fiji. Serious concerns were expressed that the afore-mentioned events 

may be the latest attempt to silence Ms Digitaki because of her human rights 

activities, in particular her pro-democracy stance and defending the right to freedom 

of expression in Fiji. 

Urgent appeal 

831. On 29 January 2007 the Special Representative, together with the Special 


expression, sent an urgent appeal to the Government concerning Ms Angelina 

Heffernan, Executive Director of the Pacific Centre for Public Integrity (PCPI), an 

NGO which monitors, investigates and documents human rights abuses in Fiji. 

832. According to information received, on 11 December 2006, Ms Heffernan 

received an anonymous threatening phone call which, it is believed, came from 

military sources. Ms Imrana Jalal, an international lawyer, former Commissioner of 

the Fiji Human Rights Commission and Board member of the Fiji Women’s Rights 

Movement (FWRM), also received a phone call threatening her with rape. According 

to reports the call was traced to a phone booth outside the military barracks in Nabua, 

Suva. Ms Jalal was the subject of a communication sent by the Special Rapporteur on 

violence against women, its causes and consequences and the Special Representative 

of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders on 25 January 

2007. 

833. In January 2007, Lt. Colonel Pita Drita, Land Force Commander of the Fiji 

Defence Force, confirmed that the military is actively seeking the whereabouts of Ms 

Heffernan, along with Ms Laisa Digitaki who was the subject of a communication 

sent by the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and 

consequences, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to 

freedom of opinion and expression, the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture 

and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human 

rights defenders on 29 January 2007. Lt. Colonel Pita Drita stated that both women 

need to be cautioned against making public statements against the President, the 

interim Government and the military as they are detrimental to the security situation 

in the country. 

834. Concerns were expressed that acts of intimidation and harassment, as outlined 

above, form part of a campaign against human rights defenders in Fiji including Ms 

Heffernan. Further concerns were expressed that the afore-mentioned events and in 

particular threats of sexual violence, may be the latest attempt to silence women


Page 167 

human rights defenders because of their legitimate activities in monitoring the human 

rights situation in Fiji. 

Observations 

835. The Special Representative regrets that the Government of Fiji did not 

respond to any of her communications. She urges the Government to provide her with 

detailed responses on investigations undertaken on these cases and the measures taken 

to bring the perpetrators to justice. 

Urgent appeal 

Finland 



people sent an urgent appeal to the Government concerning Mr. Kalevi, Mr. Eero and 

Mr. Veijo Paadar, traditional Saami indigenous herders (collectively organized in a 

Saami cooperative known as the “Nellim Group”). 

837. According to information received, since 2005, the Nellim Group has been 

vocal in opposing the logging activities by the State-owned forestry company 

Metsähallitus in the forests traditionally used by Saami reindeer-herders in Lappi 

district. The case has been the subject of several domestic court proceedings, as well 

as of an individual petition filled before the Human Rights Committee, which on 14 

November 2005 addressed the Government requesting that the logging operations 

cease. According to the reports, the opposition by the Nellim Group and other 

traditional Saami reindeer herders to the logging activities has resulted in great 

tension in the area, leading to numerous cases of harassment against members of the 

Saami community by the local population of Finish origin. It was reported that the 

Major of the Inare Municipality, the capital of the province, has publically called for a 

boycott of Saami reindeer herders’ products. In addition, the Chairperson of the Ivalo 

Reindeer Herding Cooperative has publically supported Metsähallitus’ logging in the 

region and has criticized the Saami position with regard to these plans. 

838. On 7 October 2007, the General Assembly of the Ivalo Reindeer Herding 

Cooperative decided that most of the reindeer herds belonging to the Nellim Group 

should be slaughtered by force to cull the growing herd. According to the information 

received, the decision contradicted existing reports, which asserted that the number of 

reindeer in the Nellim area had actually decreased during the last 20 years, while the 

reindeer of Finnish herders in other parts of the Ivalo Reindeer Herding Cooperative 

had increased significantly. The round-up of the slaughter of the reindeer herds 

belonging to the Nellim Group was initially scheduled for 11 October 2007, but was 

delayed for technical reasons. On 12 October, the Administrative Court of Rovaniemi, 

following an injunction filled by the petitioners, called for a halt of the forced 

slaughter of the reindeer until it had had the opportunity to rule on the Nellim Group’s 

appeal. On 19 October, the Administrative Court reportedly dismissed the appeal by 

the Nellim Group. On the same day, the petitioners filed an urgent request for interim 

measures of protection as well as an appeal to the Administrative Supreme Court.


Page 168 

839. On Saturday 20 October 2007, even though the issue was still pending before 

the Administrative Supreme Court, the Ivalo Reindeer Herdering Cooperative 

reportedly re-started the round up and slaughter of the reindeer. Faced with the 

opposition of the Saami local community, the Ivalo Reindeer Herdering Cooperative 

summoned the local police. The operation continued on Sunday 21 October, when up 

to 10% of the reindeers belonging to the Nellim Group were slaughtered. According 

to the latest reports received, new slaughtering operations had been scheduled for the 

following days. Concern was expressed that the decision to forcefully slaughter the 

reindeers belonging to the Nellim Group may be linked to the active role played by its 

members in the defence of traditional Saami herding grounds and against the logging 

operations in the area. Concern was also expressed that, if the forced slaughter 

persists, it will result in the extinction of the traditional reindeer herding by the Saami 

herders belonging to the Nellim Group, who would hence be deprived of their 

traditional livelihoods and their cultural identity. 


840. In a letter dated 12 December 2007, the Government of Finland responded to 

the above communication. The letter stated that on 23 October 2007, the Supreme 

Administrative Court prohibited the implementation of the decision to slaughter 

reindeer by force and that this decision would remain in force until the Court had 

ruled on the merits of the case or until otherwise ordered. 

841. The letter further stated that all obligations related to fundamental and human 

rights must, in any case, be taken into account ex officio by the Court, whether or not 

the appellants invoke circumstances on the basis of which they consider themselves 

victims of violations of their rights as members of an indigeneous people within in the 

Constitution of Finland and/or obligations based on international conventions. The 

Government reponse also observed that the cases pending in the Supreme Court 

concerned the three Saami reindeer owners mentioned in the appeal as well as a 

Finnish reindeer owner and that the appeal regarding the forced reindeer slaughter had 

thus been submitted by these four individuals. 

842. The letter proceeded to state that the Parliamentary Ombudsmen had taken up 

this case on his own intitiative and that the relevant Ministry had been asked to 

provide him with information in this regard. The letter also noted that according to 

Sections 108 and 109 of the Constitution, the Chancellor of Justice of the Government 

and the Parliamentary Ombudsman also monitor the implementation fundamental 

rights and freedoms and human rights and human rights in the performance of their 

duties. 

843. With regard to the judicial proceedings at hand the Supreme Court would, in 

due course, make its final ruling on the legal question of whether the decision made 

by the Ivalo Reindeer Herding Co-operative is an appealable administrative decision 

and whether the prerequisites set out in the Reindeer Husbandry Act for making such 

a decision exist. 

Observations


Page 169 

844. The Special Representative thanks the Government of Finland for its detailed 

response and looks forward to receiving further information on this case, upon 

conclusion of judicial proceedings. 

Appel urgent 

France 

845. Le 30 novembre 2007, la Représentante spéciale, conjointement avec le 

Rapporteur spécial sur la situation des droits de l'homme et des libertés fondamentales 

des populations autochtones, de Rapporteur spécial sur le droit à l'alimentation, a 

envoyé une lettre d’allégations concernant la situation des autochtones Wayanas et 

Emerillons des villages Kayodé (Cayodé) et Elahé (Elae), sur les rives de la rivière 

Waki-Tampok, dans la commune de Maripasoula en Guyane. Ces populations seraient 

confrontées, selon les allégations, à des problèmes causés par les activités illégales 

d’orpailleurs, principalement à la pollution de leur environnement par le mercure (A). 

En outre, les orpailleurs clandestins auraient récemment intensifié leurs violences à 

l’encontre des populations s’opposant à ces activités (B). Nous avons aussi reçu des 

allégations selon lesquelles les zones d’habitat de ces populations auraient été exclues 

du cœur du Parc amazonien de Guyane récemment créé, alors que la protection 

prévue pour le centre du Parc pourrait être un moyen de protection de 

l’environnement des populations autochtones (C). 

A. Pollution des rivières par le mercure 

846. Depuis la fin du XIXème siècle, les activités illégales d'orpaillage qui seraient 

exercées dans différents sites en Guyane seraient responsables de rejets de mercure 

dans l'environnement, estimés à plusieurs centaines de tonnes. Les sites d’orpaillage 

illégaux seraient de plus en plus nombreux depuis la publication en 1995 d’un 

inventaire des richesses minières du sous-sol guyanais. Les cours d’eau à l’ouest de la 

commune de Maripasoula, le fleuve Maroni et ses affluents, seraient particulièrement 

touchés par ces activités. 

847. Dans cette commune de Maripasoula se trouvent les villages Kayodé et Elahé, 

appartenant aux peuples Wayanas et Emerillons, avec une population estimée à 1.400 

et 300 personnes respectivement. Ces populations habitent sur les rives de la rivière 

Waki-Tampok (affluent du fleuve Maroni), en aval des sites d’orpaillage illégaux. 

848. Selon les allégations, ces populations autochtones seraient grandement 

affectées par les activités des chercheurs d’or. Un premier impact des activités 

d’orpaillage sur ces populations aurait comme consequence la difficulté de pratiquer 

la pêche qui constitue leur principale activité traditionnelle de subsistance et une 

source importante pour leur alimentation. Pour cause de pollution des eaux, la rivière 

se viderait rapidement des poissons qui migreraient vers des zones moins polluées. 

Par ailleurs, le gibier qui est aussi vital pour ces populations devant trouver des 

protéines de substitution au poisson, se ferait de plus en plus rare dû à la pratique de la 

chasse par les orpailleurs. 

849. Une autre conséquence des activités illégales d’orpaillage serait l’intoxication 

des membres de ces communautés, causée par la consommation des quelques


Page 170 

poissons restants infectés au mercure. Des études réalisées dans les villages de 

Kayodé et Elahé auraient mis en évidence un niveau d'imprégnation de quelques 

familles de ces villages qui se situerait entre 17 et 20 microgrammes par gramme 

(µg/g), très au-dessus des seuils tolérables fixés par l’Organisation Mondiale de la 

Santé. De même, chez les moins de 2 ans, le taux demeurerait 5 fois supérieur aux 

normes de l’Autorité Européenne de Securité des Aliments (et 10 fois supérieur à la 

moyenne mondiale). Les conséquences seraient particulièrement néfastes chez les 

jeunes enfants, chez qui des lésions importantes seraient observées. Des études 

menées par les instances de santé des pouvoirs publics auraient révélé des retards 

psychomoteurs, dans la marche et dans l’acquisition du langage chez les enfants, ainsi 

que des altérations des fonctions visuelles et motrices. Par ailleurs, selon les 

allégations, des maladies intestinales auraient été responsables de la mort de plusieurs 

bébés. Un nombre anormal de malformations néonatales et de grossesses non abouties 

aurait été observé dans ces villages. 

B. Récents actes de violences à l’encontre des amérindiens de Kayodé 

850. La tension entre les orpailleurs et les autochtones du village de Kayodé 

essayant de se défendre des conséquences de la présence des chercheurs d’or dans 

leurs zonesd’habitat, serait, depuis le mois de septembre, de plus en plus grande. En 

ce sens, nous aimerions attirer l’attention de votre Gouvernement sur les allégations 

que nous avons reçues relatives à des actes de violence à l’encontre des membres du 

village de Kayodé. 

851. Le 25 septembre 2007, la chef coutumier du village de Kayodé, Mélanie 

Aliman He, aurait choisi d’empêcher, avec des membres du village, la montée des 

pirogues d’orpailleurs sur le Haut de la rivière Waki-Tampok. Ceux-ci auraient alors 

tiré en direction du village lors de leur passage en force devant le village, blessant un 

membre de la communauté. Par ailleurs, au début du mois d’octobre, un membre du 

même village aurait reçu des coups de fusil alors qu’il était en train de pêcher. 

852. Aux vues de la montée du climat d’insécurité, le Rectorat de la Guyane, en 

charge des services départementaux de l’Education aurait pris la décision de fermer 

les écoles du village et de rapatrier les enseignants à Maripasoula afin de ne pas leur 

faire prendre de risques. De plus, les autorités coutumières, en accord avec les 

villageois, auraient réclamé un poste fixe de gendarmerie dans leurs villages pour 

pallier à l’absence de communication possible avec la gendarmerie la plus proche, car 

selon les informations reçues, il n’y aurait pas de téléphone satellite. 

C. L’exclusion de Kayodé et Elahé du cœur du Parc amazonien de Guyane 

853. De plus, les amérindiens des villages de Kayodé et Elahé ne bénéficieraient 

pas d’une protection juridique effective vis-à-vis des activités d’orpaillage 

responsables de la pollution de l’environnement dans leur terres traditionnelles. Dans 

ce contexte, ces villages auraient réclamé l’intégration de leurs zones d’habitat dans le 

centre du Parc de Guyane, de façon à bénéficier de la conservation de la nature tout en 

poursuivant leurs activités de subsistance, protection qui serait prévue pour le centre 

du Parc.


Page 171 

854. Un Décret n° 2007- 266 publié au Journal Officiel le 27 février 2007 aurait 

officialisé la création d'un parc national en Guyane dénommé « Parc amazonien de 

Guyane ». 

855. Ce Parc comprendrait une surface de 3.390.000 hectares et concernerait cinq 

des 22 communes de la Guyane : Saul, Maripasoula, Papaïchton, Camopi et Saint- 

Elie. 

856. Les « cœurs de parc », définis comme les espaces terrestres et maritimes à 

protéger, seraient constitués de 2.030.000 hectares de forêts primaires. En l’espèce, ce 

centre du Parc viserai notamment à protéger les sources des fleuves de la Guyane ; à 

permettre « aux communautés d’habitants tirant traditionnellement leurs moyens de 

subsistance de la forêt » de maintenir et valoriser leurs cultures sous leurs aspects 

matériels et immatériels, à garantir la pérennité de leurs pratiques de subsistance ; et à 

associer les autorités coutumières à la gestion du territoire. 

857. Sur la commune de Maripasoula, « le cœur » engloberait, sur 814.600 

hectares, les sources du Maroni et de ses affluents (Waki-Tampock, Marouini). En 

revanche, les zones des villages Kayodé et Elahé, en aval, n’auraient pas été retenues 

pour faire partie de ce « cœur » du Parc, malgré les demandes de ces peuples 

autochtones ainsi que les conclusions de la Commission d'Enquête Publique sur la 

création du Parc National de Guyane, qui indiquaient pourtant, selon les allégations, la 

nécessité d'intégrer les zones d’habitat des populations amérindiennes de cette zone 

dans le centre de Parc. 

858. Ces zones d’habitat des communautés autochtones des villages Kayodé et 

Elahé ne feraient par conséquent que partie de la « zone maximale des territoires 

ayant vocation à faire partie du parc national », une zone définie en raison de sa 

continuité géographie et écologique avec le centre du Parc, mais ne bénéficiant pas 

des protections reconnues pour le cœur. Cette exclusion laisserait ainsi ces 

populations vulnérables face à l’activité minière qui ne serait interdite que dans le 

centre du Parc. 

Observations 

859. La Représentante spéciale espère recevoir prochainement une réponse du 

Gouvernement à cette communication. 

Urgent appeal 

Gambia 



expression, sent an urgent appeal to the Government concerning the situation of Ms 

Tania Bernath, Mr Ayodele Ameen, members of staff of the International Secretariat 

of Amnesty International, and Mr Yaya Dampha, a local journalist with the Gambian 

local newspaper Foroyaa. Ms Bernath and Mr Ameen have been on mission on behalf 

of Amnesty International in the Gambia since 2 October 2007, in order to look into 

the human rights situation in the country and to conduct training sessions for civil


Page 172 

society organizations and journalists on good governance and human rights. The 

Gambian authorities had been informed of their visit. 

861. According to the information received, on 6 October 2007, Ms Bernath, Mr 

Ayodele, Mr Dampha, and their driver were arrested by the National Intelligence 

Agency, and then handed over to the police in Bassé. They were kept in detention 

overnight and transferred to Banjul on the morning of 7 October 2007. On arrival in 

Banjul, the driver was released. However, Ms Bernath, Mr Ayodele, and Mr Dampha, 

remained in detention at Banjul Central Police Station for another day. Ms. Bernath, 

Mr. Ayodele and Mr. Dampha were allegedly conditionally released on 8 October, 

and had to report to the police on 9 October. They are due to further report on 11 

October. None of them has reportedly been charged with any offence. 

862. Concern was expressed that the arrest and detention of Ms Bernath, Mr 

Ayodele, and Mr Dampha may be directly linked to their peaceful activities in 

defence of human rights in the Gambia, i.e. their fact-finding mission in the Gambia. 

Observations 

863. The Special Representative regrets that by the time of finalizing this report, 

the Government of Gambia had not responded to her communication of 11 October 

2007. She would urge the Government to respond to whether the allegations are 

accurate and provide the details, and where available the results, of any investigation, 

medical examinations, and judicial or other inquiries which may have been carried out 

in relation to this case. 

Urgent Appeal 

Georgia 

864. On 15 June 2007 the Special Representative, together with the Chairperson- 

Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention sent an urgent appeal to the 

Government concerning Messrs. Jaba Jishkariani, Davit Dalakishvili and Levan 

Gogichaishvili, members of the “Egalitarian Institute”, a newly-established Georgian 

non-Governmental organization composed of human rights defenders, writers and 

intellectuals. 

865. According to the information received, Messrs. Jaba Jishkariani, Davit 

Dalakishvili and Levan Gogichaishvili were arrested on 12 June 2007 in Tbilisi on the 

road in front of the General Prosecution Office by members of the Police.The arrests 

were carried out while the three aforementioned persons were painting their requests 

on the street and writing slogans regarding the detention of Mr. Irakli Batiashvili, the 

leader of the political organization “Tsin Sakartvelo” (“Forward Georgia”). Mr. 

Batiashvili was sentenced on 23 May 2007 to seven years of imprisonment for 

“participation in riots against the State”under articles 25 and 315 of the Georgian 

Criminal Code. 

866. The three detained were taken to the Administrative Court, where, on the same 

day, they were charged with “violating public order” and “disobedience to the 

Police”, and sentenced to 25 days’ imprisonment according to article 173 of the


Page 173 

Georgian Administrative Code. They were being detained at the pre-trial detention 

centre at the Ministry of Internal Affairs. It was further reported that Mr. Jaba 

Jishkariani had already been arrested twice in 2006 and in March 2007. It was feared 

that the three above-mentioned persons were arrested in connection with their 

legitimate activities to defend human rights. 


867. In a letter dated 11 August 2007, the Government of Georgia responded to the 

above communcation. The letter stated that the information in possession of the 

mandate-holders was not entirely correct and that the subjects of the urgent appeal had 

not been arrested for writing slogans or painting their requests on the street in front of 

the General Prosecutor’s Office, but rather for disobedience to lawful demands of 

police and violation of public order in accordance with Article 25 of the Georgian 

Constitution and Article 9 of the Georgian Law on ‘Assemblies and Manifestations’ 

which outline the institutions whose undisrupted functioning is of pivotal importance 

to the wellbeing of society and the maintenance of public order. 

868. In the Government’s view the obstruction of the entrance to the General 

Prosecutor’s office was in contravention of the legislation mentioned. The 

Government added that judicial proceedings were conducted in full compliance with 

requirements laid down in the Constitution. The original verdict of Tbilisi City Court 

was appealed and the verict was upheld by the Tbilisi Court of Appeal on 27 June 

2007. 

Urgent appeal 



expression, sent an urgent appeal to the Government concerning the police actions in 

connection to mass protests in Tbilisi as well as the declaration of state of emergency 

and suspension of some fundamental rights. 

870. According to the information received, on 7 November, peaceful anti- 

Government demonstrations in Tbilisi were violently curtailed by the riot police. 

Protesting crowds were dispersed by water cannons, tear gas and rubber bullets. 

Police officers allegedly chased various protestors and physically attacked them using 

rubber truncheons and by firing rubber bullets. Mr. Koba Davitashvili, the leader of 

the opposition People’s Party, was severely beaten and, at time of writing, was 

hospitalized in critical condition. According to reports, the police also targeted 

journalists covering the events as well as independent observers. Two cameramen 

from Imedi TV were also hospitalized after reportedly being assaulted by the police. 

871. The Public Defender (Ombudsman) of Georgia, Mr. Sozar Subari, was also 

attacked by the riot police with rubber truncheons. He was present in the protest to 

document the police actions. Mr. Subari has been a regular critic of the Georgian 

Government’s human rights record. The Riot Police also raided the offices of two 

television stations, Imedi TV and Kavkasia, taking them off the air. Imedi radio 

station and internet website were also suspended. Demonstrators who gathered outside


Page 174 

Imedi TV headquarters to protest its suspension were dispersed by the police with tear 

gas and physical attacks. 

872. Later in the evening of 7 November, the Georgian Government declared a 

state of emergency for 48 hours, suspending a number of fundamental rights. The 

state of emergency was later extended to 15 days. In particular, all public 

demonstrations in the country were banned and only the state television is allowed to 

broadcast news. It is believed that around 500 protesters were injured, 100 of whom 

remain hospitalized. 

Observations 

873. The Special Representative thanks the Government of Georgia for its response 

to the communication of 15 June 2007 and hopes to receive a reponse to the 

communication of 13 November 2007, particularly in light of the gravity of the 

incidents in question and the number of people involved. 

874. She reiterates her concern that legislative restrictions of the right to freedom of 

expression and assembly may limit the exercising of said rights in Georgia. 


Guatemala 

875. El 25 de enero de 2007 la Representante Especial, junto con el Relator 



el Sr. Lázaro Noe Reyes Mata, el Sr. Max Alberto Estrada Linares, el Sr. Eulogio 

Obispo Monzón Mérida, el Sr. Oscar Giovanni González Donado y el Sr. Arturo 

Granados Hernández, miembros del comité ejecutivo del Sindicato de Trabajadores 

de la Empresa Portuaria Quetzal (STEPQ) y el asesinato del Sr. Pedro Zamora 

Álvarez, Secretario General del STEPQ. El STEPQ esta afiliado con la Federación 

Internacional de los Trabajadores (ITF), una organización que representa a cinco 

millones de trabajadores y trabajadoras afiliados en 681 Sindicatos del Transporte de 

148 países. 

876. Según la información recibida, el 17 de enero de 2006, entre las 13:45 y las 

20:00, el Sr. González Donado y el Sr. Reyes Mata habrían recibido tres llamadas 

telefónicas anónimas en las cuales los habrían amenazado de muerte, en un plazo de 

nueve días, a ellos y a sus familias. Además, últimamente se habría visto una 

camioneta, con los cristales tintados, aparcada cerca de la casa del Sr. Monzón 

Mérida. 

877. Según los informes, en el mes de junio de 2006, el Sr Estrada Linares habría 

sufrido una grave herida a causa de un atentado contra su vida por unos desconocidos. 

El ataque se habría denunciado ante el Procurador General, pero no se habrían 

encontrado a los culpables. 

878. El 15 de enero de 2007, el Sr. Zamora Álvarez, habría sido asesinado, al 

regresar a su casa, en compañía de dos de sus hijos, en el pueblo de Puerto


Page 175 

879. Quetzal. Según se informa, cinco individuos habrían disparado a la camioneta 

del Sr. Zamora Álvarez provocando el choque del vehículo contra un muro. Se alega 

que uno de sus agresores le remató con un disparo en la cabeza. Uno de los hijos del 

Sr. Zamora Álvarez resultó herido en el ataque. 

880. Se informa que el 10 de enero de 2007, los miembros del Comité Ejecutivo del 

Sindicato habrían participado en una reunión del Congreso de la República, en la 

Ciudad de Guatemala. El sindicato habría sido informado sobre la readmisión de 

nueve trabajadores, supuestamente victimas de un despedido improcedente por el 

puerto de Quetzal, en octubre de 2006. Después de la reunión los integrantes del 

sindicato habrían sido seguidos por un coche de la marca Toyota Yercel. 

881. Se expresó profunda preocupación por la seguridad de los miembros del 

comité ejecutivo del Sindicato de Trabajadores de la Empresa Portuaria Quetzal 

(STEPQ. Se expresó temor que susodichos incidentes puedan estar relacionados con 

sus actividades en defensa de los derechos humanos. Además se expresó 

preocupación por la necesidad de llevar a cabo una investigación rápida y detallada en 

relación con el asesinato reciente del Sr. Pedro Zamora Álvarez. 


882. Por carta con fecha de 7 de diciembre de 2007, el Gobierno informó de otras 

amenazas en contra de los sindicalistas de la Empresa Portuaria Quetzal-STEPQ. El 4 

de febrero de 2007, un vehículo tipo Pick Up atemorizó a los Sres. Lázaro Noe 

Reyes y Eulogio Obispo Monzón. Personas no identificadas que se conducían en 

motocicleta, entre las cuales un hombre armado con dos pistolas en el cinto, llegaron 

durante el mes de febrero de 2007 a la casa de la viuda de Pedro Zamora. 

883. Se informa que el 4 de septiembre de 2007, el Sistema Interamericano de 

Derechos Humanos solicitó al Estado de Guatemala la adopción de medidas 

cautelares identificándole como MC 162-07 a favor de Lázaro Noe Reyes Matta, 

Eulogio Obispo Monzón Mérida, Arturo Granados Hernández, Miguel Antonio 

Madrid Hernández, Max Alberto Estrada Linares y Oscar Giovanni Gonzáles 

Donado. Los sindicalistas solicitaron que las medidas cautelares a implementar sean 

las de seguridad perimetral para resguardar la sede del sindicato. El Estado de 

Guatemala ha implementado las medidas cautelares por un plazo de 6 meses. 

884. En un informe del Ministerio Público con fecha 1 de octubre de 2007 dirigido 

a la Comisión Presidencial de Derechos Humanos (COPREDEH) se informó que las 

investigaciones realizadas por la Fiscalía a cargo habían permitido la identificación de 

dos personas como responsables de los hechos y que se había ordenado a la Policiá 

Nacional de proceder a la detención de los presuntos responsables. 

Observaciones 

885. La Representante Especial agradece al Gobierno de Guatemala y a 

COPREDEH la información proporcionada. Sin embargo, lamenta que las medidas 

cautelares se adoptaron unos 9 meses después su comunicación y sólo en 

consecuencia de la solicitud de la Comisión Interamericana y no por una voluntad 

propia del Gobierno de proteger a los sindicalistas amenazados. En relación con la


Page 176 

lucha contra la impunidad por los delitos en contra de los defensores de derechos 

humanos, la Representante Especial toma nota de la identificación de dos presuntos 

responsables de los hechos y de la orden de detenerlos. Sin embargo, no hay 

información sobre la continuación de la parte penal de este expediente. La 

Representante Especial espera tener más información sobre las medidas adoptadas 

para que los responsables sean procesados y condenados y para que estos delitos no 

queden impunes. 


886. El 30 de enero de 2007 la Representante Especial, junto con el Relator 



Flaviano Bianchini, voluntario que trabaja para el grupo ecologista Colectivo Madre 

Selva presentó un informe sobre la contaminación presuntamente causada por una 

mina de oro en el río Tzalá, en Sipakapa departamento de San Marcos. De acuerdo 

con la información recibida, el 5 de enero de 2006, durante la presentación, cuya 

información fue publicada en la prensa nacional al día siguiente, el Sr. Bianchini 

informó sobre el hecho del que el río, fuente principal de agua para los pueblos 

indígenas de la región, está contaminado con metales pesados. 

887. Según informes, el 10 de enero de 2006, una autoridad gubernamental, en 

conferencia de prensa, comunicó a los periodistas que se iban a presentar en el 

Ministerio Público cinco cargos penales contra Flaviano Bianchini y Madre Selva. 

888. Desde el 12 de enero de 2006, el Sr. Bianchini ha estado recibiendo llamadas 

anónimas increpándole a tener cuidado y ha sido sometido a vigilancia. En este 

sentido se teme que la seguridad del Sr. Bianchini esté en peligro, y que el acoso al 

que está siendo sometido se deba al resultado de la difusión de las conclusiones del 

informe de la Organización Madre Selva. 

889. Se expresan temores de que estos eventos puedan ser relacionados con las 

actividades del Sr. Flaviano Bianchini en defensa de los derechos humanos, y en 

particular su investigación sobre los presuntos efectos de la minería sobre el medio 

ambiente en Guatemala. 


890. El 8 de febrero de 2007 la Representante Especial señaló a la atención urgente 

de su Gobierno la información recibida en relación con el Movimiento Nacional por 

los Derechos Humanos (MNDH), una coordinación de organizaciones de derechos 

humanos que se organizan a su vez a través de coordinaciones departamentales, la 

Asociación Comunicación para el Arte y la Paz (COMUNICARTE) una 

organización no gubernamental que se dedica a la generación de comunicación 

alternativa sobre la memoria histórica y la memoria visual de derechos humanos en 

Guatemala, y la Unidad de Protección de Defensoras y Defensores de Derechos 

Humanos, una organización que observa la situación de derechos humanos en 

Guatemala.


Page 177 

891. Según la información recibida, el 5 de febrero de 2007, el Sr. Manuel Coguox, 

consultor independiente para varias organizaciones de derechos humanos en materia 

publicitaria, al llegar a las oficinas centrales que comparten el Movimiento Nacional 

por los Derechos Humanos (MNDH), COMUNICARTE, y la Unidad de Protección 

de Defensoras y Defensores de Derechos Humanos, habría descubierto el 

allanamiento de dichas oficinas por personas desconocidas. 

892. Según se alega, estos desconocidos habrían forzado las puertas del segundo 

piso de las oficinas y se habrían apropiado de once ordenadores de la organización y 

un equipo de filmación de COMUNICARTE. También se habría sustraído dinero. 

Dentro de todas las oficinas se habrían realizado registro de documentos y se habrían 

revisado los escritorios. Las oficinas del MNDH, donde está el registro de todas las 

organizaciones de derechos humanos, evidencian mayor registro de archivos. 

893. Según los informes, los autores habrían dejado heces fecales humanas en la 

terraza de las oficinas y afuera de las puertas de COMUNICARTE y de la Unidad de 

Defensores habrían quedado señalados con un cable amarrado a la puerta. Además, 

hacia las 8:30 del mismo día 5 de febrero de 2007, un Toyota Corolla rojo, habría 

pasado enfrente de las oficinas filmando los exteriores. Las organizaciones habrían 

denunciado el robo a las autoridades competentes. 

894. Anteriormente, durante el mes de mayo, miembros de la Unidad de Protección 

de Defensoras y Defensores de Derechos Humanos habrían recibido llamadas 

telefónicas anónimas amenazándoles de muerte. 

895. La Unidad por los Derechos Humanos estaba por presentar su informe para el 

año 2006 sobre la situación de los defensores de derechos humanos y además sigue 

investigando los casos que han ocurrido a principios de 2007, tal como el asesinato 

del sindicalista el Sr. Pedro Zamora, el 15 de enero de 2007. 

896. Se expresaron temores por la seguridad de los miembros del Movimiento 

Nacional por los Derechos Humanos (MNDH), la Asociación Comunicación para el 

Arte y la Paz (COMUNICARTE) y la Unidad de Protección de Defensoras y 

Defensores de Derechos Humanos porque se teme que estas susodichos incidentes 

puedan estar relacionados con sus actividades en defensa de los derechos humanos y 

que puedan constituir un intento de frenar esta labor. 


897. El Gobierno de Guatemala proporcionó información sobre este caso por cartas 

con fechas de 30 de marzo de 2007, 1 de mayo de 2007 y 11 de septiembre 2007. El 

Gobierno informa que el caso se encuentra en fase de investigación por parte del 

Ministerio Público con el objeto de dar con los presuntos responsables de los 

allanamientos. 

898. El Núcleo Central de Reacción proporcionó medidas de protección con una 

duración de 3 meses pero el 5 de marzo de 2007 el Movimiento para los Derechos 

Humanos (MNDH) informó que renunciaban a la seguridad de puesto fijo que le fue 

asignada.


Page 178 

Observaciones 

899. La Representante Especial agradece al Gobierno sus respuestas y las medidas 

de protección adoptadas. Solicita más información sobre los resultados de las 

investigaciones al fin de asegurarse que estos delitos no queden impunes. 


900. El 13 de febrero de 2007 la Representante Especial, señaló a la atención 

urgente del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con el Sr. Francisco Soto, la 

Sra. Angélica González, el Sr. Otto Navarro y la Sra. Jennifer Echeverría, 

miembros del Programa de Justicia y Reconciliación (DEJURE), del Centro para la 

Acción Legal para los Derechos Humanos (CALDH), con sede en la Cuidad de 

Guatemala. El programa DEJURE da acompañamiento a la Asociación de Justicia y 

Reconciliación como querellante adhesivo en las dos causas por genocidio abiertas en 

la jurisdicción nacional. 

901. De acuerdo con la información recibida, el 5 de febrero de 2007, al salir de 

una reunión con la Comisión Presidencial de Derechos Humanos (COPREDH), la Sra. 

González habría encontrado una nota en el windshield delantero de su coche con el 

siguiente mensaje amenazador: “deja de fastidia con protección, protégete vos misma 

que no entiendes con tanto aviso, decile al Pancho que se cuide y los hijos y la mujer 

que siempre están solos, siempre los vemos y ustedes aboganster de mierda que solo 

dinero quieren, busquen otro trabajo sino un día de estos saldremos a almorzar juntos 

como siempre nosotros invitamos entienden hijos de puta”. 

902. Según informes, el 3 de febrero de 2007, el Sr. Morales, habría sido atacado 

por hombres desconocidos en la puerta de su casa en la Ciudad de Guatemala. Los 

autores le habrían secuestrado en el pick-up de la oficina, durante unos veinte minutos 

antes de dejarle en el barrio de Colonia del Primero de Julio. Al denunciar el 

incidente, se habría localizado el pick-up con GPS en el centro de la ciudad con todas 

las pertenencias del Sr. Morales dentro, e incluso su lap-top y chequeras. Una hora 

después, el Sr. Navarro, habría encontrado a su coche en un parking con la llanta 

cortada con un cuchillo. 

903. En el año 2004, CALDH habría logrado una sentencia en el Corte 

Interamericana de Derechos Humanos en cuanto al caso del Plan Sánchez. Desde 

entonces, la organización habría sido victima de una serie de amenazas, 

intimidaciones y allanamientos. 

904. Se expresó profunda preocupación por la seguridad de los miembros de 

CALDH, y se teme que susodichos incidentes puedan estar relacionados con sus 



905. Mediantecarta con fecha de 17 de septiembre de 2007 el Gobierno 

proporcionó información sobre el caso. De acuerdo con los recientes informes de la 

Policía Nacional Civil de fecha 18 de Julio de 2007, a 6 de agosto de 2007, se 

establece que las medidas de protección a favor del Sr. Juan Francisco Soto Fomo


Page 179 

se están efectuando conforme a los compromisos asumidos por el Estado de fecha 16 

de julio de 2007 y 6 de agosto de 2007, situación que se ha hecho de conocimiento del 

Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos. 

906. Hasta la presente fecha, las autoridades no han logrado determinar el origen de 

los hechos; por lo que “se presume que estas personas estén relacionadas con grupos 

de personas que se oponen el acceso a la justicia, en virtud de los hechos que estos 

hubiesen perpetrado durante el conflicto armado interno en Guatemala”. 

907. Ante las condiciones de inseguridad de la organización CALDH, la 

COPREDEH en coordinación con el Ministerio de Gobernación y la Policía Nacional 

Civil han efectuado acciones urgentes con el fin de proteger la vida, integridad 

personal de los trabajadores de la organización CALDH, como parte de las medidas 

cautelares dictadas por la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. 

Observaciones 

908. La Representante Especial agradece al Gobierno su respuesta y las medidas 

cautelares adoptadas para garantizar la seguridad de los y las defensores/as 

amenazados/as. Espera más información sobre los resultados de las investigaciones 

para que estos delitos no queden impunes. 


909. El 8 de Marzo de 2007 la Representante Especial, señaló a la atención urgente 

del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con el Sr. Leonardo Ramírez, 

Presidente de la Asociación Nueva San José las Lágrimas (ANSJL) y el Sr. Vicente 

Ramírez López, responsable de la Comisión de Seguridad y miembro de la Junta 

Directiva. La Asociación Nueva San José las Lagrimas es una organización formada 

por trabajadores rurales que viven en las tierras de la hacienda San José las Lágrimas, 

en Esquipulas, departamento de Chiquimula. La Asociación trabaja por la 

legalización de la tenencia de la tierra de los trabajadores rurales y gestiona proyectos 

de desarrollo. 

910. De acuerdo con la información recibida, el 24 de febrero de 2007, un 

individuo, con supuestos vínculos militares, se habría acercado a un familiar del Sr. 

Ramírez para decirle que se estaban ofreciendo 500 quetzales a quien matara al Sr. 

Ramirez y presentara su cabeza. Además, el 19 de febrero de 2007 un individuo de 

otra comunidad le habría comunicado al Sr. Ramírez que tuviera cuidado porque 

había oído que algo le sucedería si no dejaba su actividad. 

911. Según los informes, el 13 de febrero de 2007, el Sr. Ramírez, el Sr. López y 

otros cuatro miembros de ANSJL fueron atacados por individuos empuñando armas 

de fuego. Los agresores habrían empezado a disparar matando al Sr. López. Los 

trabajadores rurales habrían conseguido capturar a dos de los hombres, quienes que se 

habrían entregado a la policía al día siguiente. 

912. El 9 de febrero de 2007 varios individuos armados habrían llegado a la casa 

del Sr. Ramírez en la aldea El Chapulín. Se alega que uno de los hombres habría 

entrado en la casa para preguntar a su esposa dónde se encontraba éste mientras los


Page 180 

otros individuos habrían permanecido fuera de la casa. Asimismo el 6 de enero de 

2007, unos desconocidos habrían prendido fuego a tres casas en la aldea El Chapulín, 

que pertenecían a miembros de ANSJL. 

913. Se alega que los miembros de ANSJL habrían sido intimidados 

constantemente por el ejército y el 15 de febrero de 2007, el ejército y la policía se 

habrían presentado a la hacienda para ejecutar el desalojo, en una actuación que sólo 

pudo evitarse en el último momento cuando se consiguió una orden judicial. Según se 

informa los procedimientos judiciales continúan. 

914. Se expresó profunda preocupación por la seguridad e integridad física del Sr. 

Ramírez así como por los otros miembros de la Asociación Nueva San José las 

Lágrimas (ANSJL)). Además se expresó temor de que estos eventos puedan estar 

relacionados con la actividad de dicha organización en defensa de los derechos 

humanos, en particular con el trabajo que lleva a cabo por la legalización de la 

tenencia de la tierra de los trabajadores rurales. 


915. Por carta con fecha de 19 de septiembre de 2007, el Gobierno proporcionó 

información sobre el caso indicando que el Ministerio Público había individualizado a 

los supuestos autores del ataque del 9 de febrero. 

Observaciones 

916. La Representante Especial agradece al Gobierno su respuesta y espera más 

información sobre los resultados de las investigaciones para que estos delitos no 

queden impunes. El Gobierno no proporcionó información sobre las medidas 

adoptadas para garantizar la seguridad de los defensores a riesgo. 

Carta de alegacione 

917. El 22 de marzo de 2007, la Representante Especial señaló a la atención del 

Gobierno la información recibida en relación con el Sr. Israel Carias Ortiz, 

dirigente local del Comité de Unidad Campesina (CUC) y de la Asociación 

Campesina Integral de Desarrollo Los Achiotes (ACODEA). El CUC es un grupo de 

150 familias que luchan por recuperar unas tierras ocupadas por otras personas en 

forma ilegal. 

918. Según la información recibida, el 6 de febrero de 2007, mientras el Sr. Ortiz se 

dirigía a su casa en la comunidad de los Achiotes desde Zacapa fue asesinado junto a 

sus dos hijos Robin Aroldo Ramírez, de 11 años y Leswin Alexis Ramírez, de 9 años. 

919. Se alega que el Sr. Ortiz habría recibido cuatro impactos de bala, mientras que 

sus dos hijos fueron muertos por un tiro a la cabeza cada uno. La madre del Sr. Ortiz 

falleció de un infarto al conocer lo sucedido. El Sr. Ortiz habría denunciado varias 

amenazas en su contra en el pasado. 

920. Se expresó temor de que estos eventos puedan ser relacionados con las 

actividades del Sr. Ortiz en defensa de los derechos humanos, en particular en defensa


Page 181 

de las tierras y recursos naturales. Se expresó profunda preocupación por la seguridad 

de los miembros del Comité de Unidad Campesina (CUC) y de la Asociación 

Campesina Integral de Desarrollo Los Achiotes (ACODEA). 


921. Por carta con fecha de 7 de diciembre de 2007 el Gobierno informó que el 

caso se encuentra en fase de investigación por parte del Ministerio Público. El 

Gobierno informó sobre las investigaciones iniciales que se están llevando a cabo. Se 

tomaron una serie de declaraciones testimoniales, se realizó un allanamiento en una 

residencia en la cual se secuestraron evidencias, y se remitieron al laboratorio 

balístico los cascabillos encontrados en la escena del crimen. 

922. En cuanto a las medidas de protección para los miembros del CUC y 

ACODEA, el Gobierno informó que no existe ninguna solicitud de medidas cautelares 

otorgada del sistema jurídico nacional a favor de dichas organizaciones ni se ha 

recibido ninguna comunicación por parte de la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos 

Humanos para implementar medidas cautelares. 

Observaciones 





924. El 13 de abril de 2007 la Representante Especial, señaló a la atención urgente 

del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con En este contexto, quisiera 

señalar a la atención urgente de su Gobierno la información que he recibido en 

relación con las organizaciones no gubernamentales que trabajan en defensa de los 

derechos humanos: Trocaire una organización irlandesa que trabaja para reducir la 

pobreza y promover la justicia, la Asociación para la Cooperación con el Sur 

(ACSUR las Segovias) un organización española con el fin de contribuir al desarrollo 

de la conciencia crítica de la ciudadanía, acompañando procesos de participación 

democrática y organización social, desde la perspectiva de la solidaridad y la 

cooperación internacional Colectivo Poder y Desarrollo Local (CPDL) y la 

organización CARE Internacional en Cuidad de Guatemala. 

925. De acuerdo con la información recibida, el 5 de abril de 2007, en horas de la 

madrugada, las oficinas centrales que comparten las ONG Trocaire, ACSUR y la 

CDPL habrían sido allanadas por personas desconocidas. Ese mismo día las oficinas 

de CARE Internacional también fueron allanadas. Según se alega, estos desconocidos 

se habrían apropiado de ordenadores, cámaras fotográficos digitales, un scanner, 

llaves USB, un teléfono móvil, CD’s y un monitor que contenían información 

importante relacionada con el trabajo de las cuatro organizaciones. Sin embargo, no 

se habría sustraído ningún otro artículo de valor. Las mencionadas organizaciones 

habrían denunciado el robo a las autoridades competentes.


Page 182 

926. Se informa que en enero de 2007 se habrían robado vehículos pertenecientes a 

Trocaire así que al CPDL. Además en Marzo de 2007 se habría atacado a un 

miembro de CPDL a unos metros de la oficina. 

927. Se expresó temores por la seguridad de los miembros de Trocaire, ACSUR las 

Segovias, CPDL y la organización CARE Internacional porque se temía que estos 

susodichos incidentes puedan estar relacionados con sus actividades en defensa de los 

derechos humanos y que puedan constituir un intento de frenar esta labor. 


928. El 7 de mayo de 2007 la Representante Especial, junto con el Relator Especial 

sobre la promoción del derecho a la libertad de opinión y de expresión señalaron a la 

atención urgente del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con la Sra. Paula 

Barrios, miembro del equipo del área de mujeres en prisión y violencia de género, el 

Sr. David Dávila y el Sr. Oswaldo Samayoa investigadores y otros miembros no 

identificados del Instituto de Estudios Comparados en Ciencias de Guatemala 

(ICCPG). El ICCPG es una institución académica que realiza investigaciones en las 

áreas de política criminal y derechos humanos. Además, la Institución es querellante 

en varios casos de derechos humanos y ha publicado informes sobre las ejecuciones 

extrajudiciales en Guatemala. 

929. De acuerdo con la información recibida, el 25 de abril de 2007, hacia las 6:30 

de la tarde, cuando un miembro del ICCPG se dirigía en coche a la cuidad de 

Guatemala dos vehículos con vidrios polarizados sin placas habrían forzado a parar el 

coche del trabajador/a. Bajando de los vehículos, dos hombres, uno de ellos con palo, 

le habrían sacado al trabajador/a del coche. Los agresores le habrían dicho que sabían 

que trabajaba en el Instituto y que tenían controlado todo. 

930. Según se informa, el 12 de abril de 2007, al salir del ICCPG un/a empleado/a 

habría sido introducido forzadamente en un coche donde habían dos hombres 

armados. Los hombres le habrían interrogado al empleado/a si trabajaba en el 

Instituto amenazándole con que algo le sucedería si no dejaba su actividad. 

931. Además, el 20 de marzo de 2007, la casa de la Sra. Barrios habría sido 

allanada. Se alega que no se habrían robado ningún otro artículo de valor, sin 

embargo uno de los osos de peluche en el cuarto de sus hijos tenía la boca tapada. 

932. El 13 de marzo de 2007, el Sr. Dávila y el Sr. Samaoya fueron seguidos por un 

vehículo. Al día siguiente, el 15 de marzo de 2007, al dirigirse a la casa de la familia 

del Sr. Tirso Román Venezuela (presunto ejecutado extrajudicial) su coche fue 

detenido cinco veces por la policía. El ICPPG habría denunciado oficialmente los 

susodichos incidentes ante el Ministerio Público y se habría solicitado de medidas 

cautelares ante la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. 

933. Se expresó profunda preocupación por la seguridad de los miembros del 

ICCPG. Se expresó temor de que susodichos incidentes puedan estar relacionados con 

sus actividades en defensa de los derechos humanos. 



Page 183 

934. Por carta con fecha de 19 de septiembre de 2007, el Gobierno informó que se 

está realizando la investigación de mérito sobre los hechos cometidos los días 24 y 25 

de abril de 2007. 

935. El Ministerio Publico informó que la persona que fue victima de los hechos 

del día 12 de abril no presentó la denuncia de mérito. El Ministerio Publico informó 

que la persona que fue victima de los hechos del día 25 de abril tampoco presentó la 

denuncia de mérito. 

936. El Gobierno informó que el 7 de junio de 2007 la Comisión Interamericana de 

Derechos Humanos ordenó adoptar medidas cautelares a favor del Instituto de 

Estudios Comparados en Ciencias Penales de Guatemala. Por lo tanto, los Sres. Paula 

Barrios, Oswaldo Samayoa y David Dávila cuentan con medidas cautelares. El 

Gobierno informa que según el personal del Instituto, el servicio que está brindando la 

Policía Nacional es deficiente. Debido a lo anterior, el Viceministro de Apoyo al 

Sector de Justicia del Ministerio de Gobernación se comprometió a que los agentes de 

la Policía Nacional Civil de se asignen firmarán un libro de asistencias, que el 

Instituto tendrá en su poder. 

Observaciones 



queden impunes. Con respecto a las medidas cautelares, la Representante Especial 

solicita al Gobierno seguir informando sobre las medidas adoptadas para remediar a 

las deficiencias señaladas por el personal del Instituto de Estudios Comparados en 

Ciencias Penales de Guatemala. 


938. El 16 de mayo de 2007 la Representante Especial señaló a la atención urgente 

del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con el Sr. Jorge Fernando Campo 

Morales, miembro de la Consejería en Proyectos (PCS), una organización que trabaja 

para fortalecer las capacidades de las poblaciones afectadas por el desplazamiento, el 

refugio y otras formas de desarraigo en Guatemala. 


1:30pm, mientras el Sr. Morales se aparcaba el pick-up de la PCS, dos individuos con 

apariencia de militares le habrían encañonado. Los dos agresores le hicieron 

trasladarse a la parte de atrás del vehículo donde uno de ellos le habría golpeado para 

que le diera dinero y su arma. El habría negado que no poseyera un arma e indicó que 

el dinero estaba en la mochila. Al no encontrar suficiente dinero los agresores le 

habrían agredido sexualmente antes de dejarle en la zona 7 de la ciudad, con nada más 

de 10 quetzales. Se alega que, unos veinte minutos después, una persona en la oficina 

habría recibido varias llamadas procedentes del móvil del Sr. Morales, ya en posesión 

de los agresores. El incidente habría sido denunciado oficialmente ante la Policía 

Nacional Civil.


Page 184 

940. Según se informa, el mismo día se habría iniciado en la Posada Belén, Antigua 

Guatemala, el Encuentro Internacional de PCS ‘Compartir la Memoria Colectiva: el 

acompañamiento psicosocial y justicia integral para mujeres victimas de violencia 

sexual en conflictos armados’. 


actividad en defensa de los derechos humanos del Sr. Morales y la Consejería en 

Proyectos. Se expresa profunda preocupación por la seguridad e integridad física del 

Sr. Morales y los demás integrantes de dicha organización. 


942. Por carta con fecha de 19 de septiembre de 2007, el Gobierno informó que se 

está realizando la investigación de mérito. 

943. Desde el día 28 de mayo el personal de Consejería en Proyectos, Regional 

Guatemala, la sede de la organización goza de medidas de protección por parte de la 

Policía Nacional Civil a través del mecanismo de seguridad perimetral. 

944. Adicionalmente el 14 de junio de 2007, la Comisión Interamericana de 

Derechos Humanos otorgó medidas cautelares para el personal de la organización 

antes mencionada, la cuales fueron implementadas desde el día 2 de agosto de 2007. 

945. Según informó el personal de dicha organización, el Sr. Morales esta fuera del 

país, por lo que al momento de regresar el Estado de Guatemala le proporcionara, si él 

lo requiere, protección. 

Observaciones 





947. El 29 de mayo de 2007, la Representante Especial señaló a la atención urgente 

del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con el allanamiento de las oficinas 

de ActionAid, ubicadas en la ciudad de Guatemala. ActionAid es una organización 

internacional comprometida en la lucha contra la pobreza y la injusticia en las 

comunidades de 43 países en África, Asia, América y Europa. 

948. De acuerdo con la información recibida, el 20 de mayo de 2007, en horas de la 

madrugada, las oficinas de ActionAid fueron allanadas. Según se informa, los autores 

se habrían apropiado de dos computadoras portátiles que contenían información 

importante relacionada con el trabajo de ActionAid. Sin embargo, no se habría 

sustraído ningún otro artículo de valor. Según los informes se habría denunciado 

oficialmente éste allanamiento ante el Ministerio Público y ante la Policía Nacional 

Civil (PNC).


Page 185 

949. Cabe mencionar que ActionAid forma parte de la Junta Directiva del Foro de 

ONG Internacionales (FONGI) y, según informes, es la cuarta organización miembro 

del Foro que ha sido allanadao durante el último mes. 

950. Se expresó temor de que estos susodichos incidentes puedan estar 

relacionados con las actividades de ActionAid en defensa de los derechos humanos. 

También quiero expresar mi preocupación por las recurrentes agresiones y actos de 

hostigamiento en contra de defensores de derechos humanos en Guatemala. 


951. El 15 de junio de 2007 la Representante Especial, junto con la Relatora 

Especial sobre la violencia contra la mujer señalaron a la atención urgente del 

Gobierno la información recibida en relación con los asesinatos de la Sra. Maria 

Cristina Gómez, encargada de Pastoral de la Mujer para las comunidades de Santa 

Ana y El Chal, en el departamento de Petén y sus hijos y del Sr. José Corado Gómez 

(24 años), los ataques en contra de la Sra. Edith Corado Gómez (18 años), miembros 

del Equipo de sensibilización de la Asociación de Mujeres Ixqik de Petén (AMPI), y 

las amenazas en contra de Olga Urízar y otros miembros/as de dicha asociación. 

AMPI es una organización que coordina con la Pastoral Social del Vicariato de Petén 

(Iglesia Católica) y brinda asistencia jurídica a mujeres víctimas de violación. La 

Relatora Especial sobre la violencia contra la mujer, sus causas y consecuencias y la 

Representante Especial del Secretario-General para los defensores de los derechos 

humanos enviaron un llamamiento urgente a favor de esta asociación el 18 de 

noviembre de 2005. 

952. De acuerdo con la información recibida, el 3 de junio de 2007, hacia las 

5:30pm, dos hombres armados se habrían acercado en coche a la tienda ubicada en la 

casa de las Sras. Edith Corado Gómez y Maria Cristina Gómez, en El Chal, 

presuntamente para comprar bebidas. Uno de los desconocidos habría entrado en el 

domicilio de la familia y habría disparado por la espalda al Sr. José Corado Gómez, 

quien falleció en el lugar. El otro individuo se habría acercado a la Sra. Edith Corado 

Gómez y le dispararía, hiriéndola en el brazo. Al darse cuenta de lo sucedido, la Sra. 

Maria Cristina Gómez corrió y abrazó a su hija, por lo que recibió el resto de disparos, 

falleciendo en el lugar. 

953. Según se informa, la Sra. Olga Urízar, integrante de Ixqik, habría denunciado 

que el 1 de junio de 2007, hacia las 10:00pm, un individuo haciéndose pasar por 

borracho empezó a gritar enfrente de su casa, amenazando con tener una bomba con 

él. Asimismo, durante el mes de mayo de 2007, varios miembros del equipo de 

sensibilización habrían recibido mensajes de texto amenazantes, uno de los cuales 

decía ‘Nosotros vamos adelante…ya vas a ver qué te va a pasar’. 

954. Además, en el 2005, Ixqik, habría sufrido una serie de amenazas y actos de 

intimidación, entre los que se incluyen varios allanamientos y un intento de asesinato. 

955. Se condenaron los asesinatos del Sr. José Corado Gómez y de la Sra. María 

Cristina Gómez y se expresó profunda preocupación por la seguridad e integridad 

física de la Sra. Edith Corado Gómez así como por la del resto de los miembros de la 

Asociación de Mujeres Ixqik de Petén (AMPI). Además se expresó temor que estos


Page 186 

eventos puedan estar relacionados con la actividad de dicha organización en defensa 

de los derechos humanos, en particular con el trabajo que lleva a cabo para lograr una 

democracia en Guatemala. 


956. Por carta con fecha de 7 de diciembre de 2007, el Gobierno informó que el 

Ministerio Público está realizando la investigación sobre los hechos ocurridos el 3 de 

junio de 2007. El Gobierno proporciona mucha información sobre las investigaciones 

llevadas a cabo en relación con las amenazas recibidas por los integrantes de la 

Asociación de Mujeres de Petén IXQIK aún dichas investigaciones no han resultado 

en la identificación de los responsables de las amenazas. 

957. El Gobierno informa que los miembros de la Asociación de Mujeres de Petén 

IXQIK son beneficiarias de medidas de seguridad de parte del Estado a través de la 

Policía Nacional Civil a partir de que ellas solicitaron medidas cautelares ante la 

Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, las cuales no han sido otorgadas. Sin 

embargo, el Estado decidió brindar protección preventivamente e independentemiente 

de que la Comisión Interamericana las otorgue. 

Observaciones 



queden impunes. La Representante Especial evalúa positivamente la decisión de 

otorgar medidas cautelares a favor de los miembros de la Asociación de Mujeres de 

Petén IXQIK aún sin la intervención de la Comisión Interamericana. 

Carta de alegaciones de carácter general 

959. El 5 de Julio de 2007, la Representante Especial, señaló a la atención urgente 

del Gobierno en relación con sobre el aumento de denuncias de amenazas y ataques 

contra miembros de organizaciones de derechos humanos registrados durante los 

primeros meses del año 2007. 

960. La Representante Especial hizo referencia a su visita a Guatemala del 26 de 

mayo al 1 de junio de 2002. En el informe de dicha misión presentado ante la 

Comisión de Derechos Humanos (E/CN.4/2003/104/Add.2), había expresado su 

preocupación sobre el deterioro de la situación de los derechos humanos en el país y 

el aumento de los casos de ataques contra defensores de los derechos humanos. La 

Representante Especial comentó con preocupación que los presuntos ataques o 

recientemente confirmados a defensores de los derechos humanos incluyendo 

amenazas de muerte, actos de intimidación, violaciones de la integridad física y 

violaciones del derecho a la vida, han ido aumentando de forma constante. 

961. Los principales blancos de estos atentados son individuos y organizaciones 

que trabajan con víctimas del conflicto armado; individuos y organizaciones que 

intervienen en procesos judiciales por violaciones a derechos humanos, ocurridas 

durante el conflicto armado interno o en tiempos recientes (abogados, fiscales, 

forenses, personal de la Procuraduría y las víctimas mismas); organizaciones de


Page 187 

mujeres; organizaciones que trabajan en el ámbito de los derechos económicos, 

sociales y culturales, y especialmente, en relación a la denuncia de actividades de 

exploración y explotación de los recursos naturales. Uno de los factores que más ha 

llamado la atención entre las organizaciones de la sociedad civil, radica en que en este 

último período, los ataques y amenazas también han estado dirigidos en contra de 

organizaciones internacionales que financian proyectos ejecutados por las 

organizaciones nacionales. 

962. Asimismo, expresó profunda preocupación sobre las graves denuncias 

relativas a la presunta participación de la Policía Nacional Civil y los militares en 

ataques contra defensores de los derechos humanos. Según se informa, la falta de 

control de la inteligencia militar y la ausencia de un servicio nacional de inteligencia 

civil dificultan aún más la tarea de investigar la supuesta participación de agentes del 

Estado en los atentados contra defensores de los derechos humanos. 

963. En el periodo entre enero y junio de 2007, se han transmitido 11 

comunicaciones a su Gobierno expresando preocupación sobre las violaciones de 

derechos humanos contra los defensores de derechos humanos. Los siguientes casos 

han sido llevados a la atención de su Gobierno desde principios de 2007: 

• 25.01.2007- Asesinato del dirigente sindical, el Sr. Pedro Zamora Álvarez y 

temor por la seguridad del resto de los miembros del Sindicato de 

Trabajadores de la Empresa Portuaria Quetzal (STEPQ) 

• 31.01.2007 – amenazas en contra del activista ambientalista el Sr. Flaviano, 

Bianchini 

• 08.02.2007 – Allanamiento de las oficinas de la Asociación Comunicación 

para el Arte y la Paz (COMUNICARTE), Movimiento Nacional por los 

Derechos Humanos (MNDH), y la Unidad de Protección de Defensoras y 

Defensores de Derechos Humanos 

• 13.02.2007 – Amenazas y hostigamiento contra el Sr. Francisco Soto, la Sra. 

Angélica González, el Sr. Otto Navarro la Sra. Jennifer Echeverría, 

integrantes del Centro para la Acción Legal para los Derechos Humanos 

(CALDH) 

• 08.03.2007 – Hostigamiento del Sr. Leonardo, Ramírez y el Sr. Vicente 

Ramírez López, integrantes de la Asociación Nueva San José las Lagrimas 

• 22.03.2007 – Asesinato del Sr. Israel Carías Ortíz, miembro de la Comité de 

Unidad Campesina (CUC) 

• 13.04.2007 – Allanamiento de las oficinas de las ONGs internacionales: 

Trocaire, la Asociación para la Cooperación con el Sur (ACSUR las 

Segovias), el Colectivo Poder y Desarrollo Local (CPDL) y CARE 

International en la ciudad de Guatemala. 

• 07.05.2007 – Intimidación y hostigamiento de los Sres. David Dávila y 

Oswaldo Samayoa y la Sra. Paula Barrios - miembros del Instituto de 

Estudios Comparados en Ciencias de Guatemala (ICCPG) 

• 16.05.2007 – Ataque contra el Sr. Jorge Fernando Campo Morales, integrante 

de la Consejería en Proyectos (PCS) 

964. La Representante Especial tomó nota con aprecio de las diversas medidas 

positivas adoptadas por el Estado para mejorar la situación de los derechos humanos, 

incluyendo el establecimiento de instituciones y órganos para que se ocupen de las


Page 188 

violaciones de esos derechos. Sin embargo, la Representante Especial reiteró su 

preocupación por el deterioro de la situación de los derechos humanos en el país y los 

consiguientes efectos en la seguridad de los defensores de los derechos humanos. De 

este modo, instó al Gobierno de Guatemala a que adopte nuevas medidas para 

granjearse la confianza de la sociedad civil, en particular de los defensores de los 

derechos humanos tomando en cuenta los Artículos 12.2 y 12.3 de la Declaración 

sobre el derecho y el deber de los individuos, los grupos y las instituciones de 

promover y proteger los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales 

universalmente reconocidos. 


965. El 12 de Septiembre de 2007, la Representante Especial, señaló a la atención 

urgente del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con el Sr. José Emanuel 

(“Pepe”) Méndez. El Sr. Méndez es hijo del Sr. Amílcar Méndez Urízar, el Director 

de la organización no gubernamental Comunidades Etnicas Runujel Junam (CERJ) 

que se dedica a la protección de los derechos de las comunidades indígenas. 

966. Según la información recibida, el 17 de agosto de 2007 por la tarde, dos 

hombres armados habrían asesinado al Sr. José Emmanuel (“Pepe”) Méndez en la 

cuidad de Guatemala. Se alega que el Sr. Méndez habría trabajado con su padre en la 

protección de los derechos de las comunidades indígenas y durante el mes de julio de 

2007, los dos habrían recibido amenazas de muerte, las cuales denunciaron a la 

Fiscalía General de la Nación. Además, la Corte Inter-Americana de Derechos 

Humanos habría solicitado al gobierno que asegurara la protección del Sr. Méndez y 

de su padre. 

967. Se expresó temor que el asesinato del Sr. José Emmanuel (“Pepe”) Méndez 

podía estar relacionado con sus actividades en la defensa de los derechos humanos, en 

particular, de los derechos de las comunidades indígenas en Guatemala. Se expresó 

profunda preocupación por la integridad física y psicológica del Sr. Amílcar Méndez 

Urízar. 


968. Por carta con fecha de 14 de noviembre de 2007, el Gobierno informó sobre 

las medidas cautelares así como sobre las investigaciones realizadas sobre el caso. 

969. En relación con las medidas cautelares, el 11 de septiembre de 2007 la 

Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos instó al Estado de adoptar las 

medidas cautelares a favor del Sr. Amilcar Méndez Urizar y familia como 

consecuencia “del contexto de violencia por lo que atraviesa Guatemala desde agosto 

de 2007”. Asimismo la Comisión Interamericana establece que las medidas cautelares 

son motivadas como consecuencia de los hechos suscitados el día 17 de agosto de 

2007. La Comisión Interamericana decidió ampliar las medidas cautelares a fin de 

proteger las siguientes personas: Amilcar Méndez Urizar, María Dardón de 

Méndez (esposa), Ana María Méndez Dardón (hija), Miriam Rocío Méndez 

Dardón (hija), Gabriela Surgey Méndez Hernández (nuera), Andrea Surgey 

Méndez Hernándenz (nieta) y Amilcar José Méndez Hernández. El Sr. Amilcar 

Méndez Urizar es beneficiario de medidas cautelares brindadas por la Policía


Page 189 

Nacional Civil desde el año 2003. A partir del 23 de octubre de 2007, se amplió la 

seguridad de la familia del Sr. Amilcar Méndez Urízar asignándose un total de ocho 

elementos a disposición de la familia beneficiaria. 

970. Con relación a las investigaciones, el Gobierno informó que se ha logrado 

individualizar a un posible responsable del ataque en contra del Sr. Méndez Dardón y 

que la persona está aprehendida. El Gobierno informó que no tiene elementos para 

determinar el móvil del crimen ni de establecer su posible vinculación con la labor 

realizada en defensa de los derechos humanos. 

Observaciones 

971. La Representante Especial agradece al Gobierno su respuesta y nota con 

apreciación que el posible responsable del crimen ha sido aprehendido. También 

expresa su apreciación de las medidas cautelares adoptadas para proteger el Sr. 

Méndez Urizar y su familia. Espera más información sobre los resultados de las 

investigaciones y de los resultados del proceso para que estos delitos no queden 

impunes. 


972. El 30 de noviembre de 2007 la Representante Especial, señalo a la atención 

urgente del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con el Sr. Marco Tulio 

Ramírez Portela. El Sr. Marco Tulio Ramírez Portela era Secretario de Cultura y 

Deportes del Comité Ejecutivo del Sindicato de Trabajadores Bananeros de Izabal 

(SITRABI). 

973. Según la información recibida, el Sr. Marco Tulio Ramírez fue asesinado el 23 

de septiembre de 2007, aproximadamente a las 5:45am por varios hombres armados y 

enmascarados, mientras se desplazaba de su casa a su trabajo en la Finca Yuma. Se 

informa que hombres fuertemente armados habrían sido observados cerca de la Finca 

Yuma, supuestamente con la intención de intimidar a la familia del Sr. Marco Tulio 

Ramírez y a los otros miembros del SITRABI. 

974. En el mes de julio de 2007, miembros del ejército guatemalteco habrían 

entrado ilegalmente en la sede del SITRABI para interrogar a los presentes sobre la 

identidad de los directivos sindicales. 

975. Se teme que el asesinato del Sr. Marco Tulio Ramírez pueda estar relacionado 

con sus actividades en la defensa de los derechos humanos, en particular su trabajo en 

la defensa de los derechos de los trabajadores y trabajadoras en Guatemala. Se 

expresa preocupación por la integridad física y psicológica de los miembros de la 

familia del Sr. Marco Tulio Ramírez y por los otros miembros del SITRABI. 

Respuesta del Gobierno a una comunicación precedente 

976. Por cartas con fecha de 8 de marzo de 2007 y 4 de abril de 2007 el Gobierno 

contestó al llamamiento urgente del 24 de octubre de 2005 relativo al caso del Sr. 

Romeo Monterrosa Orellana y su familia.


Page 190 

977. El Gobierno informó que el caso se encuentra en fase de investigación por 

parte del Ministerio Publico para esclarecer los hechos denunciados. El 5 de febrero 

de 2007 el Ministerio Publico informó que se solicitó información a la empresa 

Comunicación de Celulares (COMCEL) relacionada a los mensajes se texto recibidos 

y COMCEL respondió que no era posible remitir la información ya que no cuenta con 

espacio suficiente para guardar los mensajes de texto. 

Observaciones 





979. Por cartas con fechas de 19 de julio de 2006 y 28 de julio de 2007, el 

Gobierno contestó al llamamiento urgente transmitido conjuntamente con la Relatora 

Especial sobre la violencia contra la mujer el 9 de junio de 2006 relativo a 

allanamientos ocurridos en las sedes de la Unión Nacional de Mujeres 

Guatemaltecas (UNAMG) y Organización Sector Mujeres. 

980. El Gobierno informó que el caso se encuentra en fase de investigación por 

parte del Ministerio Público. En relación con las medidas cautelares a favor de la 

organización, el Gobierno informó que el día 9 de junio del 2006 se inició con la 

prestación del servicio de protección con la modalidad de puesto fijo en la sede de la 

Organización Sector Mujeres a cargo de agentes del Núcleo Central de Reacción de la 

Policía Nacional Civil. 

Observaciones 

981. La Representante Especial desea excusarse por no haber incluído esta 

respuesta en el informe del año pasado (A/HRC/4/37) y rectifica su observación al 

párrafo 300. 


982. Por carta con fecha de 23 de abril de 2007 el Gobierno contestó a un 

llamamiento urgente enviado el 14 de junio de 2006, relacionado a los señores René 

Guzmán Quiñónez, Oscar Humberto Duarte Paiz, y David Alarcón 

983. Con fecha 14 de septiembre de 2006, el Ministerio Publico emitió un informe 

a la Comisión Presidencial de Derechos Humanos, con relación a las diligencias hasta 

ahora efectuadas por parte de la Agencia Fiscal numero cuatro, de la Unidad Contra 

Secuestros de la Fiscalía Contra Crimen Organizado, el cual establece que: 

(a) Se investiga el secuestro del Sr. Oscar Humberto Duarte Paiz, ocurrido el 24 

de mayo de 2006, en el municipio de San Juan Sacatepequez, por cuya liberación se 

exige la cantidad de veinticinco mil quetzales.


Page 191 

(b) La fiscalía a cargo del caso ha practicado diversas diligencias de 

investigación que incluyen declaraciones, solicitudes a empresas de telefonía, trabajo 

de campo, análisis de informes, etc. 

(c) Entre las instituciones a cargo de la investigación se encuentran 

investigadores de la Dirección de Investigaciones Criminalísticas del Ministerio 

Publico, investigadores de la Policía Nacional Civil, oficina de enlace División de 

Investigación Criminologiílla (DINC-MP) entre otras. 

(d) Hasta la fecha, el caso se encuentra en etapa de investigación y la agencia 

fiscal a cargo del mismo trabaja en la individualización de los responsables del hecho, 

axial como para dar con el paradero de la victima. 

984. El Gobierno informó que la Policía Nacional Civil se encuentra brindando 

protección perimetral en las colonias aledañas de Ciudad Quetzal, con la finalidad de 

proteger a los miembros de la Junta Directiva de ASIDEQ y que se está 

implementando la protección de puesto fijo en la residencia de la esposa del Sr. 

Oscar Humberto Duarte Paiz. 

985. Asimismo el Gobierno informó que el Estado de Guatemala se encuentra en la 

dase de aprobación a través del Congreso de la República del Acuerdo para la 

creación de una Comisión Internacional Contra la Impunidad en Guatemala (CICIG), 

cuyo fin es el de apoyar al Estado de Guatemala para determinar la existencia de 

cuerpos ilegales de seguridad y los aparatos clandestinos de seguridad. 

Observaciones 



queden impunes. Toma nota con interés de la creación de la CICIG y espera más 

información sobre este tema y los resultados de la lucha a la impunidad. 

Observaciones de carácter general 

987. La Representante Especial agradece al Gobierno sus respuestas y solicita 

información sobre las comunicaciones que se quedan sin respuestas. En relación con 

la situación de los defensores y defensoras de los derechos humanos, la Representante 

Especial reitera las consideraciones hechas en su carta del 5 de julio de 2007. 

Greece 

Follow-up to previously transmitted communications 

988. On 29 August 2007, the Government of Greece replied to the allegation letter 

sent on 2 June 2006 by the Special Represenatative, together with the Special 


contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia related intolerance, 

concerning the case of Mr. Theo Alexandridis, legal counsel with the Greek Helsinki 

Monitor (GHM), and other staff members of the GHM. The GHM is an organization 

that monitors and reports on human rights violations in Greece, including violations 

against the Roma community (see A/HRC/4/19/Add.1, par. 74-77).


Page 192 

989. In its reply, the Government indicated his sensitiveness on human rights issues 

and in particular regarding the Roma people. It stressed that Roma living in Greece 

are an integral part of the Greek population, they are Greek citizens and they are 

protected against all forms of discrimination by the Greek laws and the Constitution. 

It was further noted that they enjoy the same civic and political rights, they participate 

in the Greek society, they organize themselves in associations, political parties etc. 

990. The Government noted that, due to their community particular lifestyle and 

needs, Roma are recognized as a socially vulnerable group of the Greek population 

and special measures and policies have been adopted to facilitate their integration in 

the modem Greek society. 

991. Regarding the detention of Mr. Alexandridis, the Government indicated that at 

the beginning of the 2005 school year among the 360 Greek children attending the 

10`h and 11th primary Schools of Aspropyrgos, there were 24 Roma children. A large 

number of parents had objected to the attendance of the Roma Children. 

992. On October 13 2005 about 60 persons assembled to prevent the entry of 8 

Roma pupils in the school, who were accompanied by the representative of the Greek 

Helsinki Monitor Mr. Theodoros Alexandridis. Half an hour later, following 

consultations between those assembled and the school Direction and the intervention 

of Greek police, the Roma pupils entered the schools and attended classes. 

993. Later that day, Mr. Alexandridis went to the Police station of Aspropyrgos and 

filed charges against the President of the Parents and Guardians Association of the 

aforementioned Primary Schools, Mrs. Eleni Panda, who was consequently arrested. 

Charges were also filed against unnamed men, for violation of articles 330, 361 and 

33 of the Greek Penal Code. Three persons were also arrested for violation of article 

330 of the Penal Code (illegal violence), because along with others, they tried to 

prevent the access of pupils in the school. 

994. At the Police Station of Aspropyrgos, Mrs. Eleni Panda filed charges, as well, 

against Mr. Theodoros Alexandridis, for insult and false complaints and, as a result of 

that action, Mr. Alexandridis was also arrested. Later that day, the Public Prosecutor 

of Criminal Proceedings was informed by phone and ordered the Police not to initiate 

the "flagrante delicto" procedure. Therefore, the arrested persons were released after 

registering their pleas. The brief was submitted to the Public Prosecutor of the 

Magistrate Court of Athens for follow up action. 

995. The Government stressed that following that incident, the Officers of 

Aspropyrgos Police Station, whenever so requested by representatives of the Greek 

Helsinki Monitor, have always provided assistance so that registered Roma pupils 

could enter their schools and attend classes, despite reactions of some parents. 

Moreover, police officers have been at the school on a daily basis and took 

appropriate measures to protect Roma pupils when they enter and leave the schools. 

996. Regarding the statement made by the Public Prosecutor at the Patras Court of 

Appeals (16/09/2004-4/09/2006), the Government’s reply indicated that Mr. 

Anastassios Kanellopoulos received numerous complaints and communications by 

inhabitants of the city of Patras and particularly those living in the areas of


Page 193 

«Makrygianni» and «Rodopoulou» describing in details the "deplorable" living 

conditions they encountered due to the arbitrary settlement of the Roma population. 

997. The Government noted that the Roma settled in those areas had been 

constructing shanty houses on the left bank of Glafkos River near the suburbs of the 

Municipality of Patras without fulfilling the appropriate and necessary sanitary 

conditions. As a result, the whole area has been transformed to a permanent infectious 

site with an elevated degree of pollution. Moreover, it was underlined that the 

inhabitants of Patras had also denounced the persistent climate of fear and insecurity, 

prevailing in their neighborhood as a result of unlawful acts allegedly committed by 

Roma. Specifically, it was noted that it was impossible for the children to play around 

as well as for the rest of the people to circulate at night. It was also indicated that the 

local Authorities of Patras have been blamed of being unacceptably tolerant to the 

constant infringements of law committed by the Roma. Moreover, the Patras Public 

Prosecutor Office had also been receiving numerous complaints on the same matter, 

both orally and in writing, filed by the inhabitants of the abovementioned areas. 

998. The Government also noted that in April 2006, 637 inhabitants living in the 

areas of Makrygianni and Rodopoulou filed a complaint and consequently the Patras 

Public Prosecutor's Office initiated criminal proceedings for nine misdemeanors, the 

majority of which was related to violation of sanitary provisions. At the same time, 

the Public Prosecutor ordered the initiation of preliminary investigation. According to 

the complaints, members of the Greek Helsinki Monitor had been inducing the Roma 

to commit punishable acts. Mr. Kanellopoulos as the Head of Patras Public 

Prosecutor's Office ought to examine those allegations, by ordering preliminary 

investigation. 

999. Furthermore, the Government underlined that Mr. Anastassios Kanellopoulos 

denied that he ever stated that «all Roma are criminals» and considers those 

allegations groundless and unsubstantiated. Regarding the alleged involvement of the 

Greek Helsinki Monitor to the commitment of punishable acts, it was indicated that 

Mr. Kanellopoulos stated that nobody is above the law and since there was a 

complaint by 637 Greek citizens it was absolutely reasonable to initiate an 

investigation which should also include alleged activities of members of the Greek 

Helsinki Monitor. 

1000. The Government finally noted that it believed that the above mentioned facts 

clearly show that in the first case the Greek authorities did their utmost to facilitate the 

inclusion of Roma children in the Greek society and to protect them from any 

discrimination, whereas in the second case the Public Prosecutor's Office acted 

according to the Greek laws in order to investigate allegations made by other Greek 

citizens. A 2007 updated report on the Integrated Action Plan for the social inclusion 

of Greek Roma was attached to the reply. 

Observations 

1001. The Special Representative thanks the Government of Greece for its response 

to the communication sent on 2 June 2006. 

Haiti


Page 194 


1002. Le 7 février 2007, la Représentante spéciale a envoyé une lettre d’allégations 

sur le meurtre de M. Jean-Rémy Badio, défenseur des droits de l'homme, 

photographe freelance et membre de SOS Journalistes, une organisation qui œuvre 

pour la promotion de la liberté de la presse et pour la protection des journalistes en 

Haïti. Selon les informations reçues : 

1003. Dans l'après-midi du 19 janvier 2007, M. Badio aurait été abattu chez lui, dans 

le district de Martissant, dans le sud de Port-au-Prince. Les meurtriers seraient des 

membres d'un gang armé local que M. Badio aurait photographié quelques jours plus 

tôt. M. Badio aurait reçu des menaces de mort de la part de gangs armés par le passé. 

1004. De vives préoccupations ont été exprimées que le meurtre de M. Badio serait 

en représailles à ses activités légitimes de défense des droits de l’homme, en 

l’occurrence son travail de promotion et protection de la liberté d’opinion et 

d’expression en Haïti. 


1005. Le 9 février 2007, le Gouvernement a répondu à la lettre d’allégation du 7 

février 2007. Le Gouvernement informe que la lettre de la Représentante spéciale a 

été acheminée au Ministère des Affaires Etrangères pour les suites nécessaires. 

Observations 

1006. La Représentante spéciale remercie le Gouvernement de sa réponse mais 

regrette qu’au moment de la finalisation du présent rapport des clarifications n’aient 

toujours pas été reçues. Il en va de même de l’appel urgent envoyé le 23 octobre 2006 

par la Représentante spéciale concernant le meurtre de M. Bruner Esterne et des actes 

d’intimidation contre M. Evel Fanfan et sa famille, M. Colin Reginal et M. Montes 

Plaisimé. La Représentante spéciale presse le Gouvernement de répondre aux craintes 

exprimées dans les communications susmentionnées. 


Honduras 

1007. El 5 de diciembre de 2006 la Representante Especial, junto con el Presidente 

del Grupo de Trabajo sobre la utilización de mercenarios como medio de violar los 


determinación, se refrieron a una comunicación conjunta de la Representante Especial 

y el Relator Especial sobre la independencia de magistrados y abogados, dirigida al 

Gobierno de su Excelencia en torno al caso descrito abajo, con fecha de 13 de octubre 

de 2006. 

1008. El Grupo de Trabajo tuvo información adicional en relación con las amenazas 

recibidas por vía telefónica y por mensajes textuales, en contra de los empleados de la 

“Asociación para una Sociedad más Justa” (ASJ), entre ellos la Señora Dina


Page 195 

Meetabel Meza Elvir y el Señor Dionisio Díaz García Según los informes, las 

amenazas fueron hechas por los individuos de la empresa de seguridad privada 

“Seguridad Técnica de Honduras” (SETECH), empresa filial de la empresa de 

seguridad privada “Delta Security”. Mientras se preparaba esta comunicación se tuvo 

conocimiento que el Señor Dionisio Díaz García, un abogado con la ASJ, fue 

asesinado por dos hombres que circulaban en motocicleta, cuando se dirigía a la Corte 

Suprema de Justicia el día 4 de diciembre de 2006. 

1009. Por otra parte, algunos ex empleados de la SETECH y sus parientes, habrían 

recibido amenazas después de iniciar querellas en contra de la SETECH en relación 

con conflictos laborales, incluyendo el no cumplimiento de los contratos sin 

compensación. Presuntamente, al menos un individuo tuvo que salir de Honduras 

debido a las amenazas recibidas, y otros habrían sido intimidados para que no 

continuaran haciendo denuncias con relación a esta situación. 

1010. Reiteraron su profunda preocupación ya que el personal de la ASJ sigue 

recibiendo amenazas directas o disfrazadas de estas empresas de seguridad privadas, 

que supuestamente han presionado a los empleados de la ASJ para que interrumpan el 

consejo legal y apoyo a los doce empleados despedidos de la SETECH que 

representan. Se teme que estos incidentes pueden estar relacionados con sus 

actividades en defensa de los derechos humanos, y en particular su trabajo en la 

defensa de los derechos económicos y sociales. Además se expresa un urgente 

llamado por la necesidad de llevar a cabo una investigación rápida y detallada en 

relación con el asesinato reciente del Sr. Dionisio Díaz García. 

Respuesta del gobierno 

1011. Mediante carta con fecha de 6 de febrero de 2007, el gobierno hondureño 

respondió a la comunicación más arriba. El gobierno afirmó que se habían inciado 

investigaciones del caso a través de la Fiscal de la Dirección Generalde la República 

para asegurar un proceso penal y que hasta la fecha no disponía de información sobre 

dicha situación. La empresa de seguridad privada, Delta Security está legalmente 

registrada en Honduras a través de su empresa matriz, Seguridad Técnica de Honduras 

SETECH, ambas entidades que teniendo actualizadas sus respectivas licencias. 

1012. El gobierno informó que las investigaciones acercas de las empresas de 

seguridad privada se encontraban en proceso de realización, y que por lo tanto, no se 

podía brindar un informe detallado de la mismas, mas se proporcionaría un informe en 

forma generaliza una vez que concluyan las mismas y se instruyan los procesos 

penales correspondientes. 

1013. Se habían intensificado las diligencias investigativas dirigidas a determinar los 

hechos denunciados por miembros de la Asociación para una Sociedad Más Justa, 

previo a incoar las accioned penales que correspondieran en este caso. Asimismo se 

habían implementado las medidas de protección para asegurar la integrudad personal 

y la vida de los miembros de dicha organización, decretadas el 20 de diciembre de 

2006 por la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos 

Llamamiento urgente


Page 196 

1014. El 12 de diciembre de 2006, la Representante Especial, junto con el 

Presidente del Grupo de Trabajo sobre la utilización de mercenarios como medio de 

violar los derechos humanos y obstaculizar el ejercicio del derecho de los pueblos a la 

libre determinación señalaron a la atención urgente del Gobierno la información 

recibida en relación con las nuevas amenazas en contra de los miembros de la 

asociación para una Sociedad mas Justa (ASJ) entre ellos el Señor Carlos Hernández, 

Presidente de dicha organización, la Señora Dina Meetabel Meza Elvir, directora de 

proyecto de la ASJ y el Señor Robert Marín García, la Señora Claudia Mendoza, y la 

Señora Rosa Morazán, periodistas de investigación de la ASJ. Como es del 

conocimiento de Su Excelencia, el caso de la ASJ ha despertado nuestra preocupación 

en dos ocasiones anteriores y en este sentido, nos permitimos referirnos a los 

llamamientos urgentes conjuntos dirigido a Su Gobierno, el primero del Relator 

Especial sobre la independencia de magistrados y abogados y de la Representante 

Especial del Secretario-General para los defensores de los derechos humanos, con 

fecha de 13 de octubre de 2006 y el otro de la Presidenta del Grupo de Trabajo sobre 

la utilización de mercenarios como medio de violar los derechos humanos y 

obstaculizar el ejercicio del derecho de los pueblos a la libre determinación y de la 


humanos, con fecha de 5 de diciembre de 2006. 

1015. De acuerdo con la información adicional recibida, el 6 de diciembre de 2006, 

dos hombres permanecieron vigilando a la residencia del Sr. Carlos Hernández. 

Supuestamente el 7 de diciembre, un hombre en motocicleta le dio seguimiento y el 

mismo día por la mañana, recibió un mensaje textual en inglés que dijo, “You are the 

next because you are the heat (sic. Head)”. Anteriormente, el 4 de diciembre de 2006 

el Sr. Dionisio Díaz García., abogado con la ASJ, habría sido asesinato después de 

que un colega habría recibido un mensaje de texto que dijo en inglés, “The life of 

Dionisio Garcia could be in danger!!! Take care, look for someone closer to your 

enemies!!!” 

1016. Según los informes, el 31 de octubre de 2006, la ASJ recibió una respuesta 

amenazante después de haber publicado un informe de investigación en un boletín 

electrónico sobre las empresas de seguridad privadas, en particular las empresas 

“Delta Security” y “SETECH”. El mensaje amenazante supuestamente dijo, “(…) al 

final de cuentas la justicia ha tomado su propio sendero en el cual se han cruzado los 

de ASJ, a sabiendas de que serán ajusticiados por las malas acciones que llevan sobre 

sus hombros”. 

1017. Por otra parte, el Sr. Robert Marín García habría recibido un aviso en el que le 

dijo, “Te tenemos bien vigilado” y que se conocían el lugar de su vivienda familiar y 

los movimientos de su familia. 

1018. La Representante Especial, junto con el Presidente del Grupo de Trabajo 

sobre la utilización de mercenarios como medio de violar los derechos humanos y 

obstaculizar el ejercicio del derecho de los pueblos a la libre determinación reiteraron 

su profunda preocupación por la seguridad del personal de la ASJ porque se teme que 

las amenazas directas o disfrazadas de las empresas de seguridad privadas pueden 

estar relacionadas con su trabajo en defensa de los derechos humanos, en particular su 

consejo legal y apoyo a los doce empleados despedidos de la empresa de seguridad 

privada SETECH que representan.


Page 197 


1019. El 11 de enero de 2007 la Representante Especial, junto con el Presidente del 

Grupo de Trabajo sobre la utilización de mercenarios como medio de violar los 


determinación, señalaron a la atención urgente del Gobierno la información recibida 

en relación con las nuevas amenazas en contra del Señor Carlos Hernández, 

Presidente de la Asociación para una Sociedad más Justa (ASJ). Otros miembros de 

la ASJ, e incluso, la Señora Dina Meetabel Meza Elvir, directora de proyectos de la 

ASJ y el Señor Robert Marín García, la Señora Claudia Mendoza, y la Señora 

Rosa Morazán, periodistas de investigación de la ASJ han sido victimas de 

amenazas. 

1020. El caso de la ASJ había despertado la preocupación de los titulares de mandato 

en tres ocasiones anteriores y en este contexto, se permtitieron referirse a los 




fecha de 13 de octubre de 2006, otro de la Presidenta del Grupo de Trabajo sobre la 

utilización de mercenarios como medio de violar los derechos humanos y obstaculizar 

el ejercicio del derecho de los pueblos a la libre determinación y de la Representante 


fecha de 5 de diciembre de 2006, y el mas reciente, también de la Presidenta del 



determinación y de la Representante Especial del Secretario-General para los 

defensores de los derechos humanos, con fecha de 13 de diciembre de 2006. 

1021. De acuerdo con la información adicional recibida, el 18 de diciembre de 2006 

un hombre en motocicleta se aparcó por detrás de la casa del Sr. Carlos Hernández, 

donde se permaneció durante un tiempo antes de irse. Se alega que cinco días antes, se 

vio por el barrio a dos hombres en motocicleta que preguntaron por Sr. Carlos 

Hernández. 

1022. Además, el 15 de diciembre de 2006 fuentes vinculados con la inteligencia 

militar revelaron, al Sr. Roberto Marín, un supuesto plan, organizado por empresas de 

seguridad privadas, para matar a los miembros de la ASJ. También se alega que a los 

periodistas de la ASJ recibieron amenazas. 

1023. Reiteraron una vez más su profunda preocupación por la seguridad del 

personal de la ASJ, sobre todo la del Sr. Carlos Hernández, porque se teme que las 

amenazas directas o disfrazadas de las empresas de seguridad privadas pueden estar 

relacionadas con su trabajo en defensa de los derechos humanos, en particular su 


privada SETECH que representan. 

Llamamiento urgente


Page 198 

1024. El 20 de febrero de 2007 la Representante Especial, junto con el Relator 

Especial sobre las ejecuciones extrajudiciales, sumarias o arbitrarias señalaron a la 

atención urgente del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con los asesinatos 

del Sr. Heraldo Zuñiga y Sr. Roger Ivan Cartagena, miembros del movimiento 

ambientalista de Olancho que tuvieron lugar el 20 de diciembre de 2006 en el 

departamento de Olancho. Se teme que estos asesinatos estén relacionados con sus 


1025. De acuerdo con la información recibida, el 20 de diciembre, el Sr. Heraldo 

Zuñiga y el Sr. Roger Ivan Cartagena fueron asesinatos por agentes de la policía 

nacional afuera de la oficina del Mayor de Guarizama, delante de varios residentes del 

barrio. Según los informe, días ante de su muerte, el Sr. Heraldo Zúñiga había 

expresado preocupación por las amenazas de los madereros que explotan el bosque en 

el sector de Salamá. Se teme que la policía pueda estar involucrada con las compañías 

de maderero y que esté implementando una campaña de hostigamiento en contra de 

los ambientalistas en la región. 

1026. Se expresó temores de que los asesinatos del Sr. Heraldo Zuñiga y Sr. Roger 

Ivan Cartagen pudieran estar relacionados con sus actividades en defensa de los 

derechos humanos, en particular su trabajo con el movimiento ambientalista de 

Olancho. 


1027. El 5 de abril de 2007 la Representante Especial, junto con el Relator Especial 

sobre la tortura señalaron a la atención urgente del Gobierno la información recibida 

con respecto a la Sr. Donny Reyes, miembro de la asociación Arcoiris, asociación que 

trabaja por la defensa de los derechos de lesbianas, gays, bisexuales y personas 

transgénero (LGBT). De acuerdo con las informaciones recibidas, el 18 de marzo, 

hacia las tres de la madrugada, el Sr. Donny Reyes salió de las oficinas de la 

asociación Arcoiris y mientras esperaba un taxi, seis agentes de policía en dos autos 

de patrulla se detuvieron junto a él y le pidieron que subiera a uno de los autos. 

Cuando Donny Reyes se negó los agentes empezaron a golpearle y le insultaron 

diciendo “a estos maricones hay que desaparecerlos de aquí”. El Sr. Donny Reyes fue 

trasladado a la comisaría de Comayagüela, donde lo encerraron en una celda con otros 

57 hombres. Donny Reyes fue golpeado, desnudado y violado por cuatro detenidos, 

después de que un agente de policía gritara “miren, aquí les traigo a una princesita, ya 

saben lo que tienen que hacer”. El Sr. Reyes fue dejado en libertad al día siguiente 

después de pagar un soborno de 200 lempiras. 

1028. Tres días después el Sr. Donny Reyes denunció lo sucedido ante la fiscalía y 

desde entonces viene siendo objeto de intimidaciones por parte de la policía. Desde el 

27 de marzo autos de patrulla se estacionan varias veces al día durante periodos de 

cinco minutos frente a las oficinas de la asociación Arcoiris, en un aparente intento 

por presionar al Sr. Donny Reyes para que abandone sus denuncias. Igualmente, se 

expresó temor de que estos eventos puedan estar relacionados con la actividad en 

defensa de los derechos humanos del Sr. Reyes, en particular su trabajo por la defensa 

de los derechos de lesbianas, gays, bisexuales y personas transgénero (LGBT). 



Page 199 

1029. Mediante carta con fecha de 13 de Junio de 2007, el Gobierno informó que la 

Fiscalía General de la República sigue realizando investigaciones con relación al caso 

del Sr. Donny Reyes. Con el fin de esclarecer los hechos la Secretaría de Seguridad 

procedió a la conformación de una Comisión Especial, creada mediante acuerdo 

ministerial N° 0525-07 de fecha 16 de abril de 2007. La Secretaría de Seguridad ha 

suspendido temporalmente a 10 oficiales de la Escala Básica de la Cuarta Estación 

Policial de la Jefatura Metropolitana N° 3, involucrados en el incidente con el Sr. 

Donny Reyes. Los 10 oficiales se encuentran concentrados temporalmente en el 

Comando de Operaciones Cobras para evitar que interfieran en las acciones de 

investigación. El Gobierno informa que el Sr. Reyes no es beneficiario de medidas 

cautelares y que no ha recibido ningún tipo de compensación a modo de 

indemnización, en vista de que para tal fin debe acudir a las instancias jurisdiccionales 

correspondientes. Se menciona que el Gobierno enviará un segundo informe que 

refleje el resultado de las investigaciones en relación al caso del Sr. Donny Reyes. 


1030. El 1 de Mayo de 2007 la Representante Especial señalaó a la atención urgente 

del Gobierno la información recibida en relación con Keydi Jorleny Marín, Yerli 

Isolina Ellis, Yanaira Briyed Lambert, Eusebia Guillén y Joselyn Lizet Rivas, 

todas entre 15 y 20 años de edad y miembros de la Comunidad garífuna de San Juan 

Tela en el departamento de Atlántida. La Comunidad lleva años involucrada en la 

defensa de sus tierras ancestrales en contra de diversos proyectos de desarrollo. El 17 

de agosto de 2006 la Representante Especial del Secretario-General para los 

defensores de los derechos humanos junto con el Relator Especial sobre la situación 

de los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales de los indígenas había 

enviado un llamamiento urgente al Gobierno señalando informaciones recibidas en 

relación con amenazas dirigidas a varios miembros de la Comunidad. 

1031. De acuerdo con las informaciones recibidas, el 14 de abril de 2007, Marín, 

Ellis, Lambert, Guillén y Rivas, habrían sido objeto de una emboscada en la entrada 

de la Comunidad de San Juan Tela, donde dos individuos no identificados habrían 

disparado al taxi en el cual se dirigían las cinco jóvenes. Ninguna persona habría 

resultado herida a causa del ataque. Según se informa, aunque los miembros de la 

Comunidad habrían denunciado oficialmente el ataque ante la Dirección General de 

Investigación Criminal de Atlántida, la policía no habría tomado hasta la fecha 

ninguna medida para investigar el incidente. 

1032. Se informa asimismo que el Gobierno hondureño no ha tomado acciones 

suficientes para implementar las medidas cautelares otorgadas por la Comisión 

Interamericana de Derechos Humanos a favor de la Comunidad de San Juan Tela el 7 

de julio de 2006. 

1033. Se expresó preocupación por la seguridad e integridad física de los miembros 

de la Comunidad, y se teme que el ataque del pasado 14 de abril de 2007 pueda estar 

relacionado con las actividades de los líderes de dicha Comunidad en defensa de su 

derecho a la tierra. 

Respuesta del gobierno


Page 200 

1034. Mediante carta con fecha de 18 de junio de 2007, el gobierno hondureño 

respondió a la comunicación más arriba. El gobierno informó que las investigaciones 

de la Fiscalía General de la República no habían concluído y que no era posible 

confirmar los hechos mencionados. 

1035. La denuncia había sido presentada por medio de correo eléctronico ante la 

Fiscalía Especial de Etnias y Patrimonio Cultural el 16 de abril de 2007, del mismo 

modo fue remitida el 17 de abril mediante Oficio a la Coordinadora de la Fiscalía de 

Tela, solicitando intruir las diligencias de investigaciones correspondientes y 

solicitándole remitir la información que se obtenga sobre este case. Acerca de la 

indentidad de los responsables del asalto no había sido posible la detención de 

sospechoso alguno pero la investigación seguía por Daños y Tentativa de Homicidio, 

ya que la denuncia fue presentada por el chófer del tazi, el Sr Cacho, y que las demás 

personas mencionadas sólo colaboraron con la policía en su calidad de testigos. 

1036. El gobierno había solicitado al Jefe de la Policía de Tela, un informe del 

cumplimiento de las medidas de protección proporcionadas, el que a la fecha no había 

sido enviado. 


1037. El 22 de Mayo de 2007 la Representante Especial, junto con el Presidente- 

Relatora del Grupo de Trabajo sobre la Detención Arbitraria y la Relatora Especial 

sobre la violencia contra la mujer señalaron a la atención urgente del Gobierno la 

información recibido en relación con en relación con Josef Fabio Estrada (también 

conocido como Débora), coordinador del grupo de travestís Arcoiris, asociación que 

trabaja por la defensa de los derechos de lesbianas, gays, bisexuales y personas 

transgénero (LGBT) y profesional del sexo en Tegucigalpa. El 5 de abril de 2007, la 

Representante Especial sobre los defensores de derechos humanos y el Relator 

Especial sobre la cuestión de la tortura enviaron un llamamiento urgente al Gobierno 

de su Excelencia respecto a Donny Reyes, tesorero de la Asociación antes 

mencionada. 

1038. De acuerdo con la información recibida, el 20 de abril de 2007, hacia las 22:00 

horas, Josef Fabio Estrada fue agredido por cinco desconocidos mientras trabajaba en 

el barrio rojo habitado por gays y travestís en Comayagüela, Tegucigalpa. Según 

informes, uno de los individuos habría intentado quitarle la peluca antes de arrojarle al 

suelo y golpearle. Según se informa, un auto patrulla de la policía se habría 

estacionado al lado del lugar donde se ubicaban los profesionales del sexo minutos 

antes de las 22:00 horas. Los agentes policiales no solamente habrían sido testigos de 

la golpiza propinada al Sr. Estrada, sino que habrían alentado a los agresores gritando 

"¡Maten a este maricón, golpéenlo!". El Sr. Estrada utilizó un objeto afilado, 

posiblemente una botella rota, que habría encontrado en el suelo, para defenderse, 

hiriendo a uno de sus agresores y recién en ese momento los agentes policiales 

intervinieron. 

1039. El Sr. Estrada fue arrestado y acusado de intento de homicidio en segundo 

grado y de robo. Sus agresores quedaron en libertad. El 27 de abril de 2007 se 

celebró la vista preliminar y los cargos fueron elevados a intento de homicidio en


Page 201 

primer grado. Actualmente se encuentra encarcelado en una celda de la Penitenciaría 

estatal, normalmente reservada a convictos, denominada “celda de la muerte’en la que 

suelen ubicarse a presos que sufren tuberculosis, VIH/Sida y enfermedades mentales. 

No se le habría brindado atención médica. 

1040. Se expresó temor de que estos hechos estén relacionados con la actividad en 

defensa de los derechos humanos, particularmente de los derechos de lesbianas, gays, 

bisexuales y personas transgénero (LGBT), realizada por el Sr. Estrada. Se recuerda 

que otro miembro de la Asociación Arcoiris, el Sr. Donny Reyes, fue arrestado el 18 

de marzo de 2007 durante 24 horas en la estación de policía de Comayagüela. Según 

la información recibida, los agentes le golpearon y luego le llevaron a otra estación 

donde le dejaron durante más de seis horas en una celda con otros detenidos. Donny 

Reyes fue golpeado y violado repetidamente por otros detenidos, instigados, según se 

afirma, por un agente policial. Se afirma también que miembros de la policía vienen 

intimidando y hostilizando al Sr. Reyes por haber denunciado los hechos ante la 

Fiscalía. 


1041. Mediante comunicación de 29 de octubre de 2007, el Gobierno de Honduras 

proporcionó información con respecto al llamamiento enviado. El Gobierno informó 

de que La Dirección General de Servicios Especiales Preventivos dependiente de la 

Secretaria de Seguridad informa que no son ciertos los hechos alegados por el Sr. José 

Fabio Estrada. Mediante el Informe Medico practicado por la Dirección General de 

Servicios Especiales Preventivos, prescribe que el Sr. José Fabio Estrada Varela de 26 

años de edad, ingreso a la Penitenciaria Nacional “Marco Aurelio Soto” el día 27 de 

abril de 2007, por el supuesto delito de Homicidio en el grado de Ejecución de 

Tentativa. En su declaración refiere que el día 21 de abril de 2007, fue agredido en 

horas de la noche por cuatro personas que ingerían bebidas alcohólicas en un bar en la 

Ciudad de Comayaguela; agregando, que en el lugar donde lo agredieron se 

encontraba estacionada un patrulla con varios agentes policiales y en vez de 

protegerlo, los policías alentaban a estas personas para que continuaran golpeándolo, 

uno de los agresores le dio un golpe en la frente (región frontal derecha) 

produciéndole una herida y el en su defensa rápidamente saco un cuchillo e hirió a su 

atacante. En ese momento sí actuó la policía, capturando y llevando al Sr. Estrada a 

una Estación de Policía (CORE 7). Se le practico al Sr. Estrada el examen físico 

respectivo, presentando buen estado de Salud. Por cuatro meses no solicito atención 

médica, pero a partir del 12 de julio de 2007 solicito y continúa recibiendo asistencia 

médica. 

1042. Al llegar a la Penitenciaria Central fue trasladado al modulo de diagnostico, 

durante tres días reubicándolo el 30 de abril fue ubicado en el modulo de procesados 

1, hogar 17; lugar donde se encuentran los grupos vulnerables. En un principio vivió 

en compañía de otro homosexual, posteriormente le fue asignado una celda en la que 

vive hasta la fecha. Admitió que sí recibió malos tratos físicos y psíquicos por parte 

de personas cuyo nombre se reserva por temor a represalias, pero dejo entrever que se 

trata de personas que se encuentran internas en la Penitenciaria Nacional. No se 

recibió información sobre Medidas Cautelares. 

Llamamiento urgente


Page 202 

1043. El 31 de Mayo de 2007 la Representante Especial, junto con el Relator 

Especial sobre la independencia de magistrados y abogados y el Presidente del Grupo 

de Trabajo sobre la utilización de mercenarios como medio de violar los derechos 

humanos y obstaculizar el ejercicio del derecho de los pueblos a la libre 

determinación, señalaron a la atención urgente del Gobierno la información recibida 

en relación con las nuevas amenazas en contra del Sr. Felix Antonio Cáceres 

Alveranga, abogado que trabaja para la organización de derechos humanos 

Asociación para una Sociedad más Justa (ASJ). El Sr. Cáceres Alveranga ha estado 

trabajando en casos de conflictos laborales en empresas de seguridad privadas. Desde 

diciembre de 2006 otros miembros de la ASJ habrían sido víctimas de amenazas, 

incluyendo et Sr. Carlos Hernández, Presidente de la ASJ, la Sra. Dina Meetabel 

Meza Elvir, directora de proyectos y et Sr. Robert Marín García, la Sra. Claudia 

Mendoza, y la Sra. Rosa Morazán, periodistas de investigación. Como es del 

conocimiento de su Excelencia, el caso de la ASJ ha despertado nuestra preocupación 

en cuatro ocasiones anteriores y en este sentido, nos permitimos referirnos a los 




fecha de 13 de octubre de 2006, otro del Presidente del Grupo de Trabajo sobre la 




fecha de 5 de diciembre de 2006, otro del Presidente del Grupo de Trabajo sobre la 




fecha de 13 de diciembre de 2006 y el más reciente también del Presidente del Grupo 

de Trabajo sobre la utilización de mercenarios como medio de violar los derechos 

humanos y obstaculizar el ejercicio del derecho de los pueblos a la libre 

determinación y de la Representante Especial del Secretario-General para los 

defensores de los derechos humanos, con fecha de 11 de enero de 2007. 

1044. De acuerdo con la información adicional recibida, el 17 de mayo de 2007, 

hacia las 15:00, et Sr. Cáceres Alvarenga habría recibido un mensaje de texto 

amenazante en su teléfono móvil, lo cual decía `Será mejor que se retire de (nombre 

de una empresa de seguridad privada) o lo dejamos como a Dionisio'. El Sr. Dionisio 

Díaz García, también abogado de la ASJ, fue asesinado el 4 de diciembre de 2006. 

1045. Según se informa, desde el asesinato del Sr. Díaz García, otros miembros de la 

ASJ, incluyendo los arriba mencionados, habrían recibido amenazas mediante 

mensajes de texto y habrían sido seguidos y vigilados por desconocidos. Además, se 

ha denunciado la presencia de individuos en vehículos aparcados delante de sus casas. 

El 15 de diciembre de 2006, fuentes vinculadas a la inteligencia militar, revelaron al 

Sr. Roberto Marín un supuesto plan organizado por empresas de seguridad privadas 

para matar a los miembros de la ASJ. 

1046. Reiteraron una vez más su profunda preocupación por la seguridad del 

personal de la ASJ, sobre todo la del Sr. Cáceres Alvarenga, porque se teme que las 

amenazas directas o disfrazadas de las empresas de seguridad privadas pueden estar


Page 203 

relacionadas con su trabajo en defensa de los derechos humanos, en particular su 


privada SETECH. 

Observaciones 

1047. La Representante Especial agradece al Gobierno las respuestas proporcionadas 

en relación con los llamamientos enviados el 5 de diciembre de 2006, el 5 de abril de 

2007, el 1 de mayo de 2007 y el 22 de Mayo de 2007. Sin embargo, la Representante 

Especial sigue preocupada por la seguridad y la integridad física y psicológica de los 

defensores de los derechos humanos en Honduras y está especialmente preocupada 

por las alegaciones de que agentes policiales hayan estado directa o indirectamente 

implicados en atentados contra los derechos de activistas de los derechos humanos. 

1048. La Representante Especial urge al Gobierno que transmita repuestas a los 

demás casos con informaciones respecto al resultado de las investigaciones llevadas a 

cabo. La Representante Especial agradecería recibir del Gobierno el segundo informe 

mencionado en la respuesta del Gobierno con fecha 13 de junio de 2007 al 

llamamiento urgente con fecha 5 de abril de 2007 sobre las investigaciones con 

relación al caso del Sr. Donny Reyes. 

Urgent appeal 

India 

1049. On 8 December 2006 the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal to the 

Government concerning threats against Mr. Gopan Sharma, a staff member of non 

Governmental organisation MASUM based in West Bengal, which works to create 

awareness of human rights violations in rural areas and promotes the rights of 

agricultural workers. 

1050. According to the information received, on 15 November 2006, Mr Gopan 

Sharma had drafted a written complaint on behalf of an agricultural worker, Mr 

Mohammad Sayab Ali Mondal, who was allegedly beaten by members of the Border 

Security Force (BSF) because he apparently witnessed the smuggling of goods across 

the border with Bangladesh. It was reported that when Mr Sharma accompanied Mr 

Mondal to lodge the complaint they were told by Mr Somnath Banerjee, Officer in 

Charge of the Jalangi police station, that he could not entertain complaints against the 

BSF. Reportedly the police officer then verbally insulted the two men and disposed of 

the written complaint. 

1051. It was further reported that Mr Sharma contacted the Additional 

Superintendent of Police (ASP) of the Murshidabad district in relation to the 

complaint. The ASP reportedly instructed the Jalangi police to accept the complaint 

without further delay. However sources indicated that the aforementioned Officer in 

Charge continued to refuse to act on the complaint and had allegedly threatened that 

Mr Sharma will face serious consequences if he continues to defend victims of human 

rights violations carried out by the BSF. It was also reported that Mr Mondal had been 

harassed by the Jalangi police because he has involved human rights activists in his 

case.


Page 204 

1052. Concern was expressed for the safety of Mr Gopan as it is feared that the 

threats and acts of intimidation against him are related to his activities in relation to 

human rights, in particular his defence of the rights of agricultural workers in the 

West Bengali area. 


1053. On 9 January 2007, the Special Representative sent a letter of allegations to 

the Government concerning a search of the premises of Manabadhikar Suraksha 

Mancha (MASUM), and harassment of its members including Mr Kirity Roy, 

Secretary General of the organisation and a national executive member of the Indian 

branch of Amnesty International. MASUM is an organization which promotes the 

rights of agricultural workers, based in Kolkota. Mr Kirity Roy was the subject of a 

joint communication sent to your Government on 14 December 2005 by the Special 



human rights defenders, and a subsequent urgent appeal sent by the Special 


25 January 2006. 

1054. According to the information received, on 21 November 2006, an officer from 

the District Intelligence Branch Department (DIB) searched the headquarters of 

MASUM apparently in search of information relating to the activities of the 

organisation. The police officer allegedly failed to produce a search warrant when 

requested to do so by Mr Kirity Roy, responding that he was acting on orders issued 

by Mr Raj Konjia, the West Bengal General Inspector of Police (Law and Order). The 

officer reportedly asked for the organisation's registration certificate and took a note 

of Mr Roy's address. 

1055. A short time after the officer left, it is reported that Mr Roy received a phone 

call in which he was summoned to the DIB office in Howrah to meet with the Deputy 

Superintendent of Police. When Mr Roy asked for notification in writing, the officer 

allegedly hung up.Furthermore, it is reported that MASUM's headquarters were 

previously subjected to a search on 10 November 2006 by the same officer. It is 

alleged that he also asked on that occasion about the activities of the organisation and 

requested to see the registration certificate, as well as personal details of leading 

members including their names, addresses and phone numbers. The only employee 

who was present at the time apparently refused to divulge this information. 

1056. Concern was expressed that the arbitrary searches of the MASUM 

headquarters and harassment of its staff, in particular Mr Kirity Roy, may represent an 

attempt by the authorities to prevent the organisation from carrying out its legitimate 

activities in defence of human rights, in particular the promotion and protection of the 

rights of farm workers in West Bengal. 

Urgent appeal 

1057. On 16 February 2007 the Special Representative, together with the 

Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the


Page 205 


and expression, sent an urgent appeal to the Government concerning Mr Gopen 

Sharma, District Human Rights Officer in the Murshidabad District of West Bengal 

of a non Governmental organisation called People’s Watch, which is implementing an 

European Union funded “National Project on Prevention of Torture in India” (NPPT) 

in West Bengal in collaboration with a non Governmental organisation Manabadhikar 

Suraksha Mancha (MASUM). Mr Sharma was already the subject of an urgent appeal 

of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human 

rights defenders on 8 December 2006. 

1058. According to further information received, Mr Gopen Sharma was arrested by 

police officers on 8 February 2007 during his visit to the Kaharpara Border Outpost of 

the Border Security Force (BSF) camp in order to collect information on three cases 

of human rights violations alleged committed by the BSF following complaints 

lodged with the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). At Outpost No. 1 he 

was approached and assaulted by an individual not known to Mr Sharma with the 

name of Achinto Sarkar, who alleged that one of his co-villagers owed him money. 

When Mr Sharma asked for protection by the local BSF he was taken into custody 

instead and transferred to Ranninagar Police Station. Mr Sharma was not provided 

with an arrest warrant. Upon arrest Mr Sharma was threatened and insulted by a 

police officer, who accused him of filing complaints with human rights organisations 

against the police and the BSF. Police officers seized his mobile phone and all 

documents related to the complaints to the NHRC Mr Sharma had been investigating. 

1059. Mr Sharma was charged pursuant to sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian 

Penal Code on allegations of fraud and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, 

forgery for the purpose of fraud and using as genuine a forged document, respectively. 

On 9 February 2007 Mr Sharma was summoned before the Additional Chief Judicial 

Magistrate of Lalbagh, Murshidabad, who decided to remand him until 22 February 

2007. The application for bail filed by Mr Sharma’s lawyer was also rejected by the 

court. These events followed Mr Sharma’s participation in a fact-finding mission to 

the BSF Khayer Tala Border Outpost that the NPPT undertook on 1 February 2007. 

1060. The other members of the fact-finding mission were Mr Henri Tiphagne, 

Executive Director of People’s Watch, Mr Biplap Mukherjee, State Programme 

Coordinator for the NPPT for West Bengal, and Mr Kirity Roy, President of 

MASUM, who was already the subject of a letter of allegations by the Special 


9 January 2007, an urgent appeal by the Special Representative of the Secretary- 

General on the situation of human rights defenders on 25 January 2006 and a joint 

allegation letter by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the 


Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders on 14 December 2005. 

1061. When the fact-finding mission reached the area it was threatened and harassed 

by BSF officers at BSF Khayer Tala Border Outpost. The fact-finding mission was 

related to alleged human rights violations by police officers committed against local 

villagers. Concern was expressed that the charges issued against Mr Sharma may be 

false and may be directly related to his legitimate work as a District Human Rights 

Officer with the National Project on Prevention of Torture’s in Murshidabad District


Page 206 

of West Bengal. Further concern was expressed that such actions may represent an 

attempt to warn and deter other human rights defenders and particularly, the NPPT’s 

fact finding mission from investigating human rights violations committed by the BSF 

or the police. 



Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia 

and related intolerance, sent a letter of allegations to the Government concerning an 

attack against Mr Ravikumar, Member of the Legislative Assembly of the 

Kaaumannarkoil constituency, owing allegiance to the Vidudalai Chruthaiga, Dalit 

Panthers of India (DPI), in Sedapalayam village of Cuddalore District, in the State of 

Tamil Nadu. Mr Ravikumar also served as state president of the People’s Union for 

Civil Liberties, Tamil Nadu-Pondicherry and was elected as a Member of the Tamil 

Nadu Legislative Assembly in 2006. He is also a well known Dalit writer, social 

activist and co-publisher of a publishing house which focuses on caste issues. 

1063. According to information received, on 2 January 2007, Mr Ravikumar 

sustained injuries to his hands and legs during an alleged attack by a contingent of 

approximately 100 police officers, including Delta police personnel, in Sedapalayam 

village during a funeral procession for Mr Siva, a Dalit youth murdered on 1 January 

2007. Twenty-eight other Dalit Panthers of India (DPI) members were also injured in 

the attack. Mr Ravikumar was admitted to the Sri Ramachandra Medical College in 

Chennai on 3 January 2007 and discharged three days later. According to reports, the 

funeral procession was attacked by police officers in response to an attempt by some 

individuals attending the funeral to set fire to houses belonging to the alleged 

perpetrators of Mr Siva’s murder. Dalit youths who later attended the hospital for 

medical treatment were reportedly arrested by police on charges of attempted murder. 

1064. Prior to the events of 2 January 2007, Mr Ravikumar had reportedly been in 

contact with Mr Gagandeep Singh Bedi, District Collector, Cuddalore, and Mr M 

Karunanidhi, Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu urging them to ensure that an immediate 

investigation be carried out in relation to Mr Siva's murder on 1 January 2007, and 

that the perpetrators be brought to justice. He also made an appeal to the police and 

district administration to ensure that law and order be maintained during the funeral. 

Concern was expressed that the funeral procession of Mr Siva was violently 

suppressed by authorities and that excessive police force may have been used against 

peaceful attendees of the funeral. Concern was also raised that Mr Ravikumar may 

have been targeted due to his high profile work in defence of the human rights of 

Dalits. 

Urgent appeal 

1065. On 26 January 2007, the Special Representative, together with the 

Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention sent an urgent 

appeal to the Government concerning Mr Hebal Abel Koloy, Chairperson of the 

Borok People's Human Rights Organisation (BPHRO), a non Governmental 

organisation that promotes and protects the rights of the indigenous peoples of 

Tripura.


Page 207 

1066. According to the information received, Mr. Hebal Abel Koloy was rearrested 

on 19 January 2007 in Kamalpur District on charges related to the National Security 

Act (NASA). Mr Hebal Abel Koloy had been granted bail on 17 January 2007 by the 

Agartala Bench of the Gauhati High Court, in respect of four different legal cases, on 

the grounds that evidence did not exist for his detention. Furthermore, the Court ruled 

that his arrest had been arbitrary and that the repeated attempts to prosecute him 

constituted a type of political harassment, so therefore ordered his immediate release. 

However, when his family travelled to Kamalpur District Jail to collect him, they 

found that he had been rearrested. 

1067. It was further reported that Mr. Hebal Abel Koloy, a respected teacher 

working in a school set up by the Government of Tripura, was previously detained 

during the night from 26 to 27 October 2006 at the West Tripura District police 

station. A case was registered against him under s.27 of the Arms Act and 120(b) of 

the Penal Code. He was brought before the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Kailashar, 

who found no evidence to support the charges brought against him. Despite this 

ruling, he was reportedly remanded in custody for three days. On 29 October 2006, in 

addition to a search being carried out on his residence, the premises of the BPHRO 

were raided and identity card forms, donors' registrar books, membership fee books 

and other documents relating to the organisation were removed by the police, as well 

as a personal computer. I 

1068. t was alleged that this person was being held in detention as a consequence of 

his human rights work and that his detention may represent an attempt by the local 

authorities to deter him and other defenders from carrying out their legitimate 

activities in defence of the indigenous peoples of Tripura. 


1069. On 5 April 2007 the Special Representative sent a letter of allegations to the 

Government concerning Mr Ram Prasad Bharati, member of the Peoples Vigilance 

Committee on Human Rights (PVGHR). The PVCHR is an organisation based in 

Uttar Pradesh which promotes civil and democratic rights and in particular the rights 

of minority groups, including the rights of the Dalit community. According to 

information received, on 6 March 2007, whilst travelling from Sonbadra to Varanasi, 

Mr Bharati was arrested by members of the local police stationed at Naugarh police 

outpost, Chgandauli district, Uttar Pradesh. Prior to his arrest Mr Bharati was 

allegedly followed by two individuals known to be feudal leaders before being 

intercepted at the Naugarh police outpost. 

1070. Mr Bharati contacted the PVCHR at midday on 6 March 2007 to inform the 

organisation of his arrest. He was subjected to verbal abuse whilst in detention but 

later released without charge. Mr Bharati has been the subject of previous harassment 

by members of the Naugarh police force. On 15 September 2005 he was detained at 

Majhgavan police station for a number of hours for questioning during which time 

senior police officers allegedly threatened him by implying that he would be the 

victim of a staged murder.


Page 208 

1071. Furthermore, on 6 February 2005 a senior officer visited Mr Bharati’s home 

asking for his whereabouts. Mr Bhratai was not at home at the time and the officer 

asked his son to inform Mr Bahrati that a bullet had been reserved for him and would 

be used in the near future. Mr Bahrati reported the aforementioned incidents to the 

local authorities and to the National Human Rights Commission however no action 

was taken to investigate the matter. Concern was expressed the arrest and detention of 

Mr Ram Prasad Bharati forms part of an ongoing campaign against human rights 

defenders in India, in particular those working on behalf of the Dalit community and 

minority groups. Further concern was expressed for the safety of Mr Bharati given the 

alleged threats he was subjected to in the past by members of the police force. 


1072. On 20 April 2007, the Special Representative sent a letter of allegations to the 

Government concerning Mr Phani Gopal Battacharaya, Vice-President of Banglar 

Manabadhikar Suraksha Manch (MANSUM). Mr Battacharay is also Secretary of the 

Indo Japan Steels Limited Employees Union and Working President of Belur 

Sramajibi Sasthya Prakalpa Samity (Sramajibi Hospital) in West Bengal. The hospital 

was established by ex-factory workers and provides treatment for torture victims. 

1073. According to information received, on 10 March 2007, Mr Bhattacharya was 

charged under sections 34, 427 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code for alleged mischief 

causing damage (427), criminal trespassing (447) and common intention to commit 

any crime with others (34) and was subsequently detained at the Bally Police Station, 

West Bengal. On 20 March 2007 Mr Bhattacharya was granted bail by the Chief 

Justice Magistrate of Howrah, West Bengal. 

1074. According to reports, Mr Bhattacharya was employed by the Indo Japan Steels 

Ltd, and Secretary of the Employees Union until 1996 when the factory closed. Since 

then, Mr Bhattacharya along with the other trade union members, have been involved 

in working for the rights of employees at the factory including making demands for 

the payment of salaries due, redundancy, repayment of workers' contributions to Co- 

Operative Fund and Provident Fund. The business was then in the final stages of its 

liquidation process. Since the closure of the factory, employees have had legal control 

over a room adjacent to the factory premises, which had been used as a workers' cooperative. 

The Indo Japan Steels Ltd had no legal rights over the factory premises as it 

was a leasehold property and the lease had been terminated. The Calcutta High Court 

had previously ordered, in other cases, that the peaceful workers could remain in the 

premises of the closed factory. Mr Bhattacharya, along with other workers, was 

reportedly trying to prevent the illegal taking of valuable machinery that had been left 

since the factory's closure. 

1075. Concern was expressed that the charges against Mr Phani Gopal Bhattacharya 

form part of an ongoing campaign against human rights defenders in India. Concern 

was also expressed that the charges brought against Mr Battacharaya along with 25 

other trade union workers are may be related solely to their legitimate and peaceful 

work in defence of human rights, and in particular workers' rights and may form part 

of an ongoing campaign against human rights defenders in India. 

Letter of allegations


Page 209 

1076. On 10 May 2007 the Special Representative sent a letter of allegations to the 

Government concerning Ms Subhajit Dey, a transgender Peer Educator at the AIDS 

Prevention and Control Society, West Bengal State. Ms Dey is also a member of the 

Pratyay Gender Trust, an organisation which works to defend the rights of those 

marginalized due to their sexual orientation in India. She has been involved in the 

Targeted Intervention Project for Communities at risk of HIV/AIDS, in Calcutta. 

1077. According to information received, on 24 April 2007, at approximately 22:45, 

Ms Dey, along with an outreach client, were entering Sealdah train station in Calcutta 

when they were accosted by two plain-clothes police officers from the Railway 

Protection Force. The police officers allegedly attempted to persuade Ms Dey to meet 

them in a secluded part of the station. However, when Ms Dey and her companion 

refused, they were forcefully brought to the nearby police station. The police officers 

proceeded to beat Ms Dey and the outreach client outside the police station when the 

latter managed to escape. 

1078. According to reports, Ms Dey was then brought inside the police station where 

she was met by 8 to 9 police officers, the majority of whom were in civilian clothing. 

The officers accused Ms Dey of being a criminal before subjecting her to a barrage of 

verbal abuse and sexual assault. After her ordeal, Ms Dey was permitted to leave the 

police station on the condition that she would never return to Sealdah again. Concern 

was expressed that the aforementioned events may be directly related to Ms Subjahit 

Dey’s work in the defence of human rights in India, in particular her work defending 

the rights of those marginalised because of their sexual orientation in the country. 


1079. In a letter dated 20 November 2007, the Permanent Mission of India in 

Geneva responded to the above communication, stating that no FIR/complaint had 

been lodged by Ms Dey or on her behalf. However, an enquiry had been conducted by 

the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Government Railway Police, Sealdah, 

which established the allegation of misbehaviour by two police officers; namely Mr 

Soumen Nandi and Mr Ranjit Mondal. Consequently, departmental action against 

both officers was being initiated. 


1080. On 1 June 2007, the Special Representative sent a letter of allegations to the 

Government concerning Dr Binayak Sen, medical doctor and General Secretary of 

the People's Union for Civil Liberties, Chhattisgarh, and Vice-President of PUCL 

National. Dr Sen has been involved in working on access to health for adivasi 

communities in the state of Chhattisgarh, and he has been instrumental in highlighting 

alleged human rights abuses against the adivasi including unlawful killings, sexual 

abuse and forced disappearances. Dr Sen has also publicly criticized Salwa Judum, 

the armed anti-Maoist campaign reportedly sponsored by the state Government. 

1081. According to information received, on 14 May 2007, Dr Sen returned from a 

two week break in Kolkotta to attend his medical clinic in Bilaspur when he was 

informed by the Superintendent of Police to go to the TarBahar local police station, as


Page 210 

he was required to give a police statement. On arrival at the station, Dr Sen was 

arrested and charged with allegedly 'aiding and abetting Naxal activity in the State' 

thus violating the Chhattisgarh Special Public Security Act, 2006 (CSPSA) and the 

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 (amended in 2004). The CSPSA and 

UAPA reportedly allow for detention of persons suspected of belonging to an 

unlawful organization or participating in its activities or giving protection to any 

member of such an organization. On 15 May 2007, Dr Sen was transferred to Raipur 

Central Prison, Chhattisgarh, whilst police officials reportedly conducted a search of 

his residence and medical clinic. 

1082. According to reports, authorities had also accused Dr Sen of passing letters 

from Mr Narayan Sanyal, a detained leader of the banned Communist Party of India 

(CPI), whom he had met at Raipur prison in April 2007, to Mr Piyush Guha, an 

alleged member of CPI who was arrested on 1 May 2007. At the time of his arrest, Dr 

Sen claimed that the charge had no basis as he had been authorized to visit Mr Sanyal 

by the Superintendent of Police in Raipur and prison officials were present during the 

meeting. 

1083. On 22nd May 2007, Raipur District Court issued an order to have Dr Sen’s 

computer examined by a Government expert in the presence of the District Head of 

the National Informatics Centre. A decision was also taken to detain Dr Sen on 

judicial remand, until 5 June 2007; so at time of writing, Dr Sen remained in detention 

at Raipur Central Prison. Concern was expressed that the arrest and detention of Dr 

Sen were directly related to his activities in defending the rights of the adivasi 

communities in Chhattisgarh state and his open criticism of the Salwa Judum. 


1084. On 28 June 2007, the Special Representative sent a letter of allegations to the 

Government concerning the arrest and detention of Mr Gopen Sharma, District 

Human Rights Monitor (DHRM) with the National Project on Preventing Torture in 

India: From Public Awareness to State Accountability, in the Murshidabad District, 

West Bengal. Mr Sharma was the subject of an urgent appeal sent by the Special 


8 December 2006. He was also the subject of a joint urgent appeal sent by the Special 


the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the 


and expression on 16 February 2007. 

1085. According to reports received, on 12 June 2007, at approximately 12:30pm, 

Mr Sharma was taking note of the name of a judge that was displayed on a noticeboard 

outside a courtroom at the ‘2nd Fast Track Court’, Baharampur, Murshidabad. 

He was collecting the information as part of a project administered by the United 

Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Ministry of Law and Justice in 

India entitled "Strengthening Access to Justice in India" (SAJI). Contact details for all 

the judges and magistrates in the district are required as part of the project. 

1086. Whilst outside the courtroom, Mr Sharma was approached by a police officer 

who questioned him as to the reasons for his actions. Mr Sharma was then reportedly


Page 211 

arrested and brought before the court of the aforementioned judge who asked him in 

open court, why he had recorded his name. Mr Sharma provided details of the project 

to the judge and was released later that afternoon without charge. Concern was 

expressed that the afore-mentioned events are directly related to Mr Sharma’s 

legitimate activities in defence of human rights and may have been an attempt to 

prevent him from continuing his investigative work as part of the SAJI project. 



Rapporteur on the right to food, sent a letter of allegations to the Government 

concerning the arrest and detention of human rights activists Mr Medha Paktar, head 

of Narmada, Bachao Andolan, Mr Gutam Bandhopadhyay and Mr Yogini 

Khanolkar of Nadi Ghati Morcha (NGM), Mr Simpreet Singh and Mr Mukta 

Srivastava of the National Alliance of Peoples Movements (NAPM), Sr Celia of the 

Domestic Workers Union, based in Bangalore, Ms Nidhi Agarwal of the Saheli 

Women’s Collective and 55 other individuals. The aforementioned organisations 

campaign for water rights and mobilise tribal people, Adivasi, farmers, 

environmentalists and human rights activists against the construction of the Sardar 

Sarovar Dam across the Narmada River in Gujarat. Mr Santhosh Patel, a member of 

the People's Vigilance Committee on Human Rights (PVCHR) since 2000 and 

PVCHR fellow, is also an active campaigner for the right to water and supporter of 

villagers living in Varanasi district who have been deprived of water since 2004. 

1088. According to information received, in the afternoon of the 22 March 2007, 62 

individuals gathered outside the Planning Commission Office (Yojana Bhavan), New 

Delhi, in order to speak with the Deputy Chair of the Planning Commission on World 

Water Day. The event was organised by Action 2007 (a civil movement fighting for 

justice and equality in India) as part of a peaceful protest against the privatisation and 

appropriation of water resources leading to water scarcity. At approximately 14:00pm, 

police and members of the Rapid Action Force (RAF) dispersed the crowd, arresting 

62 peaceful protesters including the afore-mentioned individuals. It is reported that 

the police used excessive force whilst conducting the arrests tearing some of the 

female protesters’ clothing. Those arrested were detained at Parliament Police Station 

where they were obliged to sign blank arrest memos. 

1089. Later that evening, all of the male detainees and two females were presented 

before the judicial magistrate and remanded in custody until 5 April 2007. They were 

then taken to Chanakyapuri Police Station before being transferred to Tihar Jail at 

11:00am the following morning. All were released a short time later and no charges 

were brought against them. On the morning of 26 March 2007, in a separate incident, 

Mr. Patel was arrested and detained by officers from the Phulpur Police station in the 

Varanasi district in the village of Badepur. No reason was given for his arrest however 

it is believed that his detention was related to his support of rural residents of the 

villages of Badepur, Dhebhuaha, Nagapur under Badagaon Block and Pindrai, 

Chuppepur, Aswalpur under Pindra Block in the Varanasi district who have allegedly 

been deprived of water for the last three years and as a result have been unable to 

irrigate their crops. This has allegedly affected the villagers’ usual access to sufficient 

and adequate food. According to reports, the authorities have reportedly insisted that


Page 212 

the farmers pay water tax, threatening them that if they do not pay they will be 

arrested and imprisoned. 

1090. As a result of the situation in the area farmers organized various protests in 

November 2006, and on 12 December 2006, villagers submitted a request to the 

District Magistrate of Varanasi to exempt them from paying water tax. A second 

request was submitted on 2 January 2007 and again the following day. The District 

Magistrate allegedly forwarded the complaint to the concerned executive engineer of 

the irrigation department. On 10 January 2007, an Amin (an official who collects 

revenue in the district) went to Chuppepur village of Pindra Block to collect the water 

tax, where he was met by individuals who told him to leave the village. The Amin 

reportedly responded by threatening the villagers that he would ask the police to beat 

them before arresting them. 

1091. He subsequently lodged a complaint with the police about some of the 

villagers including Mr Patel. Mr Patel was later released on bail on 29 March 2007, 

and no charges were brought against him. Concern was expressed that the 

aforementioned events were directly related to the work of Mr Medha Paktar, Mr 

Gutam Bandhopadhyay, Mr Yogini Khanolkar, Mr Simpreet Singh, Mr Mukta 

Srivastava, Sister Celia, Ms Nidhi Agarwal and Mr Santhosh Patel in defence of 

human rights and in particular, the right to food and water. 


1092. On 27 July 2007, the Special Representative sent a letter of allegations to the 

Government concerning the alleged arbitrary arrest and charges brought against Mr 

Subash Mohapatra, director of the Forum for Fact-Finding Documentation and 

Advocacy (FFDA), a non-Governmental organisation which monitors the human 

rights situation in Raipur, Chhattisgarh. In his capacity as director of the FFDA, Mr 

Mohapatra has had cause to file in excess of 300 complaints to the Chhattisgarh State 

Human Rights Commission and has publicly expressed his concerns with regard to 

the Commission’s shortcomings, particularly in the areas of inefficiency and 

corruption. 

1093. According to information received, on 17 July 2007, at approximately 3.50pm, 

Mr Subash Mohapatra was allegedly arrested in the office of the Chhattisgarh State 

Human Rights Commission. According to reports, he was arrested while attempting to 

file a response to an investigation undertaken by the Commission on the case of a 

Dalit student that had been submitted to the Commission by the FFDA. Although the 

Commission had expressly requested that Mr Mohapatra file this response to their 

investigation of the aforementioned case, Mr Mohapatra was allegedly asked to pay a 

bribe by Mr Binod Agrwal, a clerical employee with the Commission, in order to file 

his response. When he refused, he was physically and verbally abused by seven 

individuals, who spoke to him using offensive language and repeatedly dealt him 

blows to the back of the neck. Mr Mohapatra was firstly detained in the office of the 

Joint Secretary of the Commission for thirty minutes, before being forcefully taken to 

Gol Bazar Police Station by two police officers where he was placed in police 

custody. The police officers did not show a warrant for his arrest prior to detaining 

him, nor did they grant Mr Mohapatra the right to inform his family and/or lawyer of 

his whereabouts. After three hours, he was brought to City Kotwali Police Station


Page 213 

where he was subject to an interrogation which lasted until 9pm that evening. Mr 

Mohapatra was particularly questioned about his alleged involvement with the 

militant Naxalite movement. 

1094. Mr Mohapatra was then taken back to Gol Bazar Police Station and released 

on bail at 10.30pm. Mr Subash Mohapatra was charged under Sections 186, 353, 294, 

and 506 of the Indian Penal Code for “obstructing a public servant in the performance 

of his public functions”; “assault or criminal action deterring a public servant in the 

performance of his public functions”; “obscene acts and songs”; and “punishment for 

criminal intimidation”, respectively. He was due to appear before Raipur’s Judicial 

Magistrate’s Court on 6 August 2007. 

1095. Despite the fact that Mr Mohapatra filed a formal complaint to the Gol Bazar 

Police in relation to the abuse he suffered in the office of the Chhattisgarh State 

Human Rights Commission, thus far no investigation into this complaint had yet been 

carried out by the authorities. Concern was expressed that the aforementioned arrest 

and charges brought against Mr Mohapatra may be related to his peaceful human 

rights activities. Further concern was expressed for the physical and psychological 

integrity of Mr Mohapatra, his family, and his colleagues at FFDA. 

Urgent appeal 


Rapporteur on violence against women and the Special Rapporteur on adequate 

housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, sent an urgent 

appeal to the Government concerning attacks on Dalit communities, particularly 

women, in Somebhadra District, Uttar Pradesh, India. On 3 August 2007, Ms Roma 

and Ms Shanta Bhattacharya were arrested in Robertsganj under charges of 

provoking Dalits and Tibals to encroach forest lands. They were arrested under 

section 120 (B) and 447 of Penal Code; they were in Mirzapur jail and their bail 

applications had been rejected at the Circle Judicial Magistrate. 

1097. On 5 August 2007, Lalita Devi and Shyamlal Paswan were arrested from a 

local market in Rangarh and were also in Mirzapur jail. As a consequence of these 

imprisonments, people have been staging a protest since 4 August in front of the 

District Magistrate (DM) office in Sonebhadra demanding the immediate release of 

the activists. New charges were brought against Ms. Roma under article 4 of the 

National Security Act on 10 August. Reports also indicatd that on 10 August 2007, at 

around 9 p.m., the police attacked Dalit women in Chanduli Village, in Sonebhadra 

District, leaving fifteen women seriously injured. Two trucks loads of Police along 

with Upper Caste representatives of the locality descended on Chanduli village in 

Sonebhadra district. They were allegedly heavily armed, and demanded to see 

Bachchalal, an active member of the local organisation Kaimoor Kshetra Mahila 

Mazdoor Kisan Sangharsh Samiti (KKMMKSS). 

1098. According to information received, when they did not find Bachchalal in the 

village, they started attacking women present in the village. Police and upper caste 

representatives barged into the house of Bachchalal and attacked his pregnant sister 

and sister-in-law; pulling them out and attacking them. In three hours, the police and 

upper caste representatives beat up around 15 women and destroyed their houses. At


Page 214 

the time of the incident, there were very few male members in the village as most of 

them were staging a protest in front of the DM's office in Sonebhadra against the 

arrest of Ms. Roma, Ms. Shanta Bhattacharya, Lalita Devi and Shyamlal Paswan. This 

was allegedly the third attack of this kind against Dalits in less than two weeks and 

reportedly a consequence of the Dalits families’ requests for land that started in the 

last two years, as a response to the forest department’s Government Resolution of 

2002-3 to clear forest lands from any encroachments. During the events, the police 

reportedly left the village giving an ultimatum to remove the bricks of the houses by 

11 August 2007, or they would come back with the administrative order to destroy the 

houses. 


1099. On 2 November 2007 the Special Representative sent a letter of allegations to 

the Government concerning Mr Vasanth SR, a staff member of People’s Watch, a 

non-Governmental human rights organisation based in India. 

1100. According to information received, on 8 March at approximately 1.00pm, Mr 

Vasanth SR was detained while carrying out human rights monitoring activities at the 

Medikeri Town Police Station in the Kodagu District of Karnataka State. While there, 

Mr Vasanth SR reportedly witnessed policemen torturing two men. When Mr Vasanth 

SR questioned the policemen as to why they were doing this, they detained him. At 

6.00pm that same day, the Head Constable of the Medikeri Town Police Station, Mr 

Devaiah, called People’s Watch and the South India Cell for Human Rights Education 

and Monitoring (SICHEM) to inform them that Mr Vasanth SR had been taken to 

hospital for a medical examination. Mr Devaiah reportedly said that this examination 

was required due to an assault between Mr Vasanth SR and a police inspector which 

occurred when Mr Vasanth SR allegedly intervened in an official interrogation and 

attacked the police inspector. Mr Devaiah also informed People’s Watch and 

SICHEM that Mr Vasanth SR had been charged under Section 353 of the Indian 

Criminal Code, for “assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from the 

discharge of his duty”. 

1101. Mr Vasanth SR has been released on bail prior to his trial and is reportedly 

receiving threats from the policemen who detained him. On 9 March 2007, People’s 

Watch and SICHEM lodged a formal complaint regarding the detention and physical 

assault of Mr Vasanth SR with the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of 

India. On 18 July 2007, the NHRC deferred the complaint to the Medikeri Town 

Police Station. 

1102. At the time of his detention, Mr Vasanth SR was carrying out human rights 

monitoring activities as part of an ongoing project entitled the “National Project on 

the Prevention of Torture in India” (NPPT). In the state of Karnataka, People’s Watch 

is working on the NPPT in collaboration with SICHEM. On 8 March 2007, Mr 

Vasanth SR was carrying out the aforementioned activities on behalf of his wife, Ms 

Shyla, who is the District Human Rights Monitoring Coordinator with People’s 

Watch, and who was pregnant at the time. Concern was expressed that the 

aforementioned detention, alleged physical assault and ongoing threats, as well as the 

charges that were filed against Mr Vasanth SR may be directly related to his human 

rights activities, in particular his work in the defense of victims of torture in India.


Page 215 


1103. On 29 November 2007 the Special Representative sent a letter of allegations 

to the Government concerning concerning Mr Evert de Boer, Ms Ineke Zeldenrust, 

Ms Esther de Haan, Ms Christa de Bruin, Mr Gerard Oonk, Mr Hans Maas and 

Ms Pauline Overeemand. Mr Evert de Boer is Chair of the Clean Clothes Campaign 

(CCC) and Ms Ineke Zeldenrust, Ms Esther de Haan and Ms Christa de Bruin are 

all members of the CCC. The CCC is an organisation campaigning for the 

improvement of working conditions in garment industries. Mr. Gerard Oonk, Mr. 

Hans Maas and Ms. Pauline Overeemand are members of the India Committee of 

the Netherlands (ICN), a non-Governmental organisation dedicated to raising 

awareness with regards to human rights issues in India. 

1104. According to information received, on 26 September 2007, arrest warrants 

were issued by the Indian VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Bangalore 

against Mr Evert de Boer, Ms Ineke Zeldenrust, Ms Esther de Haan, Ms Christa de 

Bruin, Mr Gerard Oonk, Mr Hans Maas and Ms Pauline Overeemand. The warrants 

were reportedly issued following a complaint filed by Fibres and Fabrics International 

(FFI) and its subsidiary company, Jeans Knit Pvt Ltd (JKPL) on 9 February 2007. The 

aforementioned human rights defenders have been accused of having committed 

crimes under Articles 499 and 500 of the Indian Criminal Procedure Code as well as 

under the Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybernetic Crime, including 

“cybernetic crimes”; “racist and xenophobe acts” and “criminal defamation”. If 

arrested they face a sentence of two years’ imprisonment. 

1105. Furthermore, local trade unions the Garment and Textile Workers’ Union 

(GATWU); the New Trade Union of India (NTUI); the Civil Initiative for 

Development and Peace (CIVIDEP); the Textile Industry Workers’ Front (Munnade); 

and the task-force of the CCC based in Tamil Nadu, all of which reported violations 

of FFI/JKPL workers’ rights, have all been sued by the FFI for defamation. A court 

order issued in Bangalore on 28 July 2006 by the Court of the IV Additional City 

Civil Judge and extended on 19 February 2007, denies the aforementioned trade 

unions the right to report information regarding the working conditions of FFI/JKPL 

workers. This ruling was expected to be challenged before the High Court although no 

date had yet been confirmed. According to reports, the aforementioned had returned 

to the Netherlands. Concern was expressed that the arrest warrants against the 

aforementioned may have been issued as a result of their human rights activities, in 

particular their work to promote workers’ rights in India. 

Observations 

1106. The Special Representative thanks the Government of India for their response 

to the communication of 10 May 2007, but regrets the lack of response to the other 

fourteen communications sent in the time-period covered by this report. 

1107. The Special Representative reiterates her concerns for the situation of human 

rights defenders representing vulnerable groups, such as lesbians, gays, bisexual and 

transgender (LBGT) persons and members of caste groups facing discrimination. The


Page 216 

situation of the Dalit community is of particular concern as human rights defenders 

advocating their rights face entrenched prejudice from many sectors of society. 

1108. The Special Representative hopes that the Government of India will continue 

in its efforts to work for the improvement of conditions for those belonging to such 

communities and those working in defence of their rights. 

Urgent appeal 

Indonesia 

1109. On 11 July 2007 the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal to the 

Government concerning the situation of Ms Frederika Korain, Rev Perinus 

Kogoya, and Mr Barthol Yomen, members of the Peace and Justice Commission for 

the Diocese of Jayapura (SKP Jayapura), Mr Yan Christian Warinussy, Director of 

LP3BH (Lembaga Penelitian, Pengkajian dan Pengembangan Bantuan Hukum or 

Institute of Research, Analysis and Development of Legal Aid) of Manokwari - West 

Irian Jaya, and Mr Albert Rumbekwan, Head of the National Commission on 

Human Rights in West Papua province (“Komnas HAM”). The Special 

Representative met with all the aforementioned persons during her visit to Indonesia 

from 5 to 12 June 2007. 

1110. According to the information received, on 8 June 2007, Ms Korain, Rev 

Kogoya, and Mr Yomen flew back to Jayapura after attending a public hearing with 

the Special Representative in Jakarta on 7 June. After leaving the airport, their vehicle 

was followed by a blue Kijang car with police license plate number DS 1693 AF, and 

was hit by this car at the Post 7 Sentani in Ifar. As a result of the crash, the SKP 

vehicle was damaged and the passengers were in shock. The driver of the police car 

came out and introduced himself as FX Subangun, Commander of Intelligence of the 

Military Regional Command of Trikora (Komandan Intel Kodam XVII Trikora). He 

apologized and said that it was an accident, before driving away. The police, who 

witnessed the entire incident, allowed him to leave the scene of accident without 

being questioned. The occupants later checked the identity of FX Subangun, but it 

turned out that there is no military officer known by that name. It is believed that this 

incident was not accidental, but was perpetrated by an intelligence official who 

monitored the Special Representative’s visit to West Papua, with the direct purpose of 

intimidating the occupants of the car. 

1111. On 9 June 2007, Mr Warinussy returned to Manokwari after meeting with the 

Special Representative the day before in Jayapura. At around 8pm that day, he noticed 

a black Kijang Innova car with tinted windows parked in front of his house for about 

20 minutes. The car returned at around 11pm that same night. On 11 June 2007, at 

around 7pm, two Kijang cars parked in front of the LP3BH office on Gunung Salju St 

for about 30 minutes. Mr Warinussy requested protection from the non-Governmental 

organization Peace Brigade International (PBI) and asked them to accompany him 

from 15 June 2007 onwards. 

1112. On 16 June 2007, at around 8pm, two PBI activists and Mr Warinussy saw a 

metallic-coloured Kijang diesel car and police license plate number DD 546 PD 

parked in front of Mr Warinussy's house for some 20 minutes. The car left and then


Page 217 

passed by twice that night without stopping. On 18 June 2007, at 11pm, that same car 

was parked in front of the LP3BH office. The car was reportedly owned by the 

Manokwari Telkomsel telephone company. However, the car is often borrowed by a 

member of the Indonesian Navy named Hery, who was believed to be working as an 

intelligence officer for the Armed Forces Strategic Intelligence Agency (BAIS) in 

Manokwari. It was reported that Mr Hery, introducing himself as a journalist, tried on 

several occasions to know from Mr Warinussy whether he intended to meet with the 

Special Representative. 

1113. On 11 June 2007, Mr Rumbekwan received a text message from a cell phone 

number that said "You who are reporting about the human rights situation in Papua 

are trying to destroy the people. You want evidence of people being killed, I will kill 

your tribe, your family and your children will become only bones to show that there is 

only a zone of peace in Papua. On 12 June 2007, I urged the Chief of National Police 

to grant police protection to Mr Rumbekwan, and was informed later that day that 

such protection had been provided. On 14 June 2007, Mr Rumbekwan reportedly 

received five more text messages from the same number, again containing death 

threats. At around 8am on the same day, unidentified persons parked three cars some 

20 meters from Mr Rumbekwan's office. The perpetrators were shouting, allegedly to 

get Mr Rumbekwan to come outside and see them, but he ignored them, as a result of 

which they remained in the area and monitored his offices until around 4pm. 

According to Mr Rumbekwan, the persons involved came from two particular tribal 

groups, who may be being used by the authorities to conduct surveillance on their 

behalf. When Mr Rumbekwan left the office in a Komnas HAM Papua car, he was 

followed to his home by these persons. 

1114. During the afternoon, Mr Rumbekwan received a telephone call from the same 

cell phone number, asking him to meet with the caller at Swissbell Hotel at 7pm that 

night, however, he decided not to go to this meeting. On the night of 17 June 2007, a 

car was reportedly engaged in the surveillance of Mr Rumbekwan's house for about 

two and a half hours. Serious concern was expressed that the reprisals against Ms 

Korain and Rev Kogoya, Mr Yomen, Mr Warinussy, and Mr Rumbekwan are directly 

linked to the meetings they had with the Special Representative during her visit to 

Indonesia. 


1115. In letters dated 16 August and 27 September 2007, and 8 February 2008, the 

Government of Indonesia responded to the above communication, stating that it was 

their understanding that Ms. Frederika Korain and Rev Perinus Kogoya had been in a 

car accident. It was reported that two men stepped out of the car apologizing and 

claiming that they were officers from the military regional command of the 

Komandan Intel Kodam XVII Trikora (KODAM). This incident was evidently a 

misunderstanding that left no injuries. However, the perpetrators fled the scene with 

only a weak excuse to exonerate culpability, but apparently not before one of them 

had given his name and telephone number. 

1116. Subsequently, in an unrelated event, Mr Yan Christian Warinussy claimed to 

have been under surveillance on the evening of 8 June 2007 and later in the month, 

with an unconfirmed suspicion of a possible connection to a Navy official with links


Page 218 

to the Armed Forces Strategic Intelligence Agency (BAIS) in Manokwari. On 22 June 

2007 at 8.30am, after the first Mass of the day at the Cathedral of the Christ the King 

Church in Jaypura, the Lieutenant Colonel Pratiknyo and Lieutenant Colonel Gusta 

met with Bishop Leo Labalajar to discuss the accident. The Bishop said that he 

accepted that it was an unintentional accident and that they should not politicise the 

matter. Before the Lieutenant left he gave the Bishop his contact details should he or 

any of the three passengers wish to make contact with him. 

1117. For this reason, he was surprised when he received an intimidating report on 

the incident from the Foreign Ministry as he had not been informed prior to the report 

of any damage to the car or that any of the three passengers wished to make contact 

with him. The passengers should have contacted the Lieutenant for damages or filed a 

report with the Police and not with the OHCHR. In the case of Mr Albert 

Rumbekwan, it was reported that he received several text messages from a particular 

telephone number from 11 June 2007 onwards, threatening him and his family. He 

also complained of being followed and placed under surveillance by suspicious and 

unidentified persons who later disappeared without threatening him or causing him 

any harm. 

Urgent appeal 


Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief sent an urgent appeal to the Government 

concerning Rev Socratez Sofyan Yoman, President of the Communion of Baptist 

Churches in West Papua. He is also an active spokesman on the issue of human rights, 

in particular relating to human rights violations allegedly committed by Indonesian 

police and military forces in West Papua. 

1119. According to information received, on 29 July 2007 at approximately 5.30pm, 

following the Sunday service of the Baptist Church in Jayapura, Rev Socratez Sofyan 

Yoman was allegedly subject to threats and intimidation at gunpoint by members of 

the Indonesian police force, Brimob, and members of the military intelligence service. 

The policeman holding the gun was reported to have been a member of Abepura local 

police force whose name is known to the Special Representative and the Special 

Rapporteur. 

1120. According to some reports, this behaviour represents part of a campaign to 

force Rev Socratez Sofyan Yoman’s resignation from his position as the President of 

the Communion of Baptist Churches in West Papua. Rev Socratez Sofyan Yoman was 

reported to have stated that military intelligence has infiltrated the Baptist church and 

are trying to subvert the work of the church in relation to protecting the human rights 

of the West Papuan people. Concern was expressed that the aforementioned 

threatening behaviour and intimidation against Rev Socratez Sofyan Yoman may be 

related to his activities in the defence of human rights, in particular his criticism of the 

Indonesian police and military forces in relation to alleged abuses of human rights in 

West Papua. Further concern was expressed for the physical and psychological 

integrity of Rev Socratez Sofyan Yoman. 



Page 219 

1121. In a letter dated 27 September 2007, the Indonesian Government responded to 

the above communication, stating that the precise details of the attack remained 

unclear insofar as at that time, they only suggested a deliberate attempt on the part of 

the local police to intimidate this man. The letter stated that the Reverend claimed that 

a police officer going by the name of Abiddin Zainal came up to him and threatened 

him at gunpoint. 

1122. Furthermore it was alleged that this officer was a member of the local police 

in Abepura and that he had the support of the Brimob as well as that of the members 

of the Indonesian military (TNI) intelligence who were reportedly present at the time 

of the alleged altercation The Government also stated that while this matter was being 

investigated to determine the facts, it was important that the responsible authorities be 

allowed the space to establish who was responsible and the facts regarding the events 

which led up to the allegations. 

Urgent appeal 

1123. On 10 August 2007 the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal to the 

Government concerning Mr Albert Rumbekwan, Head of the National Commission 

on Human Rights (“Komnas HAM”) in West Papua province. Mr Rumbekwan was 

the subject of an urgent appeal sent by the Special Representative of the Secretary 

General on the situation of human rights defenders on 11 July 2007, regarding 

reprisals against him following his meeting with the Special Representative during her 

visit to the country in early June 2007. 

1124. According to the new information received, on 17 July 2007, a car was 

reportedly parked outside Mr Rumbekwan’s house with occupants watching and 

waiting continuously for approximately two and a half hours. On 24 July, unknown 

persons went to Mr Rumbekwan’s house and tried to see inside through a window 

holding electronic equipment. Police officers were present in the house at the time, 

but reportedly felt afraid and warned Mr Rumbekwan to prepare himself with 

traditional weapons like a stone or a knife. Finally, according to reports, phone text 

messages were sent lately to people in West Papua urging them to raid police and 

military premises in the province so as to achieve a free Papua. These messages were 

purportedly sent by Mr Rumbekwan; however, he strongly denied being the author 

and feared being mistaken by law enforcement authorities as the author of these 

messages. 

1125. Serious concern was expressed at the repetition of acts of harassment and 

intimidation against Mr Rumbekwan, despite the police protection granted to Mr 

Rumbekwan, demonstrating the ineffectiveness of such protection. Further concern 

was expressed for the physical and mental integrity of Mr Rumbekwan and his family. 


1126. In a letter dated 26 September, the Indonesian Government responded to the 

above communication, stating that Mr Rumbekwan had alleged that from 11 June 

2007 onwards he had been receiving threatening text messages from a particular 

phone. He had also complained that he was followed by suspicious and unidentified 

individuals who later disappeared without threatening him or causing him any harm.


Page 220 

He was however, able to take down the make and model of the cars in question and he 

thereafter reported the incident to the authorities, who took action to determine the 

identity of the perpetrators. It was also reported that there were text messages sent 

from his phone to certain people in West Papua inciting people to raid police and 

military premises as well as to cause separatist tensions in the region. Mr Rumbekwan 

had denied any wrongdoing and reports that he was the sender of these text messages 

had since been dismissed. 

Urgent appeal 

1127. On 28 August 2007, the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal to the 

Government concerning Mr Yan Christian Warinussy, Director of LP3BH 

(Lembaga Penelitian, Pengkajian dan Pengembangan Bantuan Hukum or Institute of 

Research, Analysis and Development of Legal Aid) of Manokwari, West Papua. Mr 

Warinussy was the subject of an urgent appeal sent by the Special Representative of 

the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders on 11 July 2007 

concerning reprisals against a number of human rights defenders from West Papua, 

including Mr Warinussy, following meetings they had had with the Special 

Representative in early June 2007. The Special Representative was grateful to His 

Excellency for his response to the urgent appeal received on 22 August 2007. 

However, it did not dispel her concern as the harassment against Mr Warinussy 

seemed to be continuing, as evidenced by the new information received. 

1128. Since 29 July 2007, Mr Warinussy had received threatening text messages on 

his mobile phone linking his human rights work to the separatist movement in West 

Papua. On 15 August 2007, a Kijang Avansa car had reportedly followed Mr 

Warinussy and his driver, and parked outside the office of the Institute for 

Investigation, Research and Human Rights where Mr Warinussy entered. It was 

believed that one of the occupants of the car was a detective with the Manokwari 

Regional Police. Serious concern was reiterated that the harassment of Mr Warinussy 

may have been solely related to the meeting he had had with the Special 

Representative of the Secretary General on the situation of human rights defenders in 

early June 2007. Further concern was expressed for the physical and mental integrity 

of Mr Warinussy and his colleagues. 


1129. In a letter date 8 February 2008, the Government further stated that it found 

the allegations that Mr Warinussy had been followed by a police officer to be 

unfounded and requested that the the mandate-holders ensure that information 

included in appeals be checked and substantiated as much as possible. The 

Government reiterated its commitment to human rights promotion and protection and 

its appreciation of the work of those individuals who are dedicated to promoting 

fundamental freedoms. As such, the government was very concerned by any 

suggestion that human rights defenders who continue to successfully advocate for the 

rights of others in Indonesia should be in any way impeded in their duties due to acts 

of intimidation. 

Urgent appeal


Page 221 

1130. On 4 October 2007 the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal to the 

Government concerning Pastor Johanes Djonga, human rights activist in Papua 

province. According to the information received, on 22 August 2007, Pastor Djonga 

was reportedly threatened to be killed by the Commander of the Army Special Forces 

(Kopassus) in Waris District, and soldiers under his command. He was accused of 

making false allegations on the human rights situation in Waris district to local and 

international NGOs, and of being a “provocateur” who was selling the State. 

1131. On 18 September, Pastor Djonga reported the death threats to the Head of 

Papua police who stated he could not grant protection if the author of the threats was a 

soldier. Pastor Djonga then reported the threats to the Chief of Military Regional 

Command in Papua province who assured him that he would act on this case, but 

would sue the pastor should the accusations turn out to be groundless. Concern was 

expressed that the threats made by the military commander against Pastor Djonga 

were directly linked to his activities in defence of human rights, in particular to the 

submission of a report to the Governor of Papua and the military commander of 

Jayapura in which Pastor Djonga critized the actions of the military at the border 

between Waris and Papua New Guinea. 


1132. In a letter dated 25 October 2007, the Indonesian Government responded to 

the above communication, stating that the alleged politically motivated threats were 

made to Pastor Djonga by officials of the Army Special Forces (Kopassus). On 18 

September 2007, as a result of these threats, Pastor Djonga filed a complaint to the 

head of the Papua Police. The police chief referred him to the military command as he 

said that this was in effect a military matter. He deemed that the latter were more 

capable of handling his case and assigning disciplinary action as and when they found 

there to be any truth behind the grievous accusations. To further clarify the nature of 

the allegations, Pastor Djonga reportedly accused First Lieutenant Usman, head of the 

Army Special Forces (Kopassus) in the Waris District of the Papua province, along 

with certain other soldiers under his command, of threatening to kill him and dispose 

of his body in a 700 metre deep gorge. 

1133. In order to make an official complaint, he had reported these allegations to the 

Chief of the Regional Military Command for the Papua province as well as to the 

Sub-regional Military Commander of Jayapura. He was thereafter informed that they 

would investigate these allegations. A direct link between the report the Pastor had 

written and sent to the military commander of Jayapura, Colonel Burhanuddin Siagin, 

and to the Governor of Papua, Mr Barnabas Suebu, criticizing activities of the military 

on their border between Waris and Papua New Guinea and the alleged threats to his 

life thus far remained unproven. 

1134. Since 18 September 2007, various steps had been taken to find and question 

the alleged perpetrators, and subsequently, conclusively resolve this matter. In this 

connection, the Jayapura District Military Commander, lieutenant Colonel A. H. 

Napoleon made a public statement that no member of the armed forces is immune 

from the law if they were proven guilty. Local law enforcement officials had assured 

Pastor Djonga that they would endeavour to determine the veracity of these 

allegations.


Page 222 

Observations 

1135. The Special Representative thanks the Government for the detailed responses 

to all her communications sent, and hopes that sustained efforts will be made to 

improve the situation of human rights defenders under threat in the country. She calls 

on the Government to ensure the physical and psychological integrity of human rights 

defenders she met with during her visit in June 2007, especially in West Papua (see 

her report on her visit to Indonesia from 5 to 12 June 2007, A/HRC/7/28/add.2). 

Urgent appeal 

Islamic Republic of Iran 

1136. On 4 December 2006 the Special Representative, together with the 




Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers sent an urgent appeal to the 

Government concerning Mr. Mansour Ossanlu, Head of the Union of Workers of the 

Tehran and Suburbs Bus Company, currently detained at Evin Prison. Mr. Ossanlu’s 

case was already the subject of an urgent appeal to your Excellency’s Government by 

the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the 

Special Representative of the Secretary General on the situation of human rights 

defenders and the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to 

freedom of opinion and expression on 16 January 2006. 

1137. According to the information received, Mr. Mansour Ossanlu was arrested at 

his home by police on 22 December 2005 and eventually released on bail amounting 

to 1.5 billion Rials on 9 August 2006. Mr. Ossanlu was awaiting trial on charges, the 

exact nature of which are not known, but which may include “propaganda against the 

the Islamic Republic” through leaflets and interviews with foreign anti-Government 

radio stations, and “acting to disturb internal state security by establishing links with 

hostile opposition groups and foreign countries”. Although he had received a court 

summons ordering him to attend Branch Four of the Special Court for Government 

Employees on 20 November 2006, he had already been re-arrested on the day before, 

19 November 2006, outside his home by plainclothes members of the security forces 

and detained incommunicado at Evin Prison, Section 209. He was suffering from a 

serious eye complaint, but was not receiving medical treatment in prison. 

1138. On 26 November 2006, Mr. Ossanlu appeared at Branch 14 of the 

Revolutionary Court for initial investigations by the Prosecutor. No specific charges 

were made in the court. Mr. Ossanlu’s lawyer could not attend the court session, 

because Mr. Ossanlu had not had access to him. Concern was expressed that his rearrest 

and detention may form a further attempt to deter him from peacefully 

exercising his legitimate right to freedom of association, including the right to form 

and join trade unions, and the right to freedom of opinion and expression and may 

also represent an attempt by the authorities to prevent him from carrying out his 

peaceful activities in defence of human rights, in particular labour rights. Further


Page 223 

concern was expressed as to his state of health and his physical integrity while in 

detention. 

Urgent appeal 




expression, the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture sent an urgent appeal to 

the Government concerning Mr. Sherko Jihani, correspondent of the Turkish news 

agency Euphrat in Mahabad and a member of the Human Rights Organization of 

Kurdistan (HROK). 

1140. According to the information received, on 27 November 2006, Mr Jihani was 

reportedly arrested and detained in Mahabad Central Prison after being summoned to 

appear before Branch 2 of the Revolutionary Prosecutor’s Office in Mahabad. It is 

reported that Mr Jihani was interrogated about forming an investigative committee on 

the kidnapping on 8 January 2006 of a woman human rights activist, Ms. Sarveh 

Komkar (Kamkar), and for giving interviews to foreign media about the killing by 

Iranian security forces of Kurdish activist, Showan (Shivan) Qaderi on 9 July 2005. 

Mr. Qaderi was the subject of an allegation letter sent by the Special Rapporteur on 

extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions on 10 August 2005. On 30 November, 

Mr. Jihani reportedly went on a hunger strike in protest against his detention after 

refusing to pay a 50 million Rials bail. On 4 December, Mr. Jihani began refusing to 

speak. On the same day, his family was reportedly able to visit him. On 6 December, 

Mr. Jihani was moved from Mahabad Prison to an unknown location, possibly 

Oromieh prison. 

1141. On 12 December, Mr. Jihani’s family reportedly received a phone call from an 

alleged member of the Mahabad branch intelligence services who told them that Mr. 

Jihani had died of a heart attack after falling into a coma. On 13 December, the family 

was relieved to receive a phone call from Mr. Jihani but he was unable to tell them 

anything about his whereabouts and sounded very weak. Mr. Jihani had reportedly 

been arrested nine times since 1999, and was said to have been tortured while 

previously in detention. 

1142. Concerns were expressed that the arrest and detention of Mr Jihani may be in 

relation to his legitimate activities in defence of human rights, in particular his work 

in seeking the truth behind the kidnapping of a human rights activist, and his public 

denunciation of the killing of a Kurdish activist by State agents. Further concerns 

were expressed that Mr Jihani was at risk of torture or ill-treatment, also in view of 

the fact that he was reportedly held incommunicado at an unknown location. 


1143. In a letter dated 22 May 2007, the Iranian Government responded to the above 

communication, stating that Mr. Sherko Jihani had been charged with “dissemination 

of false information” and “participation in illegal demonstrations.” A preliminary 

hearing in court had been taken place and he had been released on bail pending 

completion of investigations.


Page 224 


1144. On 6 February 2007 the Special Representative, together with the Special 


expression, sent a letter of allegations to the Government concerning Ms. Mansoureh 

Shojaei, Ms. Sedigheh Taghinia (alias Tal’at Taghinia) and Ms. Farnaz Seifi, three 

journalists and women rights activists. They were at the forefront of an on-line 

campaign launched by Iranian feminist groups in August 2006 for the elimination of 

all forms of legal discrimination against women in Iranian law, and inviting legislators 

to review and reform existing laws to ensure the conformity of Government’s 

commitments with international human rights instruments. 

1145. According to the information received, on 27 January 2007, Ms. Mansoureh 

Shojaei, Ms. Sedigheh Taghinia and Ms. Farnaz Seifi were reportedly arrested at the 

Imam Khomeini Airport while on their way to India to participate in a training course 

in journalism organised by the Shahrzad News website. They were subsequently 

transferred to the 209 (women’s) section of Evin Prison, in Tehran. Before their 

transfer, police officers reportedly searched their respective houses, and seized some 

of their personal belongings, including cell phones, computers, books and notes. 

1146. On 28 January 2007, Ms. Mansoureh Shojaei, Ms. Sedigheh Taghinia and Ms. 

Farnaz Seifi were released on bail, without any official charges against them. 

However, it is reported that a hearing will take place in two months on the basis of 

unknown charges. Concern was expressed that the arrest of Ms. Mansoureh Shojaei, 

Ms. Sedigheh Taghinia and Ms. Farnaz Seifi and the subsequent search of their 

houses and seizure of some of their personal belongings were related to their 

legitimate and peaceful activities of promotion and protection of women’s human 

rights in Iran. 


1147. In a letter dated 23 February 2007, the Permanent Mission of the Islamic 

Republic of Iran in Geneva responded to the above communication, stating that, 

according to information received, prior to being released on bail, Ms Mansoureh 

Shojaei, Ms Sedigheh Taghinia and Ms Farnaz Seifi had been charged with ‘measures 

against security of the country’. Furthermore, the letter stated that the women’s legal 

case was under investigation by the Public and Revolutionary Office and that since 

the public prosecutor had not yet prepared their indictments, the date of their hearing 

was still not set. 

Urgent appeal 

1148. On 7 March 2007 the Special Representative, together with the Chairperson- 



the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, sent an urgent appeal to the 

Government concerning at least 24 women human rights defenders reportedly arrested 

while holding a peaceful demonstration in front of the Islamic Revolutionary Court in 

Tehran.


Page 225 

1149. According to the information received, on 4 March 2007, the Iranian 

authorities arrested at least 31 women, seven of whom were released on bail on 6 

March 2007. Ms. Assieyh Amini, Zhila Bani Yaghoob, Mahboobeh 

Abbasgholizade, Mahboobeh Hoseinzadeh, Sarah Loghmani, Maryam 

Hoseinkhah, Jelveh Javaheri, Zeynab Peighambarzadeh, Maryam Mirza, Nahid 

Keshavarz, Mahnaz Mohammadi, Nasrin Afzali, Elnaz Ansari, Azadeh 

Forghaani, Somayeh Farid, Minoo Mortazi, Sussan Tahmassebi, Parvin 

Ardalan, Nooshin Ahmadi Khorasani, Shahla Entesaari, Fatemeh Govarayi, 

Nahid Jaafari, Shadi Sadr, and Rezvan Moghadam still remained in detention. A 

number of these women had allegedly gone on a hunger strike. The women had staged 

a peaceful demonstration against the prosecution of several women, who had been 

charged with criminal offences against public order and security for having organized 

a peaceful women’s demonstration in Haft-e Tir Square of Tehran on 12 June 2006. 

Many of the detained women were well-known women’s rights defenders who have 

publicly expressed their views on numerous occasions. 

1150. All of the detained women had reportedly been transferred to Ward 209 of the 

Evin Prison in Teheran. Allegedly, police officers had also broken the teeth of Ms. 

Nahid Jaafari by banging her head against the door of a police bus. Serious concern 

was expressed that the arrest and detention of the aforementioned women human 

rights defenders may have been related to their peaceful and legitimate activities in 

defence of women’s human rights. 

Urgent appeal 





Government concerning Mr. Esma’il Javadi, aged 31, journalist, Mr. Ebulfezl Alilu, 

shopkeeper, and Mr. Ramin Sadeghi. All men are Iranian Azeri Turks and linguistic 

rights activists. 

1152. According to the information received, the three men named above were 

arrested at around the time of several peaceful demonstrations marking International 

Mother Language Day on 21 February 2007. The assemblies were intended to 

celebrate linguistic diversity and called for education in Azeri Turkish in the Islamic 

Republic of Iran. They were arrested in the cities of Orumiyeh and Ardabil in northwestern 

Iran. Mr. Esma’il Javadi was arrested on 18 February 2007 in the city of 

Orumiyeh. He was being detained in a detention facility under the auspices of the 

Ministry of Intelligence in the Dokkuz Pille area of Orumiyeh and had been 

reportedly ill-treated in detention. Mr. Javadi was in poor health and in urgent need of 

medical care. Family members who were permitted to meet with him had been 

threatened by security officials and told that they should not speak about Mr. Javadi to 

anyone. 

1153. Mr. Ebulfezl Alilu was in a group of around 50 people who were arrested in 

Orumiyeh on 21 February 2007. Authorities had closed his shop at Orumiyeh Bazaar. 

Mr. Alilu was being detained at Dokkuz Pille detention facility, where he had been


Page 226 

reportedly ill-treated. Mr. Ramin Sadeghi was arrested in the city of Ardabil on 19 

February 2007 together with around 20 other persons. He was first held in a detention 

facility of the Ministry of Intelligence and then transferred to Section 1 of Ardabil 

prison on 3 March 2007. Authorities had denied him any visits. He had gone on 

hunger strike and was in poor health, and thus in urgent need of medical care. 

1154. Concern was expressed that the arrests and detention of the persons named 

above may have been related to their peaceful activities on behalf of the cultural and 

linguistic rights of the Azeri-Turkish community, and that these measures may have 

formed part of a pattern of harassment and intimidation against members of the Azeri- 

Turkish community in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Further concern was expressed 

with respect to the health and well-being of Mr. Ramin Sadeghi and Mr. Esma’il 

Javadi, who reportedly requires urgent medical attention. Concern was also expressed 

regarding the physical integrity of Mr. Esma’il Javadi and Mr. Ebulfezl Alilu, who 

have reportedly been ill-treated while in detention. Finally, in view of his 

incommunicado detention, further concern was expressed that Mr. Ramin Sadeghi 

might be at risk of ill-treatment. 

Urgent appeal 

1155. On 5 April 2007 the Special Representative, together with the Special 


expression and the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, sent an urgent 

appeal to the Government concerning Ms Nahid Keshavarz and Ms Mahboubeh 

Hoseinzadeh. According to information received, Iranian security agents arrested the 

two women on 3 April 2007 in Laleh Park (Tehran) while they were collecting 

signatures for a campaign to change Iranian laws that discriminate against women. 

1156. It was reported that Ms. Nahid Keshavarz and Ms. Mahboubeh Hoseinzadeh 

remained in detention and had been transferred to Evin Prison. Three other persons, 

Ms. Saiideh Amin, Ms. Sarah Imanian and her husband Mr. Homayoon Nami, who 

were arrested on the same occasion, had since been released on bail. The charges 

against the five persons were not known. Concern was expressed that the arrest and 

detention of Ms. Nahid Keshavarz and Ms. Mahboubeh Hoseinzadeh may have been 

related to their peaceful activities in defence of women's human rights. 

Urgent appeal 

1157. On 16 May 2007 the Special Representative, together with the Chairperson- 


on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, 

sent an urgent appeal to the Government concerning Dr. Haleh Esfandiari, aged 67, a 

dual United States and Iranian citizen, who has worked as a journalist and has been a 

frequent lecturer on Iranian and United States affairs. 

1158. According to the information received, Dr. Haleh Esfandiari was arrested in 

Tehran on 8 May 2007 after having been summoned for questioning by officials from 

the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence. She was being detained without charge in Section 

209 of Evin Prison, which is run by the Ministry. Dr. Esfandiari was allowed only to


Page 227 

make one phone call to her elderly mother on the day of her arrest, but had not been 

permitted any visits or contacts since then while in detention in solitary confinement. 

1159. Dr. Esfandiari travelled from the United States to Iran in December 2006 to 

visit her 93-year-old mother. On 30 December 2006, while on her way to the airport 

to return to the United States, her taxi was stopped by three masked men wielding 

knifes, who took her Iranian and U.S.-American passports and belongings. Since then, 

Iranian authorities have failed to replace her passport. Four days later she was 

summoned by officials from the Military Intelligence Service to two different offices 

in Tehran for interrogation sessions totalling over 50 hours and stretching out over six 

weeks. The questions focussed almost exclusively on the activities and programs of 

the Middle East Program at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars in Washington 

D.C., which she is heading. Dr. Esfandiari was repeatedly pressured, apparently in 

order to obtain false confessions or to make her falsely implicate the Wilson Center in 

activities in which it had not taken part. 

1160. Concern was expressed that Dr. Haleh Esfandiari’s arrest and detention might 

have been connected solely to her peaceful exercise of her rights to freedom of 

opinion and expression. In view of her incommunicado detention further concerns 

were expressed that she might be at risk of ill-treatment. 

Urgent appeal 

1161. On 31 May 2007 the Special Representative, together with the Special 


expression and the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, sent an urgent 

appeal to the Government concerning the situation of the following women’s rights 

activists: Ms. Zeynab Peihgambarzadeh, Ms. Maryam Hoseinkhah, Ms. Fatemeh 

Govarayi, Ms. Nusheen Ahmadi Khorasani, Ms. Shahla Entesari, Ms. Parvin 

Ardalan, Ms. Fariba Davoudi Mohajer, Ms. Sussan Tahmassebi, Ms. Behareh 

Hedayat, Ms. Azadeh Forghaani, Ms. Mahboubeh Hossein Zadeh and Ms. Nahid 

Keshavarz. Several of these women’s rights activists had already been subject to an 

urgent appeal, sent on 7 March 2007, jointly with the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the 

Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. 

1162. According to the latest information received, on 7 May 2007, Ms. Zeynab 

Peyqambarzadeh, Ms. Maryam Hosseinhkah and Ms. Fatemeh Govarayi were 

summoned to court for their participation in a peaceful demonstration on 4 March 

2007. The demonstration was directed against the prosecution of women activists in 

connection with a peaceful women’s demonstration that took place on 12 June 2006 in 

Haft-e Tir Square of Tehran and was addressed in an urgent appeal transmitted on 16 

June 2006. Ms. Zeynab Peyqambarzadeh reported to the Revolutionary Court after 

receiving a summons, where she was then arrested and transferred to Evin prison. Ms. 

Zeynab Peyqambarzadeh was released on bail on 17 May 2007. 

1163. On 24 April 2007, the Sixth Branch of the Revolutionary Court in Tehran 

sentenced Ms. Nusheen Ahmadi Khorasani, Ms. Shahla Entesari and Ms. Parvin 

Ardalan in connection with the peaceful demonstration of 12 June 2006 to three years’ 

imprisonment for “collusion and assembly to endanger the national security,” under 

article 610 of the Islamic Penal Code. The court ordered Khorasani, Entesari, and


Page 228 

Ardalan to serve six months in prison, but suspended the remaining two-and-half 

years of their sentences. The same court sentenced two other women’s rights 

advocates to prison terms on 18 April 2007 in relation to same demonstration. Ms. 

Fariba Davoudi Mohajer was sentenced to four years imprisonment, of which three 

years were suspended, and Ms. Sussan Tahmassebi was sentenced to two years 

imprisonment, of which 18 months were suspended. The women, currently free, are 

expected to appeal against their sentences. 

1164. The same day, Ms. Behareh Hedayat, a university student, was reportedly also 

tried without the presence of her lawyer due to her participation in the demonstration 

of 12 June 2006. On 26 May 2007, she was reportedly sentenced to a two-year 

suspended sentence for “acting against national security by participating in an illegal 

gathering.” On 11 April 2007, Branch 15 of the Revolutionary Court in Tehran gave 

Ms. Azadeh Forghani, a university student, a two-year suspended sentence in 

connection with the demonstration of 12 June 2006 for “acting against national 

security by participating in an illegal gathering.” Several days later, she was 

summoned to court where she was questioned and informed that she was facing new 

charges in connection with a peaceful gathering on 4 March 2007 held to protest 

against the prosecution of activists in connection with the demonstration in June 2006. 

1165. Appreciation was expressed that Ms. Mahboubeh Hossein Zadeh and Ms. 

Nahid Keshavarz have been released on bail on 15 April 2007 but the Special 

Representative remained concerned that the charges against the two women had 

reportedly not been dropped and that they might be prosecuted at a future point in 

time. Concern was expressed that the arrests and sentencing of the aforementioned 

activists may have been solely related to their peaceful activities in defence of women 

rights and could form part of wider pattern of harassment against women rights 

activists. 

Urgent appeal 

1166. On 1 June 2007 the Special Representative, together with the Special 

Rapporteur on the question of torture, and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, 

summary or arbitrary executions, sent an urgent appeal to the Government concerning 

the possibly imminent execution of Mr. Hossein Forouhideh, a/k/a Khatibi, an 

advocate of linguistic and social rights for Iranians of Azerbaijani ethnicity from the 

Khoy region. 

1167. According to the information received, Hossein Forouhideh had been 

sentenced to death by Bench One of the Revolutionary Court in the city of Urumiye. 

While neither the date of his reportedly secret trial nor the precise charges on which 

he was convicted were known, they were apparently connected to accusations of 

spying for the Turkish Government. After an initial period of detention in an Etelaat 

(Ministry of Intelligence) detention facility in Khoy, Hossein Forouhideh had spent 

more than nine months incommunicado in an Etelaat detention facility in the city of 

Urumiye, where he was allegedly tortured, leaving him with extensive bruising to his 

torso and a number of broken ribs. He was subsequently transferred to a third Etelaat 

facility, Doqiz Pille prison in Urumiye, where he was then being detained.


Page 229 

1168. In March 2007, the authorities informed Hossein Forouhideh’s mother that he 

had been executed, and that she should collect his body from the detention facility. 

When she went there from Khoy, where she lives, the guards told her that her son had 

not yet been executed. She recently visited the detention facility again, but was not 

allowed to visit her son. Hossein Forouhideh’s wife is a Turkish citizen who lives in 

eastern Turkey. She had reportedly stated that she had not been able to obtain 

information about her husband since at least September 2006. Serious concern was 

expressed that the criminal charges and death sentence against Hossein Forouhideh 

may be linked to his legitimate activities in defence of human rights, i.e. his advocacy 

of linguistic and cultural rights for Iranians of Azerbaijani ethnicity. 

Urgent appeal 


Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, and the Special Rapporteur 

on the question of torture, sent an urgent appeal to the Government concerning Mr 

Sa’id Metinpour and Mr Jalil Ghanilou, residing in Zenjan, who had been 

advocating Azerbaijani linguistic and cultural rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, 

including the use of the Azerbaijani Turkic language in Iran’s schools. 

1170. According to the information received, Mr Metinpour, together with his wife, 

Mrs Atiye Taheri, was arrested in Zenjan on 25 May 2007 at around midnight at his 

residence by plain clothes officials from the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence. The 

officers stated that they held arrest warrants for both of them. However, the arrest 

warrants produced did not carry the usual official stamp and signature. Mr Metinpour 

and Mrs Taheri were then forced into a vehicle and blindfolded. Later, they were 

separated and Mr Metinpour was removed in one car, while Mrs Taheri was returned 

to their home in another. At around 5 am on 26 May 2007, Ministry of Intelligence 

officials arrived to search the couple’s residence. They removed notebooks, tapes and 

albums containing family photos before searching the home of Mr Metinpour’s father, 

located on a higher floor. 

1171. Mr Metinpour’s current whereabouts were unknown. His wife had sought 

information regarding his location from the State Prosecution authorities (Dadsara) 

and the judiciary (Dadgostari), but was told by both authorities that they were 

unaware of his status and that no file existed with his name. Mr Ghanilou was arrested 

in Zenjan by security officials at around 10 pm on 27 May 2007 and was being 

detained at an unknown place of detention. 

1172. In view of their incommunicado detention at an undisclosed place grave 

concerns were expressed that Mr Metinpour and Mr Ghanilou are at risk of illtreatment. 

Further concern was expressed that their arrests and detention might be 

connected to their legitimate activities as human rights defenders and their exercise of 

the rights to freedom of opinion and expression and to enjoy their own culture and to 

use their own language, in community with other members of their group. 

Urgent appeal 


Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, and the Special Rapporteur


Page 230 

on the question of torture, sent an urgent appeal to the Government concerning Mr. 

Keyvan Rafiee, human rights activist. 

1174. According to the information received, on 9 July 2006 he was arrested for 

having participated in an event commemorating an earlier crackdown on a large 

student demonstration (“18 Tir”) and having reported on other students’ 

demonstrations. Since then he had been held in Section 209 of Evin prison, run by the 

Intelligence Ministry, where he spent more than 9 months in solitary confinement. He 

had been subjected to ill-treatment and was suffering from several illnesses. Like 

other prisoners in Section 209 he was also handcuffed and blind-folded most of the 

time. It was unclear whether he had access to medical treatment. With a view to the 

detention conditions described above and the long periods that Mr. Keyvan Rafiee had 

spent in solitary confinement, concern was expressed for his physical and mental 

integrity. 

Urgent appeal 





concerning Ms. Delaram Ali, a women's rights defender from Tehran University. 

1176. According to information received, the Tehran Revolutionary Court convicted 

Ms Delaram Ali on charges of “Propaganda against the System” and “Disturbing 

Public Order” for having participated in a peaceful demonstration for a better 

recognition of women's rights and to remove discriminatory clauses against women 

from Iranian law, which took place in Haft Tir Square on 12 June 2006. Ms. Delaram 

Ali was sentenced to two years and 10 months imprisonment and 10 lashes. The 

sentence had not been suspended and could be carried out at any time. Reportedly, 

several other persons arrested during the demonstration had also been convicted and 

sentenced, but had their sentence suspended. 

1177. In an urgent appeal dated 16 June 2006, to which the Iranian Government 

responded by letter, dated 15 August 2006, we already expressed our concern that 

Iranian security forces had arrested Ms. Delaram Ali and others during the 

demonstration of 12 June 2006. Concern was reiterated that the conviction of Ms 

Delaram Ali may be related to her peaceful activities in defence of women's rights in 

the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Government was urged to ensure that Ms. Delaram 

Ali would not be subjected to any punishment, including the cruel, inhuman and 

degrading punishment of lashing, for having exercised her right to freedom of 

expression. Particular concern was expressed that the execution of the lashing 

sentence may be imminent. 

Urgent appeal 



the question of torture, sent an urgent appeal to the Government concerning Mr Ali 

Shakeri, a peace activist and founding board member of the University of California,


Page 231 

Irvine, Center for Citizen Peacebuilding, and Dr Kian Tajbakhsh, a social scientist at 

the New School in New York who had worked as a consultant for the Open Society 

Institute and the World Bank. According to the information received, since early May 

2007, Mr Shakeri and Dr Tajbakhsh had been held in section 209 of Evin Prison in 

Tehran on charge of “acting against national security by engaging in propaganda 

against the Islamic Republic through spying on behalf of foreigners”. Both men were 

being detained incommunicado and denied access to their lawyers and families. 

1179. With a view to Mr Shakeri and Dr Tajbakhsh’s incommunicado detention, 

concern was expressed for their physical and mental integrity. Further concern was 

expressed that their arrest and detention may have been related to their peaceful 

activities in defence of human rights, and may form part of a pattern of harassment 

against human rights defenders who promote respect for human rights norms in the 

country. 

Urgent appeal 



expression, the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and the Chairperson- 

Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, sent an urgent appeal to the 

Government concerning Mr Mohammad Sadiq Kabudvand, Chair of the Kurdish 

Human Rights Organization (RMMK) based in Tehran, and editor of Payam-e 

Mardom-e Kurdestan (Kurdistan People’s Message) a weekly published in Kurdish 

and Persian and suspended in June 2004 for “disseminating separatist ideas and 

publishing false reports”. Mr Sadiq Kabudvand was the subject of an urgent appeal 

sent by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to 

freedom of opinion and expression on 22 September 2006. 

1181. According to the information received, on 1 July 2007, Mr Sadiq Kabudvand 

was reportedly arrested at his place of work in Tehran by plainclothes security 

officers. He was taken to his house where the security officers confiscated several 

personal belongings, including three computers, personal documents, books, 

photographs and family films. He was then taken to ward 209 of Evin prison where he 

was being detained and denied access to a lawyer. The date of his arrest coincides 

with the last day of suspension of the Payam-e Mardom-e Kurdestan newspaper. 

1182. With a view to Mr Sadiq Kabudvand’s incommunicado detention, concern 

was expressed for his physical and mental integrity. Further concern was expressed 

that his arrest and detention may have been related to his peaceful activities in defence 

of human rights, in particular Kurds’ rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. 

Urgent appeal 



expression sent an urgent appeal concerning Mr Mohammad Hashemi, Mr Ali 

Nikou Nesbati, Mr Mehdi Arabshahi, Ms Bahareh Hedayat, Mr Hanif Yazdani, 

Mr Ali Vefqi, Mr Abdollah Momeni, Mr Bahram Fayazi, Ms Hashemi, Mr 

Morteza Eslahchi, Mr Mojtaba Bayat, Mr Ezzatollah Ghalandari, Mr Habib Haj


Page 232 

Heydari, Mr Massud Habibi, Mr Sayid Hosseiniya and Mr Arash Khandel, all 

members of the High Council of the Office for the Consolidating Unity (HCOCU) and 

the Advar Centre. The HCOCU is a non-Governmental organisation dedicated to the 

defence and promotion of student rights. The Advar Centre is a branch of the HCOCU 

founded by its alumni members. 

1184. According to information received, on 9 July 2007, at approximately 7.30am, 

national security forces attacked the Abir Kabir University in Tehran, Iran and 

arrested Mr Mohammad Hashemi, Mr Ali Nikou Nesbati, Mr Mehdi Arabshahi, Ms 

Bahareh Hedayat, Mr Hanif Yazdani, and Mr Ali Vefqi who were participating in a 

sit-in protest at the main entrance of the university. The protest was intended to mark 

the eighth anniversary of the student uprising of 1999 as well as to raise concern in 

relation to the continued detention of eight students of the university, arrested two 

months ago on charges of having published offensive material in university 

publications. The university was closed down later that day, allegedly due to problems 

with electricity. Immediately after the arrests were made at the university, security 

forces allegedly attacked the offices of the Advar Centre. 

1185. According to reports, the security forces broke down the doors and arrested 

everyone at gunpoint. Security forces were said to have opened fire although the shots 

fired were blank shots and there were no injuries. Among those named in reports as 

having been arrested were the aforementioned. Concern was expressed that the arrests 

of the aforementioned individuals may be directly related to their peaceful work in the 

defence of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, in particular students’ rights, 

and that their arrests may form part of a pattern of harassment against human rights 

defenders in the country. 

Urgent appeal 




Detention, sent an urgent appeal concerning Mr Mansour Osanloo (Ossanlu), 

President of the Syndicate of Workers of Tehran and Suburbs Bus Company 

(Sandikaye Kargarane Sherkat-e Vahed). Mr Osanloo was the subject of two urgent 

appeals sent by the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary 

Detention, the Special Representative of the Secretary General on the situation of 

human rights defenders and the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection 

of the right to freedom of opinion and expression on 16 January 2006 and on 4 

December 2006. 

1187. According to information received, on 10 July 2007, at approximately 7pm, 

Mr Osanloo was abducted by unidentified individuals as he was getting off a bus on 

his way home. According to eye-witnesses who viewed the attack from the bus, Mr 

Osanloo was the subject of a severe beating and his attackers were still beating him as 

they forced him into an unregistered car and drove away to an undisclosed location. 

He had allegedly been followed all that day by the same car. His family appealed to 

the police for information, but did not receive any helpful feedback. Since April 2006, 

Mr Osanloo had been detained incommunicado twice and arrested on one occasion by 

police and national security forces.


Page 233 

1188. Concern was expressed that the abduction of Mr Mansour Osanloo may be 

related to his peaceful work in the defence of human rights, in particular his trade 

union activities, and may form part of an ongoing pattern of intimidation against 

human rights defenders in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Further concern was 

expressed for the physical integrity of Mr Osanloo. 

Urgent appeal 


Rapporteur on the question of torture sent an urgent appeal to the Government 

concerning the alleged abduction of Mr Loghman Mehri and his wife. Mr Mehri is a 

member of the Kurdistan Human Rights Organisation (RMMK). According to reports 

received, on 18 July 2007, Mr Mehri and his wife were kidnapped while entering the 

East Bus Terminal in Tehran. Three men in plainclothes, presumed to be national 

security agents, beat Mr Mehri before forcing he and his wife into a car. Their 

whereabouts were unknown. 

1190. Mr Mehri had been arrested in August 2005 on charges of acting against 

internal security; membership of an illegal group; and incitement to riot. He was 

released on bail and was due to appear in court at Sanandaj Prison the following week 

Concern was expressed that the alleged abduction of Mr Mehri and his wife may have 

been related to his work in the defence of human rights. Moreover, in view of the 

alleged detention of Mr Mehri and his wife at an undisclosed or unconfirmed location, 

concern was expressed that they may have been at risk of torture or other forms of illtreatment. 

Urgent appeal 



expression and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary 

executions, sent an urgent appeal to the Government concerning Mr Adnan 

Hassanpour and his cousin, Mr Abdolwahed Butimar who have been sentenced to 

death. Mr Hassanpour is a Kurdish journalist and an advocate of cultural rights for 

members of the Kurdish-Iranian community residing in Iran. He is also a former 

member of the editorial board of the Kurdish-Persian journal Aso (Horizon) which 

was shut down by the Iranian authorities in August 2005. Mr Butimar is an 

environmental activist and director of the environmental organisation, The Green 

Mountain Society. 

1192. According to information received, Mr Butimar and Mr Hassanpour were 

arrested in Marivan, in the province of Kordestan, on 23 December 2006 and 25 

January 2007 respectively. They were reportedly detained incommunicado in a 

Ministry of Intelligence facility in Marivan before being transferred to Marivan Prison 

on 26 March, 2007. Members of the Iranian Intelligence Service searched the home of 

Mr Butimar following his arrest. They allegedly found items relating to Kurdish 

identity such as flags, videos, and family photos. These items were confiscated and 

later used as evidence against Mr Hassanpour and Mr Butimar in their trial at the 

Revolutionary Court in Sanandaj on 12 June 2007 on charges of espionage and the


Page 234 

crime of “Moharebeh” (being an enemy of God). On 17 July 2007, the two men were 

informed that they had been sentenced to death. 

1193. According to their lawyer, Mr Saleh Nikbakht, Mr Hassanpour’s charges were 

linked to a phone exchange he had with a staff-member of Radio Voice of America. 

Mr Butimar was also charged with carrying a lethal weapon although Mr Nikbakht 

had said that this charge was without any supporting evidence. The Mehr News 

Agency had also alleged the involvement of Mr Hassanpour with Kurdish opposition 

groups and had reportedly implied that he assisted two known Kurdish activists, 

wanted by the Iranian authorities, to flee Iran. 

1194. Although the death penalty is not prohibited under international law, it has 

long been regarded as an extreme exception to the fundamental right to life, and must 

as such be interpreted in the most restrictive manner. Article 6(2) of the International 

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Iran is a party, provides that the 

“sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes”. Moreover, 

when the HRC for the last time considered a report presented by the Iranian 

Government, it expressly stated in its concluding observations that it "considers the 

imposition of [the death] penalty for crimes [...] that do not result in loss of life, as 

being contrary to the Covenant" (CCPR/C/79/Add.25, paragraph 9). 

1195. According to the information received, the offences for which the above two 

persons have been convicted were not intended to result in any killings and did not 

result in loss of life. Moreover, regarding the charges of “mohareb”, we would like to 

draw attention to concerns already raised in correspondence with the Government as 

well as in general reports. In a communication of 31 August 2006 concerning the 

imposition of the death penalty against Ali Motirijejad and others (reproduced in 

A/HRC/4/20/Add.1, pages 165f) similar concerns were raised with regard to the 

charge of “mohareb”: The Special Representative was concerned that this charge, 

which according to her information, in Iran is brought against political dissidents, 

critics of the Government and persons accused of espionage, might not be sufficiently 

well defined to satisfy the very strict standards of legality set by Article 6(2) ICCPR 

for the imposition and execution of the death penalty. Indeed, in order for sentence of 

death to be imposed “in accordance with the law”, the law in question must be 

sufficiently precise to clearly allow distinction between conduct punishable with the 

capital sentence and conduct not so punishable. 

1196. The concept of a “fair trial” similarly requires that the elements of the crime 

charged be known in sufficient detail to the defendant for him to be able to effectively 

address them.” The query to the Government to provide the definition of “mohareb” 

under Iranian law has unfortunately remained without a reply as of to date. Concern 

was expressed that the aforementioned sentence of the death penalty imposed against 

Mr Hassanpour and Mr Butimar may be related to their peaceful work in the defence 

of human rights, in particular Kurds’ rights. Further concern was expressed due to 

fears of the ill-treatment of Mr Hassanpour and Mr Butimar while in detention. 


1197. In a letter dated 23 August 2007, the Iranian Government responded to the 

above communication, stating that Mr Abolwahed Butimar was charged with actions


Page 235 

against national security through the purchase and possession of war arms and 

munitions and that he had been arrested while delivering weapons to a terrorist group 

PEJAK. Mr Adnan Hassanpour was charged with espionage in favour of aliens 

through mapping military and police sites and their transfer to aliens. He was also 

charged with cooperation and organizational relations with PEJAK, receiving money 

from terrorists groups and their delivery to newspapers. They had been sentenced to 

death and the verdict had been presented to the Supreme Court for a final decision. 

The charges had no connection with journalism. 

Urgent appeal 

1198. On 4 September 2007 the Special Representative, together with the Special 


Group on Arbitrary Detention sent an urgent appeal to the Government concerning Mr 

Amir Abbas Banayi Kazimi. 

1199. According to the information received, on 14 May 2007, Mr. Amir Abbas 

Banayi Kazimi was arrested at his home in Tabriz and was taken to a Ministry of 

Intelligence detention centre. He was transferred on or around 1 August to Tabriz’s 

central prison. He was then once again transferred to a Ministry of Intelligence 

detention centre somewhere in Tabriz, where he was being detained. He had not been 

formally charged with any offence. 

1200. According to reports, Mr. Banayi Kazemi was beaten in the course of his 

arrest and had been the subject of other forms of ill-treatment during his detention. 

This had resulted in his teeth being broken, hair being pulled from his scalp and blue 

bruising marks all over his face and body. He had also initiated a hunger strike. 

Serious concern was expressed that the arrest and detention of Mr. Banayi Kazemi 

may be solely related to his reportedly peaceful and legitimate activities in defence of 

human rights, in particular Iranian Azerbaijanis’ rights to use their language. In view 

of his incommunicado detention, further concern was expressed for the physical and 

mental integrity of Mr. Banayi Kazemi. 

Urgent appeal 


Rapporteur on the question of torture, the Special Rapporteur on violence against 

women and the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary 

Detention sent an urgent appeal to the Government concerning Ms Ronak Safazadeh, 

a campaigner for women’s rights and a member of the One Million Signatures 

campaign, which calls for an end to discriminatory laws against women in Iran. 

1202. According to information received, on 8 October 2007, Ms Ronak Safazadeh 

participated in an event to mark the International Day of the Child during which she 

collected signatures for the One Million Signatures campaign. On 9 October 2007, 

nine agents of the security forces entered the home of Ms Ronak Safazadeh and seized 

literature pertaining to the One Million Signatures campaign, her computer as well as 

some other personal belongings. Ms Ronak Safazadeh was arrested shortly afterwards 

and placed in detention at the local Office of Information and Security Ministry in


Page 236 

Sanandaj, Kurdistan. It was alleged that she was being held in incommunicado 

detention as all efforts on the part of family members to contact her had failed. 

1203. Concern was expressed that the arrest and detention of Ms Ronak Safazadeh 

may have been directly related to her peaceful human rights activities, in particular 

her work to defend and promote women’s rights in Iran. In view of her 

incommunicado detention, further concern was expressed with regard to her physical 

and psychological integrity. 




expression sent a letter of allegations to the Government concerning Mr Emadeddin 

Baghi, President of the Society for Defending Prisoners’ Rights, a non-Governmental 

human rights organization founded in 2003, and former editor of Jomhouriat, a daily 

newspaper closed by the authorities in July 2004. Mr Baghi’s case was the subject of 

an allegation letter sent on 21 August 2007 by the Special Rapporteur on the 

promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. 

1205. According to the information received, on 14 October 2007, Mr Baghi was 

sentenced to one-year imprisonment by the Security Unit of the General and 

Revolutionary Public Prosecutor’s Office in Teheran for “propaganda against the 

system” and “publishing secret Government documents” obtained from prisoners 

detained in security prisons. Mr Baghi was set to be released on bail, but was 

transferred to Evin prison to serve another one-year sentence from a previous 

conviction in 2003. Concern was expressed that the prison sentence for Mr Baghi may 

have been related to his peaceful activities in defence of human rights, in particular 

prisoners’ rights, and his defence of persons sentenced to death in the Khozestan 

region. 

Urgent appeal 

1206. On 26 October 2007 the Special Representative, together with the 

Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention sent an urgent 

appeal to the Government concerning Dr Sohrab Razzaghi, President of the non- 

Governmental organization Volunteer Activists (Koneshgaran-e Davtalab), a former 

high official at the Ministry of the Interior under President Khatami and a former 

Professor at the Allameh University. According to the information received, Dr 

Razzaghi was arrested on 24 October 2007 at 2.00 p.m. at his Tehran home by State 

security officers, and removed to Section 209 of Evin prison, a Prison Unit under the 

administration of the Ministry of Intelligence. 

1207. Serious concern was expressed for Dr. Razzaghi's physical and psychological 

integrity. It was alleged that Dr. Razzaghi had been arrested as a result of his peaceful 

and legitimate human rights activities. He had recently written a report on the current 

status of Iranian civil society and was due to attend a forthcoming NGO meeting in 

Dublin, Ireland.


Page 237 

1208. It was further reported that this was not the first time that Dr. Razzaghi had 

been interrogated by the authorities on his human rights activities. On 15 March 2007, 

he was interrogated during several hours by security officials, who confiscated 

personal documents at his home as well as the Centre's main computer server. On the 

same day, officers from the Ministry of Intelligence and from the Tehran 

Revolutionary Court closed down three NGOs: The Volunteer Activists; the Raahi 

Legal Centre and the Training Centre. 




expression and the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, 

sent a letter of allegations to the Government concerning Mr Abdolfattah Soltani, a 

lawyer at the Bar of Tehran and a founding member of the Defenders of Human 

Rights Centre (DHRC). Mr Soltani was the subject of numerous urgent appeals sent 

by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human 

rights defenders, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges, Special 


expression and Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention 

on 8 and 11 August 2006, 31 March 2006 and 14 December 2005. 

1210. According to the information received, Mr Soltani was invited by the non- 

Governmental organisation International Federation of Human Rights to participate in 

a conference on “Freedom of expression in Iran” that was held at the Sorbonne 

university on 27 October 2007 in Paris. However, Mr Soltani was unable to travel to 

France because his identity documents (i.e. passport and family record book) had not 

yet been returned to him after his acquittal on 28 May 2007 of all charges that were 

pending against him since July 2005. Concern was expressed that the abovementioned 

interference with the freedom of movement of Mr Soltani may be linked to his 

peaceful activities in defence of human rights. 


1211. In a letter dated 7 February 2008, the Government of Iran responded to the 

above communication. The letter stated that Mr Soltani had been charged with 

espionage in the past and that the court of appeal had acquitted him, after which he 

was duly released. Therefore, in the view of the Government, Mr Soltani enjoyed all 

his social rights. At time of writing, the Government stated that there was no verdict 

prohibiting him from making trips out of the country and advised tat he could refer to 

the Passport Department to obtain a passport if he so wished. 


1212. On 30 November 2007, the Special Representative, together the Special 


expression and the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, sent an allegation 

letter to the Government concerning Ms Maryam Hosseinkhah, a journalist and 

activist for women’s rights. Ms Maryam Hosseinkhah is also a member of the 

Campaign for Equality which is leading the One Million Signatures campaign, which


Page 238 

calls for an end to discriminatory laws against women in Iran. She was a member of 

the Women’s Cultural Centre prior to its closure by the Iranian authorities, days 

before her summons. Ms Maryam Hosseinkhah had been the subject of an urgent 

appeal sent by several mandate-holders on 7 March 2007. 

1213. According to information received, on 18 November 2007, Ms Maryam 

Hosseinkhah was arrested when she reported to a branch of the Revolutionary Court 

in Tehran for questioning following a summons that had been issued to her. She had 

reportedly been accused of “disturbing public opinion”; “propaganda against the 

system”; and “publication of lies”, as a result of articles posted on a website of which 

she is the editor. No date for trial had reportedly yet been set. Concern was expressed 

that the arrest of Ms Maryam Hosseinkhah and the accusations that have been made 

against her may have been directly related to her peaceful human rights activities, in 

particular her work to promote women’s rights in Iran. 


1214. In a letter dated 7 February 2008, the Government of Iran responded to the 

above communcation. The letter stated that Ms Maryam Hosseinkhah had been 

charged and, as she was unable to provide bail, was apprehended. Upon payment of 

bail on 2 January 2008, she was released on bail. 

1215. The letter further stated that, in accordance with Articly 128 of the Criminal 

Procedure Law, Ms Hosseinkhah enjoyed her right of access to attorney, and that Ms 

Shirin Ebadi had been introduced as her lawyer. The case was still under investigaiton 

at time of writing. 


1216. Furthermore, in a letter dated 8 February 2007, the Iranian Government 

responded to an urgent appeal sent by the Special Representative on 30 August 2006, 

together with the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary 

Detention and the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture concerning the arrest, 

detention and alleged ill-treatment and torture of Ali Khodabakhshi, (also known as 

Elyaz Yekanli), an activist defending the economic, social and cultural rights of the 

Azeri Turkish minority in Iran. The Government alleged that no record of detention of 

the aforementioned could be found in the database of the legal system, but stated that 

reinvestigation would be possible upon receipt of complete details of the alleged 

victim. 

Observations 

1217. The Special Representative thanks the Government of the Islamic Republic of 

Iran for its responses to six communications, but regrets that twenty communications 

remain unanswered to date and calls on the Government to respond to these 

communications and address the concerns raised. The Special Representative wishes 

to reiterate her grave concerns regarding the situation of human rights defenders in 

Iran.


Page 239 

1218. These concerns are particularly serious in relation to reports of widespread 

arbitrary detention and most serious allegations of ill-treatment and torture of 

detainees. It is sincerely hoped that the rights to legal representation are observed by 

the authorities. It is also sincerely hoped that urgent efforts will be made to ensure that 

treatment of individuals in detention is in full compliance with Article 5 of the 

Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention against Torture and other 

Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment and that the treatment of the 

human rights defenders in custody adheres to all those conditions set out in the ‘Basic 

Principles for Treatment of Prisoners, adopted by General Assembly resolution 

45/111 of 14 December 1990; 

1219. The Special Representative also wishes to underline the challenges faced by 

women human rights defenders and requests that they be permitted to exercise their 

rights to freedom of assembly and freedom of expression. She considers that the arrest 

and detention of the members of the One Million Signatures Campaign may form a 

systematic attempt to curb these rights and urges the Government of Iran to observe 

women’s right to exercise their freedom to assemble peacefully. 

1220. In addition, she notes with concern the situation of human rights defenders 

representing ethnic and linguistic minorities in Iran and intellectuals and academics 

whose freedom of expression is curtailed though arrest and detention. She hopes tha 

the Government will in the future be able to readily furnish the legal basis of 

continuing detentions. 


Iraq 


Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, sent a letter of allegations to 

the Government concerning Mr Said Mustafa Said, who was representing detainees 

who were the subject matter of a joint urgent appeal sent by several mandate-holders 

on 13 June 2007. While the Special Representative appreciated that all the detainees 

mentioned in this urgent appeal were released on 18 June 2007 from the detention 

facility at the Serious Crime Unit – Eastern Canal/al-Hakimiyah, she remained 

gravely concerned about Mr Said’s killing on or after 21 June 2007. 

1222. According to information received, on 21 June 2007, Mr Said left his office 

and was reportedly been last seen in the Serious Crime Unit – Eastern Canal. On 24 

June, Mr Said’s body was found by his family in the Medical Legal Institute in 

Baghdad. He had previously received death threats for representing his clients. Grave 

concern was expressed that the death of Mr Said Mustafa Said was related to his 



1223. On 6 November 2007, the Special Representative sent a letter of allegations to 

the Government concerning the killing of Mr Ali Sabih Hassan Al-Saadiy, professor 

at the Myssan University College of Education at Amara city and member of the 

Basra office of the International Coalition for the International Criminal Court, who


Page 240 

had also worked with the Independent Electoral Commission in Iraq. According to the 

information received, on 4 October 2007, Mr Ali Sabih Hassan Al-Saadiy was 

kidnapped from his house by unknown individuals and was found dead two days later 

on 6 October. He had been shot five times, four times in the chest and once in the 

head. 

1224. The family of Mr Ali Sabih Hassan Al-Saadiy reported his killing to the 

police, but no police investigation had reportedly been undertaken. Serious concern 

was expressed that the kidnapping and killing of Mr Ali Sabih Hassan Al-Saadiy may 

have been linked to his human rights activities in Iraq. 


1225. In a letter dated 21 June 2007, the Iraqi Government responded to a letter of 

allegations sent by the Special Representative on 20 November 2006, together with 

the Special Rapporteur on violence against women concerning the late Ms. Faliha 

Ahmed Jubori, a women’s rights activist from Haweeja and head of the women’s 

rights organization Maternity and Childhood, shot dead on 27 October 2006. 

1226. The Government letter stated that on 2 November 2006, formal statements had 

been taken from the complainants, namely, the victim’s husband Abd al-Sahab Salah 

Hilal and her brother Muhammad Amin Husayn. They requested that the charges 

against the suspects in detention, Khalid Kalil Ibrahim and Yousif Naif Ali, be 

dropped and that a complaint against the perpetrators of the offence be brought as 

soon as their identities were known. The investigating judge decided to release the 

two above-mentioned suspects due to lack of evidence and to continue the 

investigation with a view to identifying the authors of the crime. The case remained 

under investigation at time of writing. 

Observations 

1227. The Special Representative thanks the Government for their response to the 

communication of 20 November and hopes that efforts continue within Iraq to create a 

space for civil society and human rights defenders to carry out their work. 

Urgent appeal 

Israel 



expression sent an urgent appeal to the Government concerning Mr Shawan Jabarin, 

general Director of Al Haq and well known human rights defender in the Occupied 

Palestinian Territories. Al Haq is an independent Palestinian non-Governmental 

human rights organisation based in Ramallah, West Bank established in 1979 to 

protect and promote human rights and the rule of law in the Occupied Palestinian 

Territory (OPT). 

1229. According to information received, since 23 March 2006, Mr Jabarin had been 

prevented on several occasions, from leaving the country in order to attend events


Page 241 

organised by international organisations abroad. In December 2006, Mr Jabarin was 

prevented from traveling to Egypt to attend a conference organized by Christian Aid. 

An appeal filed by Mr. Jabarin was later rejected by the High Court. The court ruling 

reportedly took into account information submitted by the authorities that neither Mr. 

Jabarin nor his counsel were permitted to access. In October 2006, Mr. Jabarin was 

again refused permission to travel to attend a conference in Spain. 

1230. On 23 March 2006, Mr Jabarin attempted to cross from the West Bank to 

Jordan when he was presented with a police order to appear three days later at the 

Etsion Liaison Office, between Hebron and Bethlehem. On 26 March 2006, Mr 

Jabarin presented himself at the Liaison Office at the time requested. After waiting 

outside the Office for four hours in uncomfortably cold conditions, and after refusing 

to remove the clothing from his torso before entering the compound, Mr Jabarin was 

informed by an Israeli official that he could go home. However, the official refused to 

return Mr Jamorin’s identification documents, thus preventing him from legally 

traveling within the West Bank until July 2006, when his documents were finally 

returned to him. 

1231. Concern was expressed that the decision by Israeli authorities to prevent Mr 

Jabarin from travelling abroad may form part of an ongoing pattern of harassment of 

human rights defenders in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Further concern was 

expressed that in light of the above, Mr Jabarin might be prevented from travelling to 

Geneva to attend the Human Rights Council from 18 to 30 March 2007, and to the 

Congress of the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) in Portugal on 19 

April 2007. 

Urgent appeal 



expression sent an urgent appeal to the Government concerning Mr. Mohammad 

Bsharat, Executive Director of the Nafha Society for the Defence of Prisoners and 

Human Rights in Nablus, legally established and registered with the Palestinian 

Authority in 2006. It is one of several NGOs representing Palestinian detainees in 

Israeli courts and advocating on behalf of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons and 

detention centres. 

1233. According to the information received, Mr. Mohammad Bsharat was arrested 

in Nablus on the night of 2 August 2007 by Israeli soldiers and then interrogated at 

the Huwara detention centre in the city. No charges were been brought against him. 

He was reportedly questioned about his human rights activities. On 12 and 19 August 

2007, Mr. Bsharat’s detention was extended. During the last hearing on 26 August 

2007, the Salem Military court ordered that he be detained administratively, without 

any precise official reason. Concern was expressed that the detention of Mr. Bsharat 

may have been an attempt to sanction his human rights activities, and fears were also 

expressed for his physical and psychological integrity. 



Page 242 



expression sent a letter of allegations to the Government concerning Mr Raji 

Sourani, Director of the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, a non-Governmental 

human rights organization. 

1235. According to the information received, in late August 2007, Mr Sourani was 

reportedly prevented from travelling outside the Gaza Strip to attend the United 

Nations Conference of Civil Society in Support of Israeli-Palestinian Peace organized 

by the UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian 

People and held in the European Parliament Building in Brussels on 30 and 31 

August. Mr Sourani was due to present a paper entitled “Enforcement of International 

Law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory: The Only Real Roadmap for Peace” in 

which he denounced ongoing human rights violations and called for enforcing 

international human rights law in the OPT. 

1236. Concern was expressed that the ban imposed on Mr Sourani to travel outside 

the Gaza Strip, preventing him from attending the UN Conference of Civil Society in 

Support of Israeli-Palestinian Peace, may be related to his peaceful work in defense of 

human rights and his critical stance denouncing human rights violations in the OPT. 

Reponses from the Government to communications sent before 2 December 2006 


1237. In a letter dated 23 April 2007, the Israeli Government responded to an urgent 

appeal sent by the Special Representative on 14 March 2006, together with the 



and expression concerning the continued administrative detention of Mr Ziyad 

Muhammad Shehadeh Hmeidan, human rights defender and fieldworker for Al- 

Haq, a Palestinian NGO and affiliate organization of the International Commission of 

Jurists. In the letter, the Government stated that an administrative detention order had 

first been issued against the aforementioned in June 2005, for a period of six months, 

on grounds of endangering the public security, because of alleged involvement with 

the Popular Front, a well-known terrorist group, and that his detention was 

periodically reviewed in the intervening months, with each extension order judicially 

reviewed and approved by the courts. 

1238. Mr Hmeidan had appealed his detention on 26 December 2006. The Military 

Court of Appeals which examined the confidential evidence against Mr Hmeidan 

decided to extend his detention until 18 March 2007. When the administrative 

detention order expired on 18 March 2007, it had not been renewed and Mr Ziyad 

Muhammad Shehadeh Hmeidan had been released accordingly. 


1239. In a letter dated 20 March 2007, the Israeli Government further responded 

(following an initial response on 1 May 2006) to a letter of allegations sent by the 

Special Representative on 11 April 2006 concerning the physical assault of Mr Brian


Page 243 

Morgan, an American human rights defender who volunteered with the Tel Rumeida 

project in Hebron, which accompanies Palestinian families and their children to and 

from school in order to protect them from harassment by settler children. 

1240. The letter stated that a police file had been opened to investigate the 25 March 

2006 incident described in the communication. Information provided by the relevant 

authorities had confirmed that the incident had occurred about 100 metres from a 

military post, which at the time had two soldiers manning it. The police had 

interviewed these two soldiers, one of whom reported that he witnessed the incident 

and could, to a certain degree, verify Mr Morgan’s complaint; however, military 

regulations did not allow him to leave his post. A police patrol vehicle which had 

scanned the area was not able to locate any suspects in the case. 

1241. The case remained open but had been filed as offender unknown. Furthermore, 

the letter stated that the police did not carry out investigations as to soldiers’ conduct 

in the field, and that only cases which established grounds for suspicion of criminal 

conduct by soldiers were forwarded to the Criminal Investigations Division of the 

Military Police. 


1242. In a letter dated 20 March 2007, the Israeli Government further responded 

(following an initial response on 5 May 2006) to a letter of allegations sent by the 

Special Representative on 28 April 2006 concerning concerning the assault by settlers 

of Sister Anne Montgomery, a 79 years old member of the Christian Peacemakers 

Team (CPT), Tore Ottesen (29) from Norway, and Karien Laier (46) from Germany 

and two members of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), Brian Larsen 

from Denmark and Anna Svennson (20), and the alleged inaction of Israeli soldiers 

during the incident. 

1243. In the letter, the Government stated that a police file had been opened to 

investigate the incident. However, the activists had been unable to identify the 

attackers and it had been impossible to identify anyone on the videotape filmed by the 

activists on location since it had been filmed from a distance, with the camera lens 

partly facing the ground. At the time of writing, although the case remained open, it 

had been archived on the grounds of the offender being unknown. 


1244. In a letter dated 7 February 2007, the Israeli Government further responded 

(following an initial response on 30 October 2006) to an urgent appeal sent by the 

Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur on the independence of 

judges and lawyers, on 17 October 2006 regarding the search of the house of Mr 

Munir Mansour, Chairperson of Ansar Al-Sajeen (Prisoners Friends’ Association) 

and the closing down of the organisation’s offices in Israel and the West Bank. 

1245. In the letter, the Government stated that Munir Mansour was a former security 

prisoner and that Ansar Al-Sajeen was outlawed and closed down because it operated 

as a ‘well-oiled apparatus’ for the transfer of funds, principally from Hamas to 

security prisoners in Israeli prisons and their families. In the view of the Government,


Page 244 

this constituted a system whereby security prisoners were rewarded for committing 

acts of terrorism and served as encouragement to others to follow suit. 


1246. In a letter dated 9 August 2007, the Israeli Government further responded 

(following an initial response on 4 December 2006) to an urgent appeal sent by the 

Special Representative on 25 October 2006, together with the Chairperson-Rapporteur 

of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Special Rapporteur on the 

promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the 

Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers concerning the arrest 

and detention of Mr Ahmad Abu Haniya. 

1247. The Government stated that, following Mr Haniya’s arrest, his detention order 

had been extended three times for consecutive six-month periods until 13 November 

2006, when it was reviewed by a military court and upon appeal from the prosecution, 

extended for a further six months, on the basis of information described by the 

Government as of ‘substantial severity’ supporting the continued detention of Mr 

Haniya. Upon the expiration of this administrative detention order on 14 May 2007, 

Mr Haniya was released. 


1248. In a letter dated 5 November 2007, the Israeli Government further responded 

(following initial responses on 7 and 18 December 2006) to a letter of allegations sent 

by the Special Representative on 1 December 2006 concerning threats against 

participants in a proposed Gay Pride Parade, which had been scheduled to take 

place in Jerusalem on 10 November 2006. In the letter the Government stated that 

resistance to the holding of the parade from ultra-orthodox members of the Jewish 

community, Muslims, and Christians has been particularly strong, following violence 

at the previous year’s parade, including the stabbing of three participants by an ultraorthodox 

man. 

1249. Following protracted negotiations between the Parade organisers and the 

authorities a route had been agreed for the parade scheduled for 10 November 2006; 

however some days beforehand, the security situation in Jerusalem deteriorated and 

the city’s District Commander informed the organisers that there would not be 

sufficient police forces available to guarantee security at the parade. The Government 

letter also stated that the authorities suggested postponing the event for one week but 

that the parade organisers elected to instead hold a rally at the Hebrew University’s 

Stadium of Givat Ram in Kiryar Ha’leom. This event, approved by police, was 

attended by thousands of people and passed off peacefully. 

Observations 

1250. The Special Representative thanks the Israeli Government for its responses to 

six communications sent in this and previous years. With regard to the detention of 

individuals, the Special Representative trusts that the Government will ensure that 

arrests and detentions are conducted in compliance with international norms and


Page 245 

standards and that the specific legal basis for the arrest and detention of an individual 

is made known to all parties concerned. 

1251. In relation to the communication of 1 December 2007, the Special 

Representative acknowledges the level of cooperation and hopes that every effort will 

be made to ensure that those defending and advocating the rights of minority groups 

are able to exercise their right to freedom of expression and assembly. 


Ivory Coast 

1252. Le 7 juin 2007, la Représentante spéciale a envoyé une lettre d’allégations sur 

la situation de la Ligue Ivoirienne des Droits de l’Homme (LIDHO) et d’Action 

pour la Protection des Droits de l’Homme (APDH), 2 organisations nongouvernementales 

qui œuvrent pour la promotion et protection des droits de l’homme 

en Côte d’Ivoire. Selon les informations reçues : 

1253. Dans la matinée du 21 mai 2007, 2 groupes de militants de la Fédération 

Estudiantine et Scolaire de Côte d’Ivoire (FESCI) auraient saccagé les bureaux de la 

LIDHO et de l’APDH à Abidjan et auraient dérobé le matériel informatique, les 

fournitures de bureau ainsi que les biens personnels des membres des 2 organisations 

et des visiteurs alors présents sur place (argent, téléphones portables, etc.). Les dégâts 

seraient estimés à plusieurs dizaines de milliers d’euros. Ces événements se seraient 

produits en présence de policiers qui, alertés par les 2 organisations, n’auraient 

cependant procédé à aucune interpellation. La LIDHO et l’APDH auraient déposé 

plainte contre le secrétaire général de la FESCI et le secrétaire de la section « Cité 

Rouge » : le premier aurait publiquement incité les militants de la FESCI à saccager 

les locaux des deux organisations ; quant au second, il aurait mené les opérations 

susmentionnées. 

1254. Des préoccupations ont été exprimées que ces actes de vandalisme et de 

pillage contre la LIDHO et l’APDH se seraient inscris en représailles à leurs activités 

de défense des droits de l’homme, notamment leur dénonciation d’exactions 

commises par la FESCI sur les campus universitaires ivoiriens. 


1255. Le 4 juillet 2007, une délégation du Gouvernement s’est rendue au Haut- 

Commissariat aux Droits de l’Homme à Genève afin d’apporter des premiers éléments 

de réponse à la lettre d’allégations du 7 juin 2007 au sujet de la situation de la Ligue 

Ivoirienne des Droits de l’Homme (LIDHO) et d’Action pour la Protection des 

Droits de l’Homme (APDH). Selon la délégation, le Ministère de la Justice et le 

parquet d’Abidjan ont été saisis au sujet de cette affaire et aucune interpellation n’a 

encore été effectuée. En revanche, les lieux de l’incident ont été sécurisés par les 

forces de l’ordre, l’accès à ces lieux par les membres des organisations concernées 

étant garanti. Quant à la question de l’inaction des forces de l’ordre, les vues 

divergent : certains avancent qu’il y avait une présence policière, mais pas en nombre 

suffisant pour procéder à des interpellations ; d’autres arguent qu’il n’y avait aucune 

présence policière. La délégation a conclu en indiquant que des éclaircissements


Page 246 

venant de la capitale sont attendus prochainement et seront transmis au bureau de la 

Représentante spéciale. 

Observations 

1256. La Représentante spéciale remercie le Gouvernement de ces premiers 

éléments de réponse, mais regrette néanmoins l’absence, au moment de la finalisation 

du présent rapport, de réponse détaillée par écrit à la communication en question et 

demande au Gouvernement d’apporter une telle réponse. 

Urgent appeal 

Jordan 




Detention, sent an urgent appeal to the Government concerning Mr Ahmad Oweidi 

Abbadi, former Jordanian parliamentarian and human rights activist. According to the 

information received, on 3 May 2007, Mr. Ahmad Oweidi Abbadi was arrested after 

he had accused the Jordanian Government of “corruption, human rights abuses and 

attacks to the independence of the media” in an open letter posted in the Internet 

addressed to a US Congressman. Mr. Abbadi was reportedly prosecuted on charges of 

defamation, “violating laws governing the Internet” and “harming the State’s prestige 

and reputation”. 

1258. Mr. Abbadi was a member of parliament from 1989 to 1993, and again from 

1997 to 2001. At the time of writing he headed the Jordanian National Movement, an 

organisation that supports democracy, human rights and political, economic and social 

reform. Mr. Ahmad Oweidi Abbadi was being held at Al-Jwaidah prison. Concern 

was expressed that his arrest may have been related to his legitimate activities in 

defence of human rights, in particular to his exercise of the rights to freedom of 

opinion and expression. 


1259. In a letter dated 22 June 2007, the Permanent Mission of the Hashemite 

Kingdom of Jordan in Geneva replied to the above communication. The letter stated 

that the case of Dr. Ahmad Oweidi Abbadi involved a criminal suit filed by an 

individual, and that it was not a case about opinion or freedom of expression and that 

it was not political in nature. The letter further stated that the Minister for Internal 

Affairs had filed the suit in a personal capacity, not in his capacity as a Government 

official. The complainant had filed the suit because of allegations which Dr. Ahmad 

Oweidi Abbadi had made against him personally, not because of matters pertaining to 

his ministerial work or the general policies of his Ministry. 

1260. According to the Government letter, the case before the courts was not based 

on the Publications Act, which prohibits detention, but rather on other laws such as 

the General Penal Code and the Electronic Data Act, and as such, it followed that the 

offence has nothing to do with freedom of opinion and of expression. The letter stated


Page 247 

that full legal guarantees were afforded to this individual during the examination 

phase, his lawyer was present at all times and he was given the right to challenge the 

detention order before the highest judicial authority (the appeal court), which 

reviewed the case on more than one occasion and decided, on the basis of the 

evidence, that the order issued by the prosecutor general was in conformity with the 

law. 

1261. Dr. Abbadi had submitted more than one complaint to the authorities, either 

through his lawyers or in person, but made no allegations about being subjected to any 

violence that would justify the conduct of a medical examination. In any case, the law 

stipulates that a medical examination must be given to anyone entering a detention 

centre: this was done in this case; as for the results of the examination, any interested 

party, including the lawyer for the accused, can ask for a copy of the investigation 

file. 

1262. The Government further stated that it had no involvement of any kind in the 

case before the judicial authorities. In their view, the detention was not arbitrary; it 

was lawful, and the place of detention was a facility reserved for detainees in which 

no convicted persons are being held. The case was being considered by the courts, 

which have competence for deciding on its merits. No influence was being brought to 

bear on the conduct of the proceedings. 

Observations 

1263. The Special Representative thanks the Jordanian Government for its response 

of 22 June 2007, and trusts that efforts will continue to be made so that the right to 

freedom of expression may be freely respected in Jordan. 

Urgent appeal 

Kenya 



people, sent an urgent appeal to the Government concerning an attack against Mr. Ben 

Ole Koissaba, Chairman of the Maa Civil Society Forum, an organization working 

for the promotion of the rights of the Maasai community in Kenya. 

1265. According to the information received, on the evening of 7 September 2007, 

Mr. Ben Ole Koissaba was participating, together with other members of the Maa 

Civil Society Forum, in a meeting in a hotel in the Ongata Rongia suburb of Nairobi, 

where they had also booked rooms to spend the night. At approximately 10.00 pm, 

when Mr. Koissaba was entering his room, he was reportedly attacked by two 

unidentified men and a woman, who sealed his mouth and injected him with an 

unknown substance. As a result of this injection, Mr. Koissaba allegedly lost 

conscousness, waking up in his hotel room at 4.30 pm the next day. Mr. Koissaba then 

discovered that a flash disc, a digital camera, and several compact discs, containing 

relevant information of different legal cases in which the Maa Civil Society Forum 

was involved, were missing. Apart from his wrist watch, cash and other personal 

valuables carried by Mr. Koissaba were not taken from him. Mr. Koissaba continued


Page 248 

to experience physical pain as a result of the injection and was receiving medical 

treatment at time of writing. He had reported the events to the Ongata Rongei police 

station on 11 September 2007. 

1266. Concern was expressed that the attack suffered by Mr. Koissaba may have 

been directly related to his vocal role in defense of the Maasai community as 

Chairman of the Maa Civil Society Forum, and particularly to legal action in which 

the organization is currently involved. 

Observations 

1267. The Special Representative regrets that, to date, no response to the above 

communication has been received from the Kenyan Government and calls on the 

Government to address the concerns raised in the communication and respond to it at 

its earliest convenience. 


Kyrgyzstan 


Rapporteur on the question of torture, sent a letter of allegations to the Government 

concerning the death of Mr Bektemir Akunov, member of the movement 

Incorporated Front “For the Worthy Future of Kyrgyzstan”, based in Naryn. 

1269. According to information received, on 13 April 2007, at approximately 

7.30pm, Mr Akunov was arrested by police, without a warrant, and taken to the Naryn 

Department of Internal Affairs where he was subsequently detained. The following 

day, Mr Akunov was found dead in his cell, having allegedly committed suicide by 

hanging himself with his shirt. On 16 April 2007, the preliminary results of a 

postmortem examination conducted at Naryn Hospital, revealed that Mr Akunov had 

died as a result of asphyxiation. However, it was also reported that there were wounds 

on his body and that he showed signs of brutal beatings. Mr Akunov was reportedly 

arrested for his alleged involvement in persuading heads of local authorities to move 

to the opposition side. He had also participated in a hunger strike along with 50 to 80 

other individuals calling for constitutional reforms from 5 April to 10 April 2007. 

1270. Grave concern was expressed that the afore-mentioned events may be directly 

related to Mr Akunov’s work in defence of human rights in Kyrgyzstan. Further 

concern was expressed at reports that Mr Akunov had been subjected to inhumane and 

degrading treatment whilst in detention. 


1271. On 21 September 2007, the Special Representative sent a letter of allegations 

to the Government concerning Mr Ramazan Dyryldaev, chairman of the Kyrgyz 

Committee for Human Rights (KCHR), a non-Governmental organisation dedicated 

to the protection and promotion of human rights in Kyrgyzstan. Mr Ramazan 

Dyryldaev was the subject of an allegation letter sent by the Special Representative on 

10 February 2005, to which the Kyrgyz Government responded on 4 March 2005.


Page 249 

1272. According to information received, on 13 September 2007, Mr Ramazan 

Dyryldaev arrived at the offices of the KCHR in Bishkek to find that they had been 

destroyed in a fire. The previous day, neighbours had allegedly heard an explosion 

from within the offices at approximately 7pm. In addition, two unidentified objects, 

which appeared to have been placed through the ventilation duct, were discovered 

burnt-out in the bathroom. Mr Ramazan Dyryldaev and his family had reportedly been 

increasingly subject to harassment in recent months. On 6 April 2007, he had been 

attacked by unidentified persons who threw stones at him. The attack followed Mr 

Ramazan Dyryldaev’s public criticism of the Kyrgyz authorities on a television 

programme in which he had accused prominent figures of corruption. 

1273. Concern was expressed that the aforementioned attack against the offices of 

the KCHR and the harassment against Mr Ramazan Dyryldaev and his family may 

have been related to Mr Ramazan Dyryldaev’s peaceful work in defence of human 

rights in Kyrgyzstan. Further concern was expressed for the physical and mental 

integrity of Mr Ramazan Dyryldaev and his family. 




expression, sent a letter of allegations to the Government concerning Mr Maxim 

Kuleshov, Coordinator of the Tokmok Human Rights Resource Centre. 

1275. According to the information received, on 24 September 2007, Mr. Kuleshov 

was sentenced to 10 days’ imprisonment by the Tokmok city Court for recording open 

discussions that were organised in the local assembly of the city of Tokmok 

concerning a new draft Constitution that will be submitted to referendum on 21 

October 2007, and for taking photos at this event. Mr. Kuleshov was asked by the 

Mayor of the city of Tokmok to stop taking pictures and recording his speech, stating 

that he had no right to do it. Mr. Kuleshov was removed from the meeting hall by 

employees of the city hall and arrested by plain-clothes officers. Mr. Kuleshov spent 

three days in detention in Tokmok, but was released whe the rest of the sentence was 

suspended following the filing of a complaint by his lawyer before the Tchuyski 

Regional Court. 

1276. On 17 October 2007, this same court confirmed the sentence pronounced by 

the Tokmok city Court. Mr. Kuleshov's lawyer filed a new writ before the Supreme 

Court in order for his case to be re-examined. It was reported that Mr. Kuleshov had 

been defending human rights for several years, bringing cases of abuses perpetrated 

by Tokmok officials to administrative justice and cases of torture and ill-treatment to 

criminal courts. In 2006, he was prosecuted for defamation by a representative of the 

local authorities after organising a public awareness campaign against torture. On 12 

September 2007, Mr. Kuleshov was informed that a litigation case against him had 

begun, when a deputy of the Tokmok city hall initiated judicial proceedings against 

him accusing Mr. Kuleshov of harming his honour and professional reputation. Mr. 

Kuleshov had lodged a complaint some months ago accusing Mr. Kadyrkulov of 

breaching the Kyrgyz law on freedom of access to information.


Page 250 

Observations 

1277. The Special Representative regrets the lack of response to any of the three 

communications sent. 

1278. With particular regard to the case of Bektemir Akunov, she would appreciate 

any further information the Kyrgyz Government may be able to provide, and urges the 

Government to undertake an investigation into the Mr Akunov’s death with the 

objective of preventing such serious incidients in which deaths occur in detention in 

the future. 

1279. The Special Representative also calls on the Kyrgyz Government to ensure 

that the right to freedom of assembly and expression is respected in any legislative 

reform at local and national level. 

Urgent appeal 

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 


Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, sent an urgent 

appeal to the Government concerning Dr. Idriss Aboufaied, Secretary-General of an 

organization called “National Union of Reform”, his brother, Mr. Jum’a Aboufaied, 

and Mr. al-Mahdi Saleh Hmeed. Dr. Aboufaied was the subject of an urgent appeal 

sent by these mandate-holders on 28 November 2006, which at time of writing 

remained without a response from the Government. 

1281. According to further information received, Dr. Aboufaied was arrested at his 

home at around 1 am on 16 February 2007 by officers from the Internal Security 

Agency. The arrest was made in relation to Dr. Aboufaied’s involvement in the 

organization of a peaceful demonstration on the following day in Tripoli. This 

demonstration was meant to commemorate the first anniversary of a demonstration in 

the city of Benghazi, during which the police opened fire resulting in the killing of at 

least twelve demonstrators and the injuring of many others. Authorities announced in 

2006 that ten senior officials had been charged in connection with the incident. 

However, none of them have so far been brought to trial. Dr. Aboufaied’s brother 

Jum’a was arrested a few hours later on 16 February 2007 after he had revealed 

information about the arrest of Dr. Aboufaied, inter alia, to a foreign news website. 

1282. Mr. al-Mahdi Saleh Hmeed, who had also participated in the organization of 

the demonstration, was arrested in the afternoon of 16 February 2007. Earlier that day, 

his father’s house had been set on fire and members of his family had been assaulted 

by a group of young men who allegedly acted with the knowledge and consent of the 

authorities. Dr. Aboufaied is the co-founder of the “National Union of Reform”. He 

had been granted refugee status in Switzerland where he had lived and worked as a 

surgeon until September 2006 when he decided to return to his home country. 

1283. Upon request from the authorities, Dr. Aboufaied went to the headquarters of 

the Internal Security Services in Tripoli on 5 November 2006 and was arrested. He 

was detained incommunicado until 29 December 2006 and released without charge.


Page 251 

Concern was expressed that the arrest and detention of Dr. Idriss Aboufaied, Mr. 

Jum’a Aboufaied, and Mr. al-Mahdi Saleh Hmeed might solely have been connected 

to their peaceful and legitimate activities in defence of human rights. 


1284. The Special Representative acknowledges receipt of a letter dated 5 November 

2007, in which the Libyan Government responded to the above communication. The 

response from the Government is awaiting translation and will be dealt with in the 

next report. 

Observations 

1285. The Special Representative thanks the Government for its response of 5 

November and hopes that peaceful demonstration by human rights defenders will be 

considered as an integral part of a functioning civil society in Libya. 


Malaysia 



of living, sent a letter of allegations to the Government concerning the detention of a 

number of activists and villagers who were arrested while protesting against the 

demolition of houses in Kampong Berembang including S. Arutchelvan, Chang Lih 

Kang, , Lechumy Devi Doraisamy, Kumaraveel, Mohan, Parames Elumalai, 

Ramachanthiran Ananthan, Ramalingam Thirumalai, Sevan, Thevarajan 

Ramasamy, V. Wani, Sugmaran, Ebrahim Haris Awalluddin and Fiqtriey bin Al 

Hakimi, and Lee Huat Seng, all members of human rights and civil society 

organisations in Malaysia and villagers Adli Abdul Rahman, Ahmad Tamrin, 

Awalluddin Sharif, Azman Mohd, Faezae Ramzi, Mohd Rajis and Sabariah 

Ayoub. 

1287. According to the information received, on 20 November 2006, the 

aforementioned individuals were arrested as they protested against the demolition of 

houses in Kampong Berembang, Jalan Ampang. Sources indicate that the police, 

supported by the Ampang Jaya local council enforcement unit, the Majlis Perbandaran 

Ampang Jaya (MPAJ) used force to disperse the crowd at the demolition site and one 

villager, Norhasliana binti Osman, was reportedly beaten unconscious. The police 

allegedly proceeded to arrest some of the activists and villagers present and brought 

them to Ulu Kelang police station from where they were released on police bail at 

approximately 11:30 that night. However, it was reported that they would have to 

attend the Ampang Magistrate Court on 4 December 2006. 

1288. In addition, on 22 and 23 November 2006, the agents of the MPAJ allegedly 

tried to demolish the praying room; the last structure to remain intact in the village 

where the former residents continue to live in tents and makeshift houses. According 

to reports, 50 families who had lived on the disputed land for more than 30 years were 

forcefully evicted before their alternative homes were completed under Selangor’s


Page 252 

policy of “Zero Squatters”. Furthermore, it was reported that the land in question was 

still the subject of an ongoing court case which the Shah Alam High Court recently 

postponed until April 2007. Concern was expressed that the aforementioned activists 

and villagers may have been arrested and detained on the basis of their legitimate 

activities in the defence of human rights and in particular the right to adequate 

housing and against forced evictions. 

Urgent appeal 



expression, sent an urgent appeal to the Government concerning the arrest and 

detention of Mr Nyam Kee Han, Coordinator and Mr See Siew Min, member of the 

secretariat of Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) in Johor. SURAM is a well known 

human rights organization which monitors and documents human rights violations. 

1290. According to information received, on 17 June 2007, at approximately 

11:30am, Mr Nyam and Mr See were arrested by members of the Johor Bahru police 

force during a peaceful demonstration outside the residence of the Chief Minister 

(Menteri Besar) of Jahor State, calling on the Government official to take measures to 

reduce crime rates in the State. At the time of their arrest, Mr Nyam and Mr See were 

distributing leaflets to encourage the immediate establishment of an Independent 

Police Complaint and Misconduct Commission, in line with one of 125 

recommendations put forward by the Royal Commission on police reform. 

1291. According to reports, Mr Nyam and Mr See appeared before the Magistrates 

Court on 18 June 2007 where the police were granted a 24-hour remand order. Mr 

Nyam and Mr See were being detained at Johor Bahru (Selatan) Police Station and at 

time of writing, no official charges had been issued against them. Concern was 

expressed that the arrest and detention of Mr Nyam and Mr See are directly related to 

their legitimate work in defence of human rights in the country. 


1292. In a letter dated 8 August 2007, the Malaysian Government replied to the 

above communication, stating that the aforementioned had been arrested during an 

assembly which was unlawful, as no permit to hold a gathering had been obtained. 

The two activists had been arrested on suspicion of distribution of leaflets of a 

seditious nature and were and upon arrest, these documents were seized from them. 

The Government letter further stated that the participants had been instructed to 

disperse shortly before being arrested. Following their 24 –hour remand, both men 

were released and no charges were brought against them. 


2006 

1293. Furthermore, in a letter dated 13 February 2007 the Malaysian Government 

responded to an urgent appeal sent by the Special Representative on 23 August 2006, 

together with the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers and 

the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, concerning death threats


Page 253 

made against Mr Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, a lawyer representing Ms Lina Joy, a woman 

who had converted from Islam to Christianity. The Government letter stated that Mr 

Sarwar had lodged a complaint and that an investigation was being conducted to 

ascertain the origin of the threatening e-mails being circulated to incite action against 

him. The letter also stated that Mr Sarwar had expressed satisfaction with the level of 

cooperation extended to him by the Malaysian police force in finding a resolution to 

the case. 

1294. In a letter dated 29 May 2007 the Malaysian Government responded to an 

urgent appeal sent by the Special Representative on 30 June 2005, together with the 


and expression concerning the arrest and detention of a group of people following a 

gathering of citizens of Myanmar outside the embassy of the latter state. The 

Government letter stated that the demonstration of 16 June was held without a permit 

and that when police officers arrived they spoke with the leader of the protest and told 

him that the demonstrators had twenty minutes to submit a note of protest to the 

Embassy. When this time had elapsed, the police officers ordered the protesters to 

disperse and warned that if they did not do so, they would be arrested. As those 

gathered did not comply, instead wishing to remain a further one or two hours, they 

were duly arrested. 

1295. The letter further stated that as the police were unable to complete their 

investigations in 24 hours, they were granted a fortnight order extending the detention 

period until 30 June 2005. On 28 June 2005, 64 protesters were charged with offenses 

under the Police and Immigration Acts, of which 27 pleaded guilty to all three charges 

on 21 December 2005, and were sentenced to three months imprisonment form date 

of arrest. The remaining protesters were charged on 7 March 2006 with two minors 

charged before the juvenile court. No information was given in the Government letter 

regarding the outcome of these judicial proceedings. 

Observations 

1296. The Special Representative thanks the Malaysian Government for its 

responses to three communications and urges that it make every effort to respect and 

support the right to freedom of expression and assembly, and in particular that law 

enforcement agents exercise restraint when dealing with gatherings of people 

assembled for the purposes of peaceful protest. 


Mexico 

1297. El 5 de diciembre de 2006, la Representante Especial, junto con la Presidente- 

Relatora del Grupo de Trabajo sobre la Detención Arbitraria señalaron a la atención 

urgente de su Gobierno la información recibida en relación con el Sr. Alberto 

Tacume Cilia Ocampo, miembro de la organización Centro de Derechos Humanos 

Yaxkin, con sede en Ciudad de México, y dos personas no identificadas que le 

acompañaban, la organización Servicios para una Educación Alternativa (EDUCA), 

una organización que trabaja en la promoción de los derechos humanos y el desarrollo 

comunitario y también el sacerdote Carlos Franco Pérez Méndez.


Page 254 

1298. Según la información recibida, el 27 de noviembre de 2006, el Sr. Alberto 

Tacume Cilia Ocampo y otras dos personas no identificadas que le acompañaban, 

fueron detenidas en Oaxaca por agentes de la Policía del Estado y conducidas a la 

prisión Santa María Ixcatel. El Sr. Cilia Ocampo se encontraba investigando 

alegaciones de posibles violaciones a los derechos humanos perpetradas durante las 

manifestaciones que tuvieron lugar en torno al recinto universitario de Oaxaca durante 

el 25 y 26 de noviembre de 2006. Se les habría negado recibir visitas de sus familiares 

y de sus abogados. Se ha afirmado que estas personas fueron detenidas mientras 

realizaban un trabajo legítimo de defensa y protección de los derechos humanos. 

1299. Se informa también que locutores de Radio Ciudadana, una radioemisora progobierno 

estatal pirata que transmite desde un lugar desconocido, habrían incitado a la 

población, el mismo día 27 de noviembre, a atacar e incendiar la sede de la 

organización EDUCA, Locutores de la mencionada radiodifusora estarían señalando 

que en la sede de EDUCA se fabrican artefactos incendiarios caseros conocidos como 

"cócteles Molotov". 

1300. Las informaciones señalan también que el sacerdote Carlos Franco Pérez 

Méndez estaría siendo víctima de una serie de actos de intimidación y atentados 

alentados por los locutores de la mencionada Radio Ciudadana. Su furgoneta habría 

sido objeto de disparos de armas de fuego mientras se encontraba estacionada frente a 

la iglesia de Siete Príncipes, en la ciudad de Oaxaca. Previamente, tres individuos no 

identificados realizaron disparos al aire frente a la fachada de la Iglesia. Se afirma 

que estos actos estarían motivados por la asistencia que el Padre Franco Pérez 

Méndez prestó a los heridos durante las últimas manifestaciones y enfrentamientos 

callejeros. 

1301. Se afirma por último que locutores de Radio Ciudadana continúan alentado a 

la población de Oaxaca a cometer atentados y actos de agresión contra diversas 

figuras públicas, representantes de organizaciones sociales y eclesiales así como 

contra simpatizantes de la organización Asamblea Popular del Pueblo de Oaxaca 

(APPO). Pese a ello, las autoridades no habrían todavía iniciado una investigación de 

estos hechos ni adoptado las medidas necesarias para impedir que continúen. 

1302. Se expresó preocupación por los actos de hostigamiento en contra de las 

personas y las organizaciones arriba mencionadas porque se temía que pudieran estar 

relacionados con sus actividades en defensa de los derechos humanos, en particular su 

trabajo documentando las violaciones de los derechos humanos. 


1303. Mediante comunicación de 31 de enero de 2007, el Gobierno de México 

proporcionó información con respecto al llamamiento enviado el 5 de diciembre de 

2006. El Gobierno informó que los hechos referidos en el llamamiento no eran ciertos. 

Sr. Alberto Tacume Cilia Ocampo y otras dos personas (Omar Cruz Rodríguez 

Camarena y Sarah Ilith Weldon) fueron detenidos el 28 de noviembre de 2006, por 

elementos de la policía preventiva del Estado de Oaxaca, pero no fue en las 

condiciones referidas en el llamamiento urgente.


Page 255 

1304. La detención obedeció a que las tres personas incitaron a la gente a violencia 

mientras prendían fuego a una motocicleta y agredirían a quien intentaba detenerlos, 

lanzándoles canicas, piedras y botellas. Se procedió a poner a las tres personas de la 

autoridad menestral por su participación en la comisión de los delitos de sedición, 

rebelión, conspiración y daños por incendio. 

1305. Se inició la averiguación previa y fueron internados en el Reclusorio de 

Ixcotel. El 28 de noviembre de 2006, Sarah Ilith Weldon fue excarcelecada y puesta a 

disposición del Instituto Nacional de Migración (INAMI) por ser de nacionalidad 

francesa. La autoridad migratoria determinó que había realizando actividades 

políticas, que eran diversas a las autorizadas para su ingreso y estancia en el país. Por 

ello, se le inició el procedimiento administrativo correspondiente. De conformidad 

con el debido proceso legal, la normativa vigente en México se le concedió el derecho 

de contactar a su representación diplomática y de poder pedir refugio en México en 

caso de enfrentar un riesgo para regresar a su país de origen. Durante 20 de noviembre 

de 2006 la Sra. Weldon fue presentada ante del Consulado en la ciudad de México 

D.F. El 1 de diciembre 2006 se le notificó su expulsión de los Estados Unidos 

Mexicanos. 

1306. El Gobierno informó de que el 7 de diciembre de 2006, el Sr. Alberto Tlacael 

Cilia Ocampo, obtuvo su libertad bajo fianza. Por lo que se refiere a las supuestas 

amenazas y actos de hostagamiento cometidas por “Radio Ciudadana”, en particular 

los hechos de los que supuestamente fue victima el Sacerdote Carlos Franco Pérez 

Méndez, las autoridades de Oaxaca han informado que no tienen registro de ninguna 

denuncia, lo cual impide afirmar o negar tal aservación. El Gobierno “solicita a esos 

mecanismos internacionales conminen a los afectados a presentar su denuncia ante las 

autoridades correspondientes para que se investiguen los hechos que les aquejan y en 

su caso se sancione a los responsables.” 


1307. El 21 de diciembre de 2006, la Representante Especial, junto con el Relator 

Especial sobre la independencia de magistrados y abogados, señalaron a la atención 

urgente de su Gobierno la información recibida en relación con la Señora Yésica 

Sanchez Maya, abogada y Presidenta de la Liga Mexicana por la Defensa de los 

Derechos Humanos (LIMEDDH) filial Oaxaca, y la Señora Aline Castellanos 

Jurado, ex-Presidenta de dicha organización y miembro del Consorcio para el 

Dialogo Parlamentario y la Equidad AC. La LIMEDDH fue sujeto de una 

comunicación enviada a Su Gobierno, de la Representante Especial del Secretario- 

General para los defensores de los derechos humanos, con fecha de 3 de noviembre de 

2006. 

1308. De acuerdo con la información recibida, el 7 de diciembre de 2006, las Sras. 

Yésica Sanchez Maya y Aline Castellanos Jurado habrían recibido una orden de 

aprehensión del juzgado primero penal de primera instancia del distrito judicial de 

Etla, Oaxaca. Supuestamente las dos activistas fueron acusadas del delito de despojo 

agravado contra la Corporación Oaxaqueña de Radio y Televisión, Canal 9, en hechos 

ocurridos el 1 de agosto de 2006.


Page 256 

1309. Según los informes, la LIMEDDH ha presentado varios informes y acciones 

urgentes sobre graves violaciones de derechos humanos llevadas a cabo durante la 

represión de las protestas sociales que han tenido lugar desde mayo de 2006 en 

Oaxaca. También, el 27 de octubre de 2006, la Sra. Yésica Sanchez Maya denunció 

estas mismas violaciones ante de la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos 

(CIDH) en Washington, durante una audiencia requerida por la LIMEDDH. 

1310. Se expresó preocupación sobre la orden de aprehensión en contra de las Sras. 

Yésica Sanchez Maya y Aline Castellanos Jurado que puede representar un intento de 

disuadir a todos los miembros de LIMEDDH de continuar con su trabajo en defensa 

de los derechos humanos, y en particular de su labor en su calidad de observadores, 

supervisando y documentando las violaciones de los derechos humanos. 


1311. El 16 de enero de 2007 la Representante Especial señaló a la atención urgente 

de su Gobierno la información recibida en relación con los actos de hostigamiento en 

contra de los defensores de derechos humanos en Oaxaca, en particular el Señor 

Artemio Desiderio, integrante de la organización de derechos humanos dominada 

Comité Cerezo y la Señora Yésica Sánchez Maya, Presidenta de la filial Oaxaca de la 

Liga Mexicana por la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos (LIMEDDH). Integrantes 

del Comité Cerezo fue objeto de una comunicación enviada a Su Gobierno, por la 


humanos, con fecha de 14 de septiembre de 2006 y la LIMEDDH fue objeto de una 

comunicación enviada a Su Gobierno, por la Representante Especial del Secretario- 

General para los defensores de los derechos humanos, con fecha de 3 de noviembre de 

2006. La situación de la Sra. Yésica Sanchez Maya fue asimismo objeto de un 

llamamiento urgente enviado por Relator Especial sobre la independencia de 

magistrados y abogados y la Representante Especial del Secretario-General para los 

defensores de los derechos humanos, con fecha de 21 de diciembre de 2006. 

1312. De acuerdo con la información recibida, el 8 de enero de 2007, a las 10 de la 

noche, un desconocido vestido de civil se habría quedado observando al Sr. Artemio 

Desiderio y una compañera, frente a la Iglesia de los Pobres en la ciudad de Oaxaca 

hasta que el Sr. Aretemio Desiderio tomó el autobús a su domicilio. 

1313. Anteriormente, el 29 de diciembre de 2006, otro individuo vestido de civil, 

habría seguido al Sr. Artemio Desiderio, tomando el mismo autobús y bajando en la 

misma parada frente a la Iglesia de los Pobres. Después de bajar del autobús el 

desconocido habría seguido la vigilancia durante media hora. 

1314. Según los informes, el 8 de diciembre de 2006 el Sr. Desiderio y una 

compañera aparcaron el vehiculo utilitario de la LIMEDDH afuera del Tribunal 

Federal donde acudieron en relación con algunos casos de individuos encarcelados en 

el penal de Tlacolula de Matamoros. Según los informes, cuatro personas no 

identificadas y vestidas de civil les habrían adelantado y uno de ellos apuntó al Sr. 

Desiderio con la mano simulando una pistola y fingió dispararla. Supuestamente 

cuando la compañera del Sr. Desiderio tomó su celular, el mismo individuo les gritó 

“llamen a quien quieran, los va a cargar la chingada, del plomazo no se salvan” antes 

de mirarles algunos minutos y marcharse.


Page 257 

1315. Además, el 10 de noviembre, a las 8.30 de la noche, el Sr. Desiderio fue 

supuestamente victima de un ataque armado. Según los informes, al salir de las 

oficinas de la LIMEDDH, dos desconocidos que viajaban en motocicleta, se acercaron 

al Sr. Desiderio y le encañonaron una pistola. El Sr. Desiderio se lanzó al piso cuando 

dispararon y escuchó dos disparos más. Los agresores se habrían ido lentamente y el 

Sr. Desiderio habría llamado a sus parientes que vivían cerca del barrio donde tuvo 

lugar el incidente y vinieron a acompañarle a su casa. 

1316. Por otra parte, según adicional información recibida, en una carta dirigida al 

Gobernador Ulises Ruiz Ortiz, cinco detenidos del Penal de Tlacolula de Matamoros 

habrían acusado a la Sra. Yésica Sánchez Maya de “protagonizar actos violentos y de 

obligarlos a respaldar a la APPO (Asamblea Popular de los Pueblos en Oaxaca)”. 

Además habrían declarado que fueron “engañados por organizaciones defensoras de 

derechos humanos”. El 31 de diciembre de 2006 los presos habrían dicho, durante 

una conferencia de prensa, que fueron obligados a firmar la carta por parte de un 

grupo de abogados dirigido por el Sr. José Juárez. Según los informes, hasta la fecha, 

las autoridades no habrían tomado medidas para proteger al Sr. Artemio Desiderio ni 

a la Sra. Yésica Sánchez Maya. 

1317. La Representante Especial reiteró preocupación por los actos de intimidación 

en contra de los defensores de derechos humanos en Oaxaca porque se teme que 

pueden representar un intento de disuadirles de llevar a cabo su trabajo en defensa de 

los derechos humanos. Además se expresa preocupación por la seguridad del Sr. 

Artemio Desiderio porque se teme que los actos de intimidación que habría sufrido 

pueden estar relacionados con sus actividades en defensa de de los derechos de las 

personas encarceladas en México por razones políticas. También se teme que los 

hostigamientos en contra de la Sra. Yésica Sánchez Maya pueden estar relacionados 

con su trabajo con la LIMEDDH, y en particular su labor en su calidad de 

observadores, supervisando y documentando las violaciones de los derechos humanos. 


1318. El 8 de marzo de 2007, la Representante Especial, junto con Relator Especial 


indígenas, envió un llamamiento urgente al Gobierno señalando informaciones 

recibidas en relación con supuestas amenazas y actos de hostigamiento en contra de 

los integrantes del Centro de Investigaciones Económicas y Políticas de Acción 

Comunitaria A.C. (CIEPAC), una organización dedicada a la defensa de los 

derechos de los pueblos indígenas con sede en San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas. 

De acuerdo con la información recibida, el pasado 26 de febrero, los integrantes del 

CIEPAC encontraron una nota escrita en una hoja de cuaderno que habría sido 

arrojada por encima de la puerta de sus oficinas, aproximadamente entre las 9.20 y las 

9.30 horas. Dicha nota contenía el siguiente mensaje: “Disfruta tu ultimo día. Te 

mataremos, estoy buscándote y ya te encontramos”. 

1319. Se daba la circunstancia de que el CIEPAC ha sido objeto de distintas 

amenazas y actos de hostigamiento en los últimos meses. El 31 de diciembre de 2006, 

a las 9 horas, la oficina del CIEPAC habría sido objeto de un intento de allanamiento 

por un desconocido (cabello negro, estatura mediana y chamarra negra con las letras


Page 258 

“INFINITUM” escritas en la espalda). Dicho individuo habría abierto una de las dos 

cerraduras del portón de entrada gracias a una copia que obraba en su poder, pero no 

habría logrado entrar al no haber conseguido forzar la segunda chapa. Dicha persona 

se habría dado finalmente a la fuga, sin conseguir su propósito, en un vehículo marca 

Volskwagen sedán de color rojo que se habría encontraba estacionado junto a la 

oficina, donde le habría esperado una segunda persona. 

1320. El 3 de febrero, una integrante del CIEPAC se percató de que su nombre en el 

portón de la casa se encontraba marcado, borrándolo inmediatamente. El 13 de 

febrero, frente a la misma casa se habría encontrado un sujeto (de bigotes, estatura 

mediana, moreno, aproximadamente 40 años) con el uniforme azul característico de la 

Policía Preventiva. Al verla llegar y empezar a abrir su puerta, el uniformado se le 

habría acercado para preguntar si podía entrar en su casa para inspeccionar el portón 

desde el interior, con el pretexto de que estaba construyendo uno y que le gustaba ése 

en particular. Frente a la negativa de la integrante del CIEPAC, el uniformado habría 

contestado “No importa, ya lo vi por fuera”, y se habría marchado. 

1321. El día 24 de febrero, a la 1.30 horas, saliendo de una cena del equipo CIEPAC 

en casa de una de sus integrantes, varios miembros del centro habrían sido 

interceptados en el momento de subir a sus vehículos por seis uniformados de la 

Policía Preventiva, dos de ellos encapuchados, a bordo de la patrulla PS-344, portando 

armas de gran calibre. Mientras solicitaban documentos de identidad a dos miembros 

de la organización, uno de los uniformados habría abordado físicamente a otro 

miembro, exigiéndole agresivamente que se diera vuelta en contra del vehículo para 

ser cateado. Mientras solicitaban documentos de identificación de dos integrantes de 

la organización, uno de los uniformados habría abordado físicamente a 

otro integrante, exigiéndole agresivamente que se diera vuelta en contra del vehículo 

para ser cateado. 

1322. El Relator Especial y la Representante Especial expresaron su preocupación 

por la posible relación entre las amenazas y actos de hostigamiento reportados con la 

labor realizada por el CIEPAC en relación con el fortalecimiento de los procesos 

sociales de los pueblos indígenas de Chiapas y para la promoción y la defensa de sus 

derechos humanos. 

1323. El Relator Especial y la Representante Especial instaron al Gobierno a que 

adopte todas las medidas necesarias para proteger los derechos y las libertades de los 

integrantes del CIEPAC, investigar, procesar e imponer las sanciones adecuadas a 

cualquier persona responsable de las violaciones alegadas. Instaron también al 

Gobierno a que tome las medidas eficaces para evitar que se repitan tales hechos. 

Observaciones 

1324. La Representante Especial lamenta no haber recibido respuesta a su 

comunicación de 8 de marzo de 2007 en el momento de finalización del presente 

informe. 


1325. El 19 de marzo de 2007, la Representante Especial, junto con la Presidente- 

Relatora del Grupo de Trabajo sobre la Detención Arbitraria, envió un llamamiento


Page 259 

urgente al Gobierno señalando informaciones recibidas en relación con la situación en 

la que se encuentre el Sr. Jesús Emiliano García. Sr. Jesús Emiliano García, 

dirigente de la organización denominada Frente Democrático Campesino (FDC), 

organización con presencia en el Estado de Chihuahua, fue arrestado el 9 de marzo de 

2007, hacia las 13h00 horas, por agentes de la Agencia Federal de Investigaciones 

(AFI) quienes no presentaron orden de captura alguna. El Sr. García fue detenido en 

las afueras de las oficinas del FDC, ubicadas en la calle Coronado de la ciudad de 

Chihuahua, en presencia de su esposa, Sra. Victoria Hernández Olmos, que se 

encuentra en estado de siete meses de embarazo. Se afirma que al igual que su marido, 

la Sra. Hernández Olmos fue amenazada y maltratada por los agentes. 

1326. El operativo de la Agencia federal de Investigaciones contó con el apoyo de 

agentes de la policía municipal y de la policía del Estado. El Sr. García fue conducido 

esposado a un vehículo sin placas de identificación. Inmediatamente después del 

arresto, la esposa del Sr. García se dirigió a las oficinas de la Procuraduría General de 

la República (PGR) con el fin de verificar su paradero y si realmente las personas que 

realizaron la aprehensión eran agentes de dicha institución. El Subdelegado le informó 

que su marido estaba detenido en el Centro de Rehabilitación Social (CERESO) de 

Chihuahua y que su caso sería llevado ante el Décimo Juzgado de lo Federal. Al día 

siguiente, personal judicial se trasladó al CERESO para tomar la declaración del Sr. 

García. Dicha diligencia se realizó sin la presencia de abogado defensor. El Sr. García 

se negó a hablar. 

1327. Se afirma también que esta persona, al igual que los dirigentes del FDC, Sres. 

Rogelio Ruelas, Francisco Escalante, Javier Castillo y Víctor M. Quintana, habrían 

sido denunciados por sabotaje por la delegación en Chihuahua de la Secretaría de 

Agricultura, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación (SAGARPA). El sabotaje está 

considerado como un delito grave, sin derecho a fianza, tipificado por el Código Penal 

del Estado Federal. La acusación habría sido presentada luego de la movilización 

realizada por el FDC el 19 y 20 de febrero para solicitar la puesta en marcha de un 

programa emergente para la preparación de tierras para la siembra de maíz y frijoles. 

La denuncia de la SAGARPA habría sido tramitada con extrema rapidez y celeridad, 

no habiéndose notificado a los denunciados. La denuncia sería desproporcionada, sin 

mayor fundamento, de carácter político y habría sido formulada con el objeto de 

amedrentar a quienes protestan contra funcionarios de la delegación SAGARPA de 

Chihuahua. Se afirma también que anteriormente la SAGARPA se limitaba a 

interponer denuncias por daños, pero esta vez ha denunciado sabotaje. 


actividad en defensa de los derechos humanos del Frente Democrático Campesino en 

particular su trabajo en atender las demandas de los campesinos pobres. 


1329. Mediante comunicación de 17 de agosto de 2007, el Gobierno de México 

proporcionó información con respecto al llamamiento enviado el 19 de marzo de 

2007. El Gobierno informó de que al momento de la detención del Sr. García y hasta 

lo que va del procedimiento que se sigue en su contra, en ningún momento se agredió 

a ninguna persona, menos aun a la esposa del Sr. García, la Sra. Victoria Hernández 

Olmos. Además, la detención del Sr. García se llevo a cabo en apego a la


Page 260 

normatividad y los derechos humanos, respetando en todo momento su integridad 

física. 


1330. El 21 de marzo de 2007 la Representante Especial, señaló a la atención 

urgente de su Gobierno la información recibida en relación con la Sra. Elena López 

Hernández, miembro de la Red Solidaria Década Contra la Impunidad (RSDCI). La 

RSDCI es una organización conformada por familiares y víctimas de violaciones de 

derechos humanos y también por organizaciones no gubernamentales y defensores de 

derechos humanos. 

1331. De acuerdo con la información recibida, el 7 de marzo de 2007, al regresar a 

su casa, la Sra. López Hernández habría recibido una llamada telefónica anónima 

durante la cual le habría dicho, en tono amenazante, ‘ya se donde vives’. Más tarde, 

mientras estaba reunida con varios compañeros de la organización para evaluar la 

situación, el teléfono sonó tres veces. Nadie lo habría contestado y las llamadas 

habrían sido enviadas al buzón de un móvil. Se informa que actualmente se está 

preparando una denuncia por las nuevas amenazas ante el Ministerio Público. 

1332. Anteriormente, el 12 de enero de 2007, la Sra. López Hernández habría 

recibido una llamada telefónica anónima en la que le dijeron "escucha perra lo que les 

pasa a los que defienden guerrilleros” al termino de este mensaje le habrían producido 

dos sonidos de cohetes, aproximadamente a los 20 minutos después, volvieron a 

llamarle dejándole el mismo mensaje. 


actividad en defensa de los derechos humanos de la Sra. López Hernández, en 

particular su participación en la defensa de los derechos indígenas. Se expresó 

profunda preocupación por la seguridad e integridad física de la Sra. López 

Hernández y su familia así como la del resto de los miembros de la Red Solidaria 

Década Contra la Impunidad (RSDCI). 


1334. Mediante comunicación de 16 de junio de 2007, el Gobierno de México 

proporcionó información con respecto al llamamiento enviado el 21 de marzo de 

2007. El Gobierno informó de que el Ministerio Público inició la averiguación previa 

con motivo de la denuncia de hechos presentada por el Señor Javier Enríquez Sam, 

Coordinador del Colectivo contra la Tortura y la Impunidad, derivada de una llamada 

telefónica que consideraron amenazante en perjuicio de la señora Elena López 

Hernández. 

1335. Una vez practicadas las diligencias correspondientes dentro de la citada 

indagatoria, el Ministerio Publico se declaró incompetente en razón de la materia, 

remitiendo el 23 de mayo de 2007 las actuaciones a la Procuraduría General del 

Distrito Federal, a fin de que se continúe con las investigaciones. Por el momento se 

está en espera de recibir mayores elementos. 

Llamamiento urgente


Page 261 

1336. El 24 de Mayo de 2007 la Representante Especial, junto con Relator Especial 

sobre la venta de niños, la prostitución infantil y la utilización de niños en la 

pornografía, de Relatora Especial sobre la violencia contra la mujer, con inclusión de 

sus causas y consecuencias señalaron a la atención urgente de su Gobierno la 

información recibida en relación con la Sra. Lydia Cacho Ribeiro, periodista y 

defensora de derechos humanos. La Sra. Ribeiro es la directora y fundadora del 

Centro Integral de Atención a las Mujeres (CIAM) en Cancún, una organización nogubernamental 

que se dedica a la provisión de refugio y apoyo para las víctimas de 

violencia familiar, violencia sexual, y trata. En 2007 recibió el premio Ginetta Sagan 

para la protección de los derechos de mujeres, niñas y niños. La Sra. Cacho Ribeiro 

fue el objeto de un llamamiento urgente enviado por el Relator Especial sobre la 

promoción del derecho a la libertad de opinión y de expresión y la Representante 

Especial del Secretario-General para los defensores de los derechos humanos el 29 de 

diciembre de 2005, y de dos llamamientos urgentes enviados por el Relator Especial 

sobre la promoción del derecho a la libertad de opinión y de expresión, el Relator 

Especial sobre la venta de niños, la prostitución infantil y la utilización de niños en la 

pornografía, la Relatora Especial sobre la violencia contra la mujer, con inclusión de 

sus causas y consecuencias y la Representante Especial del Secretario-General para 

los defensores de los derechos humanos el 18 de julio de 2005 y el 23 de febrero de 

2005. 

1337. De acuerdo con la información recibida, el 7 de mayo de 2007, hacia las 12:20 

horas, la Sra. Cacho Ribeiro llegó de Ciudad Juárez al Aeropuerto Internacional de la 

Ciudad de México acompañada de tres personas de la Agencia Federal de 

Investigaciones (AFI) que la escoltan a raíz de las amenazas de muerte que habría 

recibido por su trabajo. La Sra. Cacho Ribeiro, tres periodistas y los tres agentes 

viajaban del aeropuerto en un vehículo Suburban, propiedad de la Procuraduría 

General de la República. Después de viajar cinco kilómetros, entre Viaducto y Eje 

Central (Ciudad de México), el vehículo comenzó a perder el control y el chofer tuvo 

que detenerlo. Al bajar del vehículo los agentes habrían encontrado que la llanta y la 

rueda estaban a punto de salirse. Según la información recibida, los agentes de AFI 

consideraron que el problema del vehículo habría sido provocado deliberadamente 

para causar un accidente. La Sra. Cacho Ribeiro habría denunciado oficialmente el 

incidente ante la policía, exigiendo una investigación exhaustiva en lo sucedido. 

1338. La Sra. Ribeiro es autora del libro “Los demonios de Eden: El poder detrás de 

la pornografía infantil”, en el cual denuncia a la mafia de la pederastia en México, 

implicando a varios personajes públicos. En 2004, la Sra. Cacho Ribeiro habría sido 

acusada de difamación y a raíz de estas acusaciones fue detenida en diciembre de 

2005. En 1999 fue víctima de una violación, un acto de intimidación con la intención 

de advertirle de los peligros de seguir con sus investigaciones sobre los crímenes de 

violencia sexual en México. 

1339. Se expresa profunda preocupación por la seguridad e integridad física de la 

Sra. Ribeiro y se teme que estos eventos puedan estar relacionados con la actividad en 

defensa de los derechos humanos de la Sra. Ribeiro, en particular su participación en 

la protección de los derechos de las mujeres y de los niños en México. 

Llamamiento urgente


Page 262 

1340. El 4 de junio de 2007 la Representante Especial señaló a la atención urgente 

de su Gobierno la información recibida en relación con el Sr. Idelfonso Zamora y sus 

dos hijos, el Sr. Aldo Zamora y el Sr. Misael Zamora, defensores del medio 

ambiente de San Juan Atzingo, en la zona del Parque Reserva Ecológica Lagunas de 

Zempoala, ubicado en los estados de México y Morelos. 

1341. De acuerdo con la información recibida, el 15 de mayo de 2007, el Sr. Aldo 

Zamora y su hermano, el Sr. Misael Zamora fueron emboscados mientras se dirigían 

en coche hacia el pueblo de Santa Lucia, cerca de su casa en la aldea de San Juan 

Atzinga, municipio de Ocuilán. Según se informa, cuatro individuos, presuntamente 

taladores ilegales, les habrían atacado. Al parecer, el Sr. Aldo Zamora fue asesinado 

de un disparo mientras que el Sr. Misael Zamora resultó gravemente herido en el 

ataque y fue llevado al hospital. El Sr. Misael Zamora habría reconocido a los 

agresores y habría denunciado oficialmente el ataque ante la policía y ante la 

Defensoría del Pueblo. 

1342. Según se informa, entre junio de 2006 y mayo de 2007 el Sr. Aldo Zamora y 

el Sr. Misael Zamora colaboraron con Greenpeace en la recolecta de datos para llevar 

a cabo un estudio que permitiera evaluar los impactos de la tala ilegal en los bosques 

de San Juan Atzingo. Desde el 2004, el Sr. Idelfonso Zamora fue objeto de múltiples 

amenazas, presuntamente por parte de los miembros de estas bandas de talamontes 

ilegales. 


defensa de los derechos humanos del Sr. Idelfonso Zamora y sus dos hijos, el Sr. Aldo 

Zamora y el Sr. Misael Zamora, y se expresa una profunda preocupación por la 

seguridad e integridad física de los otros miembros de la familia Zamora. 


1344. Mediante comunicación de 17 de septiembre de 2007, el Gobierno de México 

proporcionó información con respecto al llamamiento enviado el 4 de junio de 2007. 

El Gobierno informó de que a partir del 28 de mayo de 2007, se designó una auto 

patrulla con dos policías municipales para la seguridad de la familia Zamora 

Baldomero. La patrulla se encuentra permanentemente en el exterior de su domicilio. 

El 4 de junio de 2007, la Comisión de Derechos Humanos del Estado de México 

inicio de oficio una investigación relacionada con la tala de árboles en los Bosques del 

Izta-Popo. En virtud del ataque que sufrió la familia Zamora, el 6 de junio de 2007, la 

Comisión solicito al Comisionado de la Agencia Seguridad Estatal que se 

implementaran medidas cautelares precautorias a fin de garantizar y proteger la 

integridad física del Sr. Ildefonso Zamora y su familia. 

1345. En respuesta a la solicitud de la Comisión, se llevan a cabo recorridos de 

patrullaje constantes sobre la zona para reforzar la seguridad de todos los habitantes 

del municipio. El gobierno estatal ha implementado cuatro operativos en los que han 

participado entre 200 y 250 elementos, con el propósito de salvaguardar el orden en el 

municipio de Ocuilan y erradicar la tala clandestina de árboles, teniendo para ello una 

estrecha coordinación con las Dependencias Federales, Estatales y Municipales. En 

seguimiento a lo anterior, la Dirección General de la Protectora de Bosques del Estado


Page 263 

de México informo que se crearon grupos especificados de inspección y vigilancia 

forestal del Estado de México, que realizan recorridos operativos, para inhibir la tala 

ilegal. 


1346. El 8 de junio de 2007 la Representante Especial señaló a la atención urgente 

de su Gobierno la información recibida en relación con la Sra. Mayem Pilar 

Arellanes Cano, defensora de los derechos humanos y abogada. La Sra. Arellanes 

Cano es miembro de un movimiento de defensa de los presos políticos de 25 de 

noviembre de 2006, denominado “Comité de Liberación 25 de Noviembre” así como 

también integrante del Colectivo de Abogados y Abogadas Víctimas y Representantes 

de Víctimas de Detenciones Arbitrarias. 


13:15 horas, la Sra. Arellanes Cano, se dirigía a la Facultad de Derecho de la 

Universidad Autónoma Benito Juárez de Oaxaca, de la cual es licenciada. Al llegar a 

la oficina de dirección se habría encontrado con seis hombres desconocidos que le 

habrían gritado insultos como: “pinches activistas y su pendejo comité”, “mueran los 

appos, muera la uj y todos esos péndejos” y también “(...) nosotros podemos gritar y 

hacer lo que queramos y si no te gusta, te jodes”. La Sra. Arellanes Cano, decidió 

retirarse de inmediato ante el temor de que la agredieran físicamente. 

1348. Según se informa, el 1 de mayo de 2007, hacia las 13:00 horas, la Sra. 

Arellanes Cano se dirigía a su domicilio cuando se encontró con una camioneta negra 

con franja roja, sin placas y con vidrios polarizados frente a su casa. La Sra. 

Arellanes Cano logró observar a un hombre, el cual, al ver que ella se estacionaba 

enfrente de su vehículo, agachó la cabeza. La Sra. Arellanes Cano se retiró unas 

cuadras esperando que dicho vehículo se fuera. Sin embargo el vehículo se quedó 

estacionado por lo que ella decidió no volver a su casa ese día. 

1349. Asimismo, a finales del mes de febrero de 2007, la Sra. Arellanes Cano habría 

tenido una cita en el Hotel del Magisterio, ubicado en el barrio del Ex-marquesado, 

con un individuo que tomaría testimonio de su detención arbitraria. Al salir del hotel, 

la Sra. Arellanes Cano fue seguida durante un cuarto de hora por un hombre 

desconocido. Este desconocido habría seguido el mismo recorrido que ella y se habría 

apeado en las mismas estaciones que ella. Cuando la Sra. Arellanes Cano entró en 

una tienda, la persona la esperaba observándola y después caminó despacio tras de 

ella a una distancia de una cuadra. Finalmente, la Sra. Arellanes Cano entraría en un 

café Internet donde permanecería hasta que viniera una persona de confianza para que 

se retirasen juntos. 


defensa de los derechos humanos de la Sra. Mayem Pilar Arellanes Cano, en 

particular su actividad en defensa de los presos políticos. Se expresa profunda 

preocupación por su seguridad e integridad física. 

Llamamiento urgente


Page 264 

1351. El 18 de Julio de 2007 la Representante Especial, junto con el Relator Especial 

sobre la independencia de magistrados y abogados, señalaron a la atención urgente de 

su Gobierno la información recibida en relación con las supuestas amenazas en contra 

de la Sra. Maria Luisa García Andrade y la Sra. Marisela Ortiz Rivera, miembros 

de la organización Nuestras Hijas de Regreso a Casa con sede en Ciudad Juárez, y de 

los miembros de la Asociación Nacional de Abogados Democráticos (ANAD). La 

organización Nuestras Hijas de Regreso a Casa y ANAD trabajan para pedir justicia 

para las mujeres secuestradas y asesinadas en Ciudad Juárez, estado de Chihuahua. 

1352. De acuerdo con la información recibida, el 22 de junio de 2007, la Sra. Ortiz 

Rivera habría recibido un mensaje de texto amenazante en su teléfono móvil lo cual 

supuestamente decía lo siguiente: ‘Disfruta de la vida mientras puedas’. Asimismo, el 

20 de junio de 2007, desconocidos habrían forzado el coche de la Sra. García 

Andrade, sustrayendo documentación sobre el asesinato de su hermana, la Sra. Lilia 

Alejandra García Andrade, perpetrado en el 2001. Según se informa, cuando la Sra. 

García Andrade denunció el incidente en la Procuraduría General de Justicia del 

Estado de Chihuahua uno de los funcionarios le habría preguntado por qué no dejara 

las cosas por las paz advirtiéndole que ‘total mañana apareces muerta, o yo muerto!’. 

1353. Además, el 10 de junio de 2007, una abogada de ANAD habría recibido un 

mensaje en el móvil que contenía el siguiente texto ‘Tú serás eliminada’. Según se 

informa, desde el 10 de junio de 2007, tanto los miembros de la organización 

Nuestras Hijas de Regreso a Casa como los abogados y abogadas de ANAD habrían 

estado recibiendo mensajes vía correo electrónico amenazándoles con que les 

sucedería algo si no dejaban su actividad. La Sra. Ortiz Rivera, ha sufrido presuntas 

intimidaciones desde el 2003. De hecho, el 24 de octubre de 2003, dos individuos 

encañando armas de fuego le habrían atacado mientras viajaba en coche con sus dos 

hijas. Se alega que los perpetradores, le habrían apuntado un arma a la cabeza y otra 

en la boca, amenazándole con que iba a conocer lo que sufriesen ‘las muertas de 

Juárez’. Después de un tiempo los agresores le dejaron marchar. 


actividad en defensa de los derechos humanos de la organización Nuestras Hijas de 

Regreso a Casa, y en particular la de la Sra. Maria Luisa García Andrade y de la Sra. 

Marisela Ortiz Rivera y se expresa profunda preocupación por su seguridad e 

integridad física así como la del resto de los miembros de dicha organización y los 

abogados de la Asociación Nacional de Abogados Democráticos (ANAD). 


1355. Mediante carta fechada 17 de septiembre el Gobierno de México proporcionó 

información con respecto al llamamiento enviado 18 de julio de 2007. 

1356. El Gobierno informó de que en virtud de estas denuncias, el estado mexicano 

ha solicitado la intervención de la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos 

para que se convoque a una reunión con los familiares de las victimas y los 

representantes de la Asociación “Nuestras Hijas de regreso a casa”, a fin de expongan 

sus necesidades y de manera conjunta se acuerden las medidas a implementar para 

salvaguardar su seguridad e integridad física. Se esta en espera de que la Comisión 

Interamericana responda a esta propuesta.


Page 265 

1357. De manera simultanea, el 18 de julio de 2007, la Comisión para prevenir y 

erradicar la violencia contra las mujeres en la Ciudad Juárez, dependiente de la 

Secretaria de Gobernación, solicito al Secretario de Seguridad Publica del municipio 

de Ciudad Juárez que proporcionara vigilancia policíaca en los domicilios de las Sras. 

Ortiz y Andrade y en la oficinas de la asociación de “Nuestras Hijas de regreso a 

casa”. A partir de esta solicitud, la policía municipal ha otorgado vigilancia policíaca 

a las presuntas afectadas. La Procuraduría General de Justicia del estado de 

Chihuahua, ha informado que se reunió con las Sras. Ortiz y Andrade y ya se 

encuentra investigando los hechos denunciados por ellas. 


1358. El 20 de julio de 2007 la Representante Especial, junto con el Relator Especial 

sobre el derecho a la alimentación señalaron a la atención urgente de su Gobierno la 

información recibida en relación con Santiago Pérez Alvarado, defensor de derechos 

humanos y abogado de derechos humanos quien ha encabezado la resistencia de 

campesinos e indígenas del sur del estado de México contra proyectos hidráulicos del 

Cutzamala. 

1359. De acuerdo con la información recibida, el 5 de julio de 2007, Santiago Pérez 

Alvarado fue detenido alrededor de las 19.40 horas mientras estaba conduciendo. 

Según testigos, cuatro hombres vestidos de civil rompieron el vidrio del vehículo del 

Sr. Pérez Alvarado y procedieron a darle golpes. 

1360. Al día siguiente de su detención, la jueza lo puso en libertad, pero al salir 

aparecieron agentes de la Agencia de Seguridad Estatal (ASE) que le detuvieron de 

nuevo por otra causa pendiente en el distrito de Temascaltepec. El Sr. Pérez Avarado 

fue llevado por los agentes a Temascaltepec donde lo acusaron de secuestro, 

supuestamente cometido en el año 1999. 

1361. En el momento de la detención, el Sr. Pérez Avarado estaba apoyando a los 

habitantes que forman parte del Comité por la Defensa de los Recursos Naturales del 

Río Temascaltepec en sus negociaciones para resolver el conflicto relacionado con las 

obras de construcción de la presa El Temascaltepec. A través de dicha presa, se podría 

ver dañada la vida productiva y económica de la región. 

1362. El Sr. Pérez Avarado también ha apoyado las luchas de los campesinos e 

indígenas en el Valle de Toluca y suroeste del Estado de México contra el desarrollo 

de un centro de sky en el Parque Nacional Nevado de Toluca, sitio de culto para los 

indígenas y zona importante para las reservas de agua. 

1363. Se teme que estos susodichos incidentes puedan estar relacionados con las 

actividades de Santiago Perez Alvarado en defensa de los derechos humanos, en 

particular los derechos de los campesinos e indígenas del sur del estado de México. 

También se quiere expresar preocupación por la integridad física y psicológica del Sr. 

Perez Alvarado mientras está encarcelado. 

Llamamiento urgente


Page 266 

1364. El 30 de agosto de 2007 la Representante Especial junto con el Relator 

Especial sobre los efectos nocivos para el goce de los derechos humanos del traslado 

y vertimiento ilícitos de productos y desechos tóxicos y peligrosos y el Relator 

Especial sobre el derecho a la alimentación, señalaron a la atención urgente del 

Gobierno la información recibida en relación con el Sr. Jair Pineda y el Sr. 

Armando Mendoza Ponce. Los Srs. Pineda y Mendoza Ponce son miembros del 

Frente Amplio Opositor (FAO), una agrupación de organizaciones ecologistas locales 

que está en contra de un proyecto minero en el Cerro San Pedro, en el estado de San 

Luís Potosí. El mencionado proyecto está supuestamente contaminando el agua local 

con cianuro y destruyendo la montaña de San Pedro por el uso de explosivos. 

1365. Según la información recibida, el 5 de agosto de 2007, el Sr. Jair Pineda habría 

hablado con dos empleados de la empresa minera del Cerro San Pedro. A la una de la 

madrugada cuando iba en su automóvil habría sido seguido por los dos trabajadores 

que conducían un vehículo de la empresa minera. Según los informes, los hombres lo 

habrían alcanzado y le habrían ordenado que saliera del auto. Cuando el Sr. Pineda se 

negó, los dos hombres lo habrían seguido hasta las afueras del pueblo donde el Sr. 

Pineda pudo escapar. 

1366. La misma noche, un grupo de hombres armados habrían llegado a la casa del 

Sr. Mendoza Ponce en Cerro San Pedro. Los hombres habrían disparado cuatro veces 

al vehículo del Sr. Mendoza Ponce que estaba estacionado en frente de la casa. Al 

denunciar el ataque a las autoridades, el Sr. Mendoza Ponce les habría informado que 

los hombres eran conocidos, y que eran los mismos hombres que habrían disparado 

contra los vehículos de otros activistas unos meses antes. 

1367. Se expresó profunda preocupación por la seguridad e integridad física del Sr. 

Jair Pineda y del Sr. Mendoza Ponce, así como por la de los demás miembros del 

Frente Amplio Opositor. Además se teme que estos eventos puedan estar relacionados 

con la actividad de los miembros de dicha organización en la defensa de los derechos 

humanos, en particular con el trabajo que llevan a cabo en la protección de los 

recursos naturales de la comunidad de Cerro San Pedro. 


1368. El 7 de Septiembre de 2007 la Representante Especial, junto con Relator 


los indígenas, el Relator Especial sobre la tortura y la Relatora Especial sobre la 

violencia contra la mujer, señalaron a la atención urgente del Gobierno la información 

recibida en relación con el Sr. Fortunato Prisciliano, miembro del pueblo indígena 

tlapaneca, quien ha sido supuestamente víctima de golpes e intimidaciones por parte 

de personas presuntamente al servicio del Ejército. Dichas agresiones ocurrieron 

después de que el Sr. Fortunato se presentara en audiencia ante la Comisión 

Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CIDH) para denunciar la violación sexual de 

su esposa, la Sra. Inés Fernandez Ortega, por parte de tres miembros del Ejército en 

marzo del 2002. 

1369. Según la información recibida, el 30 de junio de 2007, el Sr. Fortunato 

Prisciliano habría sido golpeado por los Sres. Hilario y Alfonso Morales Silvino al 

frente de la Comisaría Municipal de Ayutla de los Libres, estado de Guerrero.


Page 267 

Mientras el Sr. Fortunato Prisciliano se encontraba tendido en el suelo, uno de los 

hombres le mostró un arma que llevaba oculta bajo la ropa y le habría dicho: “Si 

intentas decir algo aquí te traigo tu comida…lo que estás denunciando con tu esposa 

Inés en contra de los guachos es mentira, y ya sabemos que hasta Estados Unidos vas 

a ir, pero no te va a servir de nada porque es mentira lo que estás diciendo”. 

1370. El 27 de julio de 2007, según las informaciones, cuando el Sr. Fortunato se 

dirigía a su domicilio, se le acercó el tío de los dos hombres que lo habían agredido 

frente a la Comisaría Municipal de Ayutla, y le habría dicho: "deja de chingar a los 

guachos, sabemos que quieres ir hasta Estados Unidos a denunciar, y si no paras algo 

feo te puede pasar”. El 1 de agosto, el mismo individuo lo volvió a amenazar con las 

siguientes palabras: “Hijo de tu chingada madre, ya deja de decir que a tu esposa la 

violaron los guachos. Ya te dije que te vamos a partir tu madre”. 


1371. El 12 de Septiembre de 2007 la Representante Especial, junto con el Relator 


los indígenas señalaron a la atención urgente de su Gobierno la información recibida 

en relación con supuestos actos de hostigamiento contra los miembros del 

Corporativo de Estudios y Asesoría Jurídica A.C, organización que trabaja para la 

defensa de los derechos laborales y contra las violaciones graves a los derechos 

humanos. Según las informaciones recibidas: 

1372. En la mañana del 3 de septiembre, los abogados del equipo del Corporativo de 

Estudios y Asesoría Jurídica A.C. se habrían percatado de que la chapa de la puerta de 

sus oficinas había sido forzada y los archiveros que normalmente se encuentran 

cerrados bajo llave, habían sido también abiertos y rebuscados. Según las 

informaciones recibidas, debido al desorden, aún no se habría podido determinar con 

exactitud qué documentos o expedientes habrían sido sustraídos. A excepción de una 

computadora portátil y dos memorias usb, ningún otro objeto de valor habría sido 

robado a pesar de que se habrían abierto cajones cerrados con llave donde había 

dinero en efectivo. 

1373. Ese mismo día, el equipo de abogados que integra el Corporativo habría 

presentado una denuncia penal ante la cuarta Agencia del Ministerio Público de la 

Procuraduría General de Justicia del Distrito Federal. 

1374. Existe la preocupación de que estos supuestos actos cometidos contra el 

Corporativo de Estudios y Asesoría Jurídica A. C. estén directamente vinculados a las 

actividades profesionales que en el mismo se desarrollan. 


1375. Mediante comunicación de 12 de noviembre de 2007, el Gobierno de México 

proporcionó información con respecto al llamamiento urgente. 

1376. El 3 de septiembre de 2007, la Procuraduría General de Justicia del DF (PGJ 

DF), inicio una averiguación previa FCH/CUH-8T3/2863/07-09 con motivo de una


Page 268 

denuncia presentada por el Sr. Manuel Eduardo Fuentes Muniz por el delito de robo 

ocurrido en las oficinas del Corporativo de Estudios y Asesoría Jurídica A.C. 

1377. Para dar con los probables responsables, el Ministerio Público desahogó las 

siguientes diligencias: 

- inspección ocular 

- periciales en materia de evaluación 

- citatorios girados al denunciante para la recepción de su ampliación de 

declaración y, en su caso, presentación de testigos. 

1378. Las investigaciones no tuvieron resultados conclusivos. Por ello, la 

averiguación previa se encuentra en proceso de ser remitida al archivo de 

concentración de la PGJDF, a menos que pudieran recibirse mayores elementos a 

través de la ampliación de la declaración, y con ello, ayudar al desarrollo de la 

investigación. 


1379. El 8 de octubre 2007 la Representante Especial, señaló a la atención urgente 

de su Gobierno la información recibida en relación con el Sr. José Francisco Paredes 

Ruiz. El Sr. José Francisco Paredes Ruiz es un miembro de la Fundación “Diego 

Lucero A.C”, una organización que se dedica a la protección y la promoción de los 

derechos humanos de los detenidos desaparecidos en México. 

1380. Según la información recibida, el Sr. José Francisco Paredes Ruiz se 

encontraría desaparecido desde el 26 de septiembre de 2007, fecha en la que salió de 

su casa en Morelia, aparentemente con la intención de lavar su camioneta. La 

camioneta fue encontrada dos días después, el 28 de septiembre, estacionada en la 

carretera que se dirigía hacia Salamanca. La camioneta, de marca Nissan Pick-up, 

habría sido encontrada con las ventanas abajo, las puertas abiertas y el radio prendido. 

Se alega que el Sr. José Francisco Paredes Ruiz fue visto el 26 de septiembre vestido 

con ropa de deporte negra. 

1381. El 29 de septiembre, la familia del Sr. José Francisco Paredes Ruiz habría 

tratado de denunciar la desaparición ante la Delegación de la Procuraduría General de 

la República en Michoacán, pero su denuncia no habría sido aceptada por falta de 

personal competente. Debido a esto el 30 de septiembre de 2007, los familiares del Sr. 

Paredes se trasladaron hasta Ciudad de México para presentarse ante la Unidad 

Especializada en Delincuencia Organizada (SIEDO) de la Procuraduría General de la 

República (PGR). Allí solo les habrían permitido llegar hasta la recepción y los 

agentes les habrían notificado que no había personal para recibir los datos de su 

denuncia. Los agentes llamaron a la Policía Federal Preventiva (PFP) para que la 

familia del Sr. Paredes procediera a hacer una denuncia por vía telefónica ante el 

Registro Nacional de Personas Extraviadas. 

1382. Luego, los mismos agentes avisaron a la familia que se presentara a la PGR en 

Ciudad de México. Sin embargo un agente de guardia no les permitió entrar. Cuando 

fueron a la Delegación Metropolitana de la PGR, el personal les habría dicho que no 

podían aceptar la denuncia por la presunta desaparición del Sr. José Francisco Paredes


Page 269 

Ruiz, porque solo aceptaban casos del Distrito Federal y este era un caso procedente 

de Morelia. 

1383. Se alega que la Liga Mexicana por la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos 

(LIMEDDH) ha presentado una queja ante la Secretaria de Gobernación, la 

Procuraduría General de la República, la Comisión Nacional de los Derechos 

Humanos (CNDH) y que estas autoridades les han asegurado que una investigación 

sobre la presunta desaparición del José Francisco Paredes Ruiz ya ha sido iniciada. 

1384. Se teme que la presunta desaparición del Sr. José Francisco Paredes Ruiz 

pueda estar relacionada con sus actividades en la defensa de los derechos humanos, en 

particular su trabajo por los derechos de los detenidos desaparecidos en México. 


1385. El 14 de noviembre de 2007 la Representante Especial, junto con el Relator 

Especial sobre la independencia de magistrados y abogados y el de Relator Especial 

sobre la tortura, señalaron a la atención urgente de su Gobierno la información 

recibida en relación con el Sr. Pedro Alvarado Delgado. 

1386. Según las informaciones recibidas, el 4 de mayo de 2006, Pedro Alvarado 

Delgado, defensor de derechos humanos, mexicano y de 59 años de edad, se 

encontraría tomando fotos e imágenes en video de la operación policial llevada a cabo 

en San Salvador Atenco, en la que resultaron detenidas y agredidas más de 150 

personas cuando habría sido detenido de forma arbitraria por agentes de la policía. 

1387. Según fuentes, al ser detenido, el Sr. Alvarado alegó su condición de 

observador de derechos humanos. Los agentes de la policía lo habrían golpeado 

repetidas veces en diversas partes de la cabeza y le habrían propinado patadas hasta 

arrojarlo al suelo, donde habrían vuelto a golpearlo y lo habrían amenazado de 

muerte. Al igual que a otros detenidos, después de esposarlo y obligarlo a taparse la 

cabeza, lo habrían obligado a permanecer acostado boca abajo, encima de las otras 

personas detenidas, durante las cinco horas que duró el trayecto en autobús hasta la 

prisión de Santiaguito. Según las informaciones recibidas, durante el trayecto, le 

habrían golpeado y amenazado. El Sr. Alvarado habría escuchado a la policía 

amenazar a las mujeres detenidas con violarlas, así como los gritos de dolor de las 

otras personas que se encontraban a su alrededor. 

1388. Posteriormente, en la cárcel, se le habría denegado el acceso a una atención 

médica adecuada, a pesar de las heridas que presentaba, así como también se le habría 

denegado el derecho a un abogado defensor elegido por él. Según las informaciones 

que hemos recibido, tampoco se le habría informado de los motivos de su detención. 

1389. El 5 de mayo de 2006, representantes de la Comisión Nacional de los 

Derechos Humanos habrían documentado las lesiones físicas que había sufrido el Sr. 

Alvarado. El 8 de mayo el Sr. Alvarado habría prestado declaración judicial pero sin 

la presencia de un juez. 

1390. El 10 de mayo de 2006, en una audiencia conjunta de más de 200 personas 

detenidas en San Salvador Atenco, se le habría acusado formalmente del delito de


Page 270 

ataques a las vías de comunicación y medios de transporte. El juez no habría tenido en 

cuenta las pruebas de malos tratos de que fue objeto el Sr. Alvarado, las cuales 

constan en un certificado médico, ni su declaración, según la cual, en el momento de 

la detención, llevaba a cabo actividades legítimas de derechos humanos. El 13 de 

mayo de 2006, quedaría en libertad bajo fianza. El proceso en su contra continúa 

abierto. 

1391. La defensa presentó una solicitud para dar vista del caso al Ministerio Público, 

a efectos de investigar la alegación de torturas sufridas por Pedro Alvarado, que ha 

sido denegada por el juez. 

1392. Según las informaciones recibidas, la defensa habría pedido juicio de amparo. 

En el fallo, el juez federal de amparo no habría reconocido la obligación del juez 

estatal de informar a la Procuraduría General de Justicia del Estado, de las pruebas 

sobre las supuestas torturas sufridas por el Sr. Alvarado. El tribunal federal habría 

resuelto que los tribunales estatales no están obligados a informar al Ministerio 

Público sobre la necesidad de iniciar una investigación por tortura. 

1393. Según las informaciones que hemos recibido, no existirían pruebas que 

vinculen al Sr. Alvarado con los delitos que se le imputan. El juez habría sostenido 

que corresponde al Sr. Alvarado probar su negativa de haber participado en el delito 

que se le imputa, lo cual podría transgredir sus derechos a un debido proceso y a la 

presunción de inocencia. En tal virtud, inconforme con su procesamiento, el Sr. 

Alvarado promovió un juicio de amparo contra la resolución del 10 de mayo de 2006. 

El Sr. Alvarado ganó dicho juicio, en el que el juez federal habría reconocido la 

ausencia de pruebas en la acusación formal y habría ordenado que el juez competente 

precisara los elementos de prueba que acreditaran su responsabilidad y dictara una 

nueva resolución sobre el formal procesamiento. 

1394. Sin embargo, el juez estatal habría dictado una nueva resolución el 28 de 

noviembre de 2006, ordenando de nuevo el procesamiento de Pedro Alvarado, sin 

precisar las pruebas de la imputación como lo ordenaba la autoridad federal. El Sr. 

Alvarado habría vuelto a presentar un recurso de amparo contra esa resolución, 

volviendo a ganar dicho juicio. La autoridad federal habría ordenado al juez estatal, 

por segunda vez, precisar las circunstancias específicas que demostraran la supuesta 

responsabilidad del Sr. Alvarado. No obstante, el 10 de mayo de 2007, el juez estatal 

habría emitido una resolución en la que se ordenaba el formal procesamiento de Pedro 

Alvarado, omitiendo nuevamente precisar los elementos probatorios que acreditaban 

su supuesta responsabilidad. 

1395. En contra de dicha resolución, el Sr. Alvarado habría acudido a un tribunal 

federal, por considerar que el juez estatal omitió dar cumplimiento a la sentencia de 

amparo en la que se ordenaba precisar las circunstancias específicas de la conducta 

que se le imputa. Sin embargo, el tribunal federal declaró improcedente tal 

inconformidad. 

1396. El Sr. Alvarado, por tercera vez, habría presentado una demanda de amparo 

por no existir prueba que acreditara su participación en el delito que se le imputa. 

Dicho juicio se encontrara pendiente de resolver.


Page 271 

1397. Tras haber transcurrido más de un año desde que tuvo lugar la detención, 

acusación y torturas del Sr. Alvarado, los responsables aún no han sido enjuiciados y 

no existe una investigación al respecto. 

1398. Sin implicar, de antemano, una conclusión sobre los hechos, quisiéramos 

llamar la atención del Gobierno de su Excelencia sobre el artículo 14 (3) del Pacto 

Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos, el cual fue ratificado por su Gobierno, y 

que prescribe que: Durante el proceso, toda persona acusada de un delito tendrá 

derecho, en plena igualdad, a las siguientes garantías mínimas: c) A ser juzgado sin 

dilaciones indebidas. 


1399. El 26 de noviembre de 2007 la Representante Especial junto con el Relator 

Especial sobre la promoción del derecho a la libertad de opinión y de expresión 

señalaron a la atención urgente de su Gobierno la información recibida en relación 

con graduados de una escuela universitaria de magisterio con sede en Ayotzinapa, 

municipio de Tuxtla, estado de Guerrero, y miembros de la Federación de Estudiantes 

Campesinos Socialistas de México (FECSM), una organización no gubernamental que 

se dedica a la promoción y la protección de los derechos humanos de estudiantes y 

campesinos. 

1400. Según la información recibida, el día 14 de noviembre de 2007, alrededor de 

800 manifestantes habrían caminado hasta el edificio del Congreso estatal de 

Guerrero, en la capital, para protestar contra violaciones de derechos humanos 

cometidas hacia estudiantes y campesinos. 

1401. Según fuentes, los manifestantes habrían permanecido enfrente del edificio del 

Congreso hasta las cinco de la tarde. Las autoridades habrían considerado la protesta 

como un obstáculo al acceso al edificio y, a las cinco de la tarde, centenares de 

policías estatales habrían rodeado la zona y habrían dispersado a los manifestantes de 

forma brusca. Algunos de los manifestantes se refugiaron en el interior del Congreso 

y otros huyeron, mientras la policía, según los informes, les echaba gas lacrimógeno y 

los golpeaba con porras. Se alega que más de 200 manifestantes habrían resultado 

heridos y que al menos una persona habría sufrido lesiones graves en la cabeza. Según 

fuentes, seis manifestantes habrían sido detenidos y, posteriormente, liberados sin 

cargos el mismo día. 

1402. Según fuentes, un reducido número de personas que participaban en la 

manifestación se habría comportado de forma violencia durante la misma, echando 

piedras y cócteles molotov, aunque la mayoría participaba de forma pacífica. 

1403. Se teme que el uso de fuerza excesivo de la policía, así como la detención de 

seis de los manifestantes, puedan estar relacionados con las actividades de los 

manifestantes en la defensa de los derechos humanos, en particular su trabajo en la 

defensa de los derechos de los estudiantes y de los campesinos en México. 

Observaciones


Page 272 

1404. La Representante Especial agradece las respuestas proporcionadas por el 

Gobierno de México y expresa su satisfacción por el hecho de que se hayan iniciado 

investigaciones en varios casos en cuestión. La Representante Especial expresa 

también su satisfacción por los procesos de protección que se han implementado en 

varios casos. 

1405. A pesar de estos progresos positivos, la Representante Especial está 

preocupada por el hecho de que sigue recibiendo información en relación con graves 

violaciones contra los defensores de derechos humanos, y especialmente por los casos 

recibidos por la Representante Especial que se refieren a hechos que han tenido 

supuestamente lugar en el estado de Oaxaca. 

1406. La Representante Especial insta al Gobierno a que proporcione información 

adicional y resultados concretos de las investigaciones mencionadas en las respuestas 

enviadas, y solicita información sobre las comunicaciones que quedan sin respuestas. 


Moldova (Republic of) 



expression, sent a letter of allegations to the Government concerning the Information 

Center GenderDoc-M, a non-Governmental organisation that defends the rights of 

sexual minorities in Moldova. The organisation was the subject of an allegation letter 

sent by the Special Representative to the Secretary-General for Human Rights 

Defenders on 23 May 2006. 

1408. According to the information received, on 11 April 2007, Chisinau City 

Council banned the Moldovan Pride parade, organised by Information Center 

GenderDoc-M, on the grounds that it could pose a public disorder threat, that it would 

promote sexual propaganda and that it would undermine Moldovan Christian values. 

The event was due to take place in Chisinau city between 27 and 29 April 2007 and 

was planned as part of the Council of Europe’s “All Different, All Equal” campaign. 

In February 2007, the Supreme Court held that the City Council had acted illegally in 

banning the event in 2006. According to reports, the Parade was prohibited on two 

previous occasions. On 28 April 2006, the office of the General Mayor in Chisinau, 

Moldova rejected an application by the Information Center GenderDoc-M to hold a 

peaceful demonstration in Chisinau on 5 May 2006. The purpose of this 

demonstration was to support the adoption of legislation barring discrimination based 

on sexual orientation. The reported reasons for the rejection of the application were 

based on “the statements of religious organisations that they will organise protest 

actions if the demonstration organised by GenderDoc-M is allowed, and also based on 

letters of complaint from individuals living in Chisinau.” 

1409. Furthermore, on 16 May 2005 the office of the General Mayor in Chisinau, 

Moldova reportedly rejected an application to hold a peaceful demonstration in 

Chisinau to support the adoption of legislation based on sexual orientation. It was also 

reported that in June 2005 this decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal in 

Moldova. Concern was expressed that the above events were related to the activities


Page 273 

of Information Center GenderDoc-M in defence of human rights, in particular its 

work in defence of the rights of sexual minorities in Moldova. 

Observations 

1410. The Special Representative regrets that, to date, no response has been received 

from the Moldovan Government to the above communication. She urges the 

Government to respond and address the concerns raised. 

Urgent appeal 

Montenegro 


Government concerning Mr Aleksandar Sasa Zekovic, member of the Council for 

Civic Control of the Police in Montenegro and human rights researcher. Mr Zekovic 

was also involved in investigating allegations of police torture during the ‘Eagles 

Fight’ anti-terrorism campaign in the country. 

1412. According to reports, on 19 April 2007, Mr Zekovic received a phone-call 

during which the caller threatened to expose photographs from his personal life and 

alleged that he was homosexual. While on his way to the police station to report the 

incident, Mr Zekovic received another threatening call which he managed to record on 

his cell phone. On presenting the recording to the police he was informed that it could 

not be used as evidence as the police did not have the technological equipment 

necessary to process it. Mr Zekovic’s neighbours also noted that he had been 

continuously followed by a car without license plates, from which the passenger had 

been recording his movements on camera. 

1413. On the evenings of 4 and 5 May 2007, Mr Zekovic received phone calls from 

the same number with the same voice as previously. The caller reportedly stated that 

Mr Zekovic faced imminent assassination and that there would be no further calls 

until then. Mr Zekovic was provided with police protection on request between the 

hours of 9:00am and 5:00pm each day. The protection was offered after he made the 

first complaint regarding the threats. Mr Zekovic reported the latest threats to the 

police; however at time of writing an investigation had not been initiated and he had 

not received any information from the police as to what measures had been taken to 

identify the authors of the alleged threats. Grave concern was expressed for the 

physical and psychological integrity of Mr Zekovic and other members of the Council 

for Civic Control of the Police in Montenegro. Further concern was expressed that the 

authorities had reportedly failed to take action on Mr Zekovic’s case because of his 

work in human rights in the country. 


1414. In a letter dated 29 June 2007, the Government of Montenegro replied to the 

above communication. According to the Government, on 20 April 2007, Mr Zekovic 

telephoned the Podgorica Regional Police Office voicing suspicions that he was being 

followed by unknown persons. He stated that he did not wish to file a written 

complaint, a precondition for launching an official investigation. That night Mr


Page 274 

Zekovic was given, at the insistence of the police, a police escort to his place of 

residence. A search of the car park was also carried out and his building was kept 

under surveillance. 

1415. That same day Mr Zekovic telephoned a Police Directorate Officer, informing 

him of another telephone call that he had received with harassing content. On this 

occasion, Mr Zekovic also requested further information with regard to filing a 

written complaint. After he had received further telephone calls on 21-22 April and 4 

May, he was called to the Podgorica Regional Office of the Police Directorate by the 

Head of the Regional Office for questioning. The police undertook a series of actions; 

following the filing of a written complaint, Mr Zekovic was given a police escort on 

23 April. Measures were also taken to identify the vehicles that Mr Zekovic refers to 

in his complaint and after the CD containing the voice recording was produced, an 

expert examination was conducted. 

1416. In addition, on two occasions, Mr Zukovic raised suspicions to the Police 

Directorate regarding the involvement of specific police officers. These officers have 

been subject to interrogation and polygraph-testing. These individuals denied any 

involvement and the results of their polygraphs did not prove anything which would 

bring their denial into question. Efforts continued to be made to resolve the case, and 

shortly after the launch of an official police investigation, all threats and harassment 

stopped. The investigation was complicated however, by communication that Mr 

Zekovic had with the media and the broadcasting of the recording of the telephone 

conversation. As the case was still being investigated, all information pertaining to the 

case was in the hands of the Police Directorate. 

Observations 

1417. The Special Representative thanks the Government of Montenegro for its 

response and acknowledges the protection granted to Mr Zekovic. She remains 

concerned for situations in which a human rights defender comes under direct threat 

and police involvement is suspected and hopes that the Government will continue its 

efforts to conclude this investigation. 

Appel urgent 

Morocco 

1418. Le 1 er février 2007, la Représentante spéciale, conjointement avec le 


d’expression et le Rapporteur spécial sur la torture, a envoyé un appel urgent sur la 

situation de M. Brahim Sabbar, Secrétaire général de l'Association Sahraouie des 

Victimes des Violations Graves des Droits de l’Homme Commises par l’Etat du 

Maroc (ASVDH), et M. Ahmed Sbai, membre du Conseil de coordination de 

l'ASVDH et du Comité pour la Protection des Détenus de la Prison Noire. Tous les 

deux sont actuellement détenus dans la 'Prison Noire' de Laâyoune. MM. Brahim 

Sabbar et Ahmed Sbai ont fait l'objet d'un appel urgent envoyé par le Rapporteur 


le Rapporteur spécial sur la torture et la Représentante spéciale du Secrétaire général


Page 275 

concernant la situation des défenseurs des droits de l'homme le 29 juin 2006. Selon les 

informations reçues : 

1419. Le 19 janvier 2007 des policiers de la Compagnie mobile d’intervention 

auraient pénétré dans la cellule où étaient détenus Brahim Sabbar et Ahmed Sbai, 

ainsi que 16 prisonniers politiques, et les auraient battus violemment, quelques uns 

avec des matraques. Ils auraient cassé la jambe de Brahim Sabbar au cours de 

l'attaque. Ensuite les policiers auraient menotté tous les prisonniers présents. 

1420. MM. Brahim Sabbar et Ahmed Sbai auraient été arrêtés à Boujdour, au Sahara 

occidental, le 17 juin 2006. Leur arrestation aurait fait suite à la réunion inaugurale 

d’une branche de l'ASVDH à Boujdour et à la publication d’un rapport contenant des 

allégations d'arrestations arbitraires, de torture et de mauvais traitement au Sahara 

occidental. Le 27 juin 2006, M. Brahim Sabbar aurait été condamné à deux ans 

d'emprisonnement pour avoir attaqué et désobéi à un officier de police, ce que M. 

Brahim Sabbar nierait. De plus, on aurait nié le droit à M. Sabbar de lire et de vérifier 

le rapport de police sur lequel se base l'accusation. Une Cour d'appel aurait confirmé 

cette décision le 20 juillet 2006. 

1421. Des craintes ont été exprimées quant à l’intégrité physique des prisonniers et, 

plus particulièrement quant à l’état de santé de M. Sabbar, comme il n’est pas clair s’il 

avait accès au traitement médical après la fracture de sa jambe. Des craintes ont aussi 

été exprimées que la persécution dont seraient victimes Brahim Sabbar et Ahmed Sbai 

serait en lien direct avec leurs activités de défense des droits humains au Sahara 

occidental. 


1422. Le 17 août 2007, le Gouvernement a répondu à l’appel urgent envoyé le 1 er 

février 2007. Le Gouvernement informe que MM. Ahmed Sbai et Brahim Sabbar 

ont été arrêtés le 17 juin 2006 et présentés à la justice pour refus d’obtempérer aux 

sommations de la force publique, violence et outrage à des agents publics dans 

l’exercice de leur fonction avec tentative d’atteinte à leur intégrité physique. Ils ont 

été condamnés à deux ans de prison ferme. Le Gouvernement affirme qu’ils ont 

bénéficié de procès publics et équitables conformément à la législation nationale en 

vigueur, en respectant les standards internationaux et avec la présence d’observateurs 

étrangers. Selon le Gouvernement, l’Administration pénitentiaire de la prison civile de 

Laâyoune a procédé, le 19 janvier 2007, à une opération de fouille des cellules des 

détenus, notamment celles de MM. Ahmed Sbai et Brahim Sabbar. Le Gouvernement 

affirme que cette opération a été menée par les gardiens de la prison et non par des 

éléments de la Compagnie Mobile d’Intervention. Il est mentionné que l’opération en 

question a été menée en conformité avec la réglementation en vigueur, en respectant 

les droits des prisonniers à préserver leur dignité. Le Gouvernement souligne que les 

personnes chargées de l’inspection n’ont pas eu recours à la force. Concernant la 

fracture de M. Brahim Sabbar, le Gouvernement affirme qu’il s’agit d’une fracture du 

métatarse du pied gauche qu’il a contractée le 17 novembre 2006 (deux mois avant 

l’opération de fouille du 19 janvier 2007), suite à une glissade dans les toilettes. Il a, 

par la suite, été évacué au service de traumatologie à l’Hôpital de Laâyoune où il a 

reçu les soins appropriés. Le Gouvernement a joint à sa réponse les copies des


Page 276 

rapports sur l’état de santé de MM. Ahmed Sbai et Brahim Sabbar en date du 8 février 

2007. Les rapports affirment que l’état de santé général des deux hommes est bon. 


1423. Le 23 mai 2007, la Représentante spéciale, conjointement avec le Rapporteur 


a envoyé une lettre d’allégations sur le cas de M. Mahdi Barbouchi, lycéen, et M. 

Abderrahim Karrad, ouvrier agricole et syndicaliste, tous deux membres de la 

section de l’Association Marocaine des Droits humains à Biougra dans la région 

d’Agadir. Selon les informations reçues : 

1424. Le 10 mai 2007, le tribunal de première instance d’Agadir aurait condamné 

MM. Barbouchi et Karrad à deux années de prison ferme et 10.000 dirhams d’amende 

pour « atteinte aux valeurs sacrées du Royaume ». Cette condamnation ferait suite à 

l’arrestation et inculpation de ces mêmes personnes par les forces de l’ordre le 1er mai 

pour leur participation au défilé organisé à l’occasion de la Fête du Travail. 

1425. Des craintes ont été exprimées que l’arrestation et la condamnation de MM. 

Barbouchi et Karrad seraient liées à leurs activités de promotion des droits de 

l’homme. 

Appel urgent 

1426. Le 21 août 2007, la Représentante spéciale a envoyé un appel urgent sur les 

cas de M. Mohamed Tahlil et M. Sadik Boullahi, membres du bureau exécutif de 

l’Association Sahraouie Des Victimes des Violations Graves des Droits Humains 

(ASVDH). Selon les informations reçues : 

1427. Le 16 juillet 2007, M. Tahlil aurait été arrêté au point de contrôle à la frontière 

entre la Mauritanie et le Sahara Occidental au sud du Dakhla par des gendarmes et 

policiers. L’arrestation de M. Tahlil ferait suite à un avis de recherche lancé contre les 

membres de l’ASVDH. M. Tahlil serait incarcéré à la prison de Layounne dans des 

conditions très difficiles et se verrait refuser le droit de visite par sa famille. 

1428. Le 27 juillet 2007, M. Boullahi aurait été arrêté au commissariat de police à 

Guelmime où il s’était rendu pour effectuer une déclaration de perte de ses papiers. 

Son arrestation serait également intervenue dans le cadre de l’avis de recherche lancé 

contre les membres de l’ASVDH. Il aurait été ensuite transféré vers la prison de 

Layounne, puis aurait été présenté devant un juge d’instruction qui l’aurait inculpé de 

constitution d’une association non-autorisée. M. Boullahi devrait comparaître devant 

la cour de première instance le 11 octobre 2007 pour répondre de ce titre. 

1429. Des craintes ont été exprimées que les arrestations de MM. Tahlil et Boullahi 

seraient en représailles à leurs activités légitimes de défense des droits de l’homme. 

Appel urgent 

1430. Le 30 août 2007, la Représentante spéciale, conjointement avec le Rapporteur 

spécial sur la torture, un appel urgent sur la situation de MM. Benamar Idir,


Page 277 

Ettahery Brahim, Hachami Rachid et Oulhadj Mohamed ; actuellement détenus à 

la prison d’Errachidia ; MM. Addouch Hamid, Ait Lbacha Youssef, Ait-Lkaid 

Idir, Chami Mohamed, Hjja Younes, Nouri Mohamed, Oussay Mustapha, Ouddi 

Amer, Taghlaoui Amer et Zaddou Mohamed; actuellement détenus à la prison de 

Meknes ; tous membres du Mouvement Culturel Amazigh (MCA), un mouvement 

estudiantin pacifique et démocratique qui milite pour les droits fondamentaux du 

peuple amazigh. Selon les informations reçues : 

1431. Tous les individus mentionnés ci-dessus auraient été arrêtés au mois de mai en 

relation avec deux meurtres dont ils seraient accusés. Ceux qui étaient détenus dans 

les locaux de la police de Meknes auraient fait l’objet de violences physiques durant 

leur séjour. 

1432. Tous les 14 étudiants seraient depuis détenus en prison. Les accusations 

seraient basées sur des aveux arrachés par la police sous la menace et auraient été 

reniés par leurs auteurs devant les juges d’instruction lors des audiences du 27 juin et 

du 3 août 2007. 

1433. Par ailleurs, les 14 étudiants seraient régulièrement insultés, frappés et piétinés 

en prison et les gardiens confisqueraient la nourriture apportée par leur famille. 

1434. Des craintes ont été exprimées que la détention et le traitement des étudiants 

amazighs auraient été motivés par le seul fait de leur appartenance au MCA. De plus, 

des craintes ont été exprimées quant à leur intégrité physique et mentale. 



d’allégations sur le cas de Mme El Ghalia Djimi, vice-présidente de l'Association 

Sahraouie des Victimes des Violations Graves des Droits Humains Commises par 

l'Etat Marocain (ASVDH). Selon les informations reçues : 

1436. Le 12 octobre 2007, Mme El Ghalia Djimi se serait vue refuser la délivrance 

d’un certificat d'autorisation de quitter le territoire par le directeur de la Direction 

provinciale de l'Agriculture à El-Ayoune qui l’emploie. En effet, tout fonctionnaire 

est dans l’obligation d’obtenir ce titre afin de pouvoir voyager à l'étranger. Mme El 

Ghalia Djimi envisageait en effet de se rendre en Irlande afin de participer à la 

quatrième Plateforme de Dublin sur les défenseurs des droits de l’homme organisée 

par Front Line du 22 au 24 novembre 2007, ainsi qu’en France à l'invitation de la 

section française d'Amnesty International. La décision du directeur n'aurait pas été 

justifiée et tous les documents que Mme El Ghalia Djimi aurait remis en soutien de sa 

demande auraient été confisqués. 

1437. Des craintes ont été exprimées que le refus de délivrer à Mme El Ghalia Djimi 

un certificat d'autorisation de quitter le territoire aurait été lié à ses activités nonviolentes 

en matière de promotion et protection des droits de l’homme. 

Lettre d’allégations


Page 278 


Rapporteur spécial sur le droit à l'éducation, a envoyé une lettre d’allégations sur la 

situation de M. Ali Salem Tamek, membre du secrétariat et Président du Comité 

Préparatoire du Collectif des Défenseurs des Droits de l’Homme Sahraoui. M. Ali 

Salem Tamek a été l’objet d’un appel urgent envoyé par la Représentante Spéciale du 

Secrétaire Général concernant la situation des défenseurs des droits de l'homme le 28 

octobre 2004. Selon les informations reçues : 

1439. M. Ali Salem Tarek se serait vu refuser l’inscription à l’Université Hassan II 

de Mohamedia alors même que, titulaire du baccalauréat obtenu à Assa, au sud du 

Maroc, il aurait remis tous les documents nécessaires au titre de l’inscription. M. Ali 

Salem Tarek se serait entretenu avec le Doyen de l’Université qui lui aurait dit qu’une 

décision émanant de fonctionnaires haut-placés serait à l’origine de ce refus. 

1440. Des craintes ont été exprimées que le refus d’inscrire M. Ali Salem Tamek à 

l’Université Hassan II de Mohamedia serait lié à ses activités de promotion et 


Réponses du Gouvernement aux communications envoyées avant le 2 décembre 

2006 

1441. Le 2 mars 2007, le Gouvernement a répondu à l’appel urgent envoyé le 27 

octobre 2006 par la Représentante spéciale, conjointement avec le Rapporteur spécial 

sur la situation des droits de l'homme et des libertés fondamentales des populations 

autochtones, au sujet de la situation de M. Ahmed Adghirni. Le Gouvernement 

informe que le 28 septembre 2006, à 16 heures, un usager de la route informait une 

patrouille de la Gendarmerie royale d’un accident intervenu près de la ville de 

Témara. La patrouille se serait immédiatement rendue sur les lieux, où elle aurait 

remarqué qu’une Renault Dacia était tombée dans un fossé après avoir quitté la 

chaussée. Le conducteur de la voiture, M. Adghirni, qui était sorti indemne de 

l’accident, se tenait à côté du véhicule. La patrouille a également trouvé sur les lieux 

un camion Mitsubishi arrêté au bord de la route. Le conducteur du camion se tenait 

devant son véhicule. Un examen du camion n’a révélé aucune trace d’accrochage. À 

l’issue de l’enquête, au cours de laquelle le conducteur du camion, M. Abdelkader Al- 

Bali, a été interrogé, la patrouille de la Gendarmerie royale a établi le procès-verbal n o 

5062 en date du 28 septembre 2006. Le conducteur du camion a déclaré que, venant 

de la ville de Meknès, au niveau de l’échangeur de la Cité Erriadh, point d’accès à 

l’autoroute de Casablanca, il a vu dans son rétroviseur une voiture blanche quitter la 

chaussée et tomber dans un fossé sur le côté droit de la route. Il s’est arrêté et s’est 

dirigé vers la voiture accidentée pour porter secours à son conducteur. Ce dernier lui a 

déclaré qu’il y avait eu un accrochage entre sa voiture et son camion. Le chauffeur du 

camion s’est dirigé vers son véhicule pour vérifier s’il y avait la moindre trace 

d’accrochage mais n’a rien remarqué. Sur ces entrefaites, un autre camion s’est à son 

tour arrêté. Son conducteur est descendu du véhicule pour demander au conducteur du 

premier camion, qu’il connaissait, s’il avait besoin d’aide. Ce dernier lui a répondu 

qu’il s’était arrêté pour aider le conducteur de la Renault Dacia qui avait dérapé. Le 

29 septembre 2006, l’intéressé a adressé une plainte au Procureur général du Roi près 

le tribunal d’appel de Rabat affirmant qu’il avait fait l’objet d’une tentative 

d’assassinat sur la route, un véhicule l’ayant obligé à quitter la chaussée et l’ayant fait 

tomber dans le fossé. Le Gouvernement a finalement fait savoir qu’après avoir


Page 279 

examiné les procès-verbaux relatifs à l’accident, le Procureur général près le tribunal 

de première instance de Témara a décidé de classer l’affaire sans suite dans la mesure 

où il ne s’agissait que d’un simple accident de la route. Le plaignant a été informé de 

cette décision. 


avril 2006 par la Représentante spéciale, conjointement avec le Vice-Président- 

Rapporteur du Groupe de Travail sur la détention arbitraire, de Rapporteur spécial sur 

la torture, au sujet de M. Brahim Dahane, M. Hammud Iguilid, Mme Djimi el 

Ghalia, et M. Dah Mustafa Dafa. Le Gouvernement informe que dans le cadre des 

opérations de maintien de l’ordre qu’effectuent habituellement les services de police 

de Lâayoune, il a été procédé dans la soirée du 18 mars 2006 à l’interpellation de M. 

Iguilid, qui a été conduit aux locaux de la police pour vérification d’identité. 

L’intéressé a été relaxé dans la même soirée. Le Gouvernement ajoute que suite à une 

intervention des éléments de la police de Lâayoune pour disperser un groupe de 

personnes qui ont tenté le 24 mars 2006 d’organiser un rassemblement illégal sur la 

voie publique, Mme El Ghalia et M. Mustafa, qui se trouvaient sur les lieux du 

rassemblement, ont été arrêtés et soumis à examen de situation sur les circonstances 

de leur présence aux alentours du lieu du rassemblement, puis relaxés le lendemain 

dans la matinée. Enfin, le Gouvernement précise que les allégations de pratiques de 

violence, de mauvais traitement et de torture à l’encontre des nommés susmentionnés, 

ne se basent sur aucun fondement, ces personnes n’ont fait l’objet d’aucun acte de 

torture ou de mauvais traitement lors de leurs interpellations par les services de police 

de Lâayoune. Le Gouvernement affirme qu’aucune requête n’a été déposée par les 

intéressés à ce sujet et que chaque fois que des présomptions sérieuses sur ces cas de 

torture existent, les autorités marocaines entreprennent les investigations nécessaires à 

leur sujet et, le cas échéant, leur donnent suite, sur le plan administratif d’abord, 

judiciaire ensuite. 

Observations 

1443. La Représentante spéciale remercie le Gouvernement de ses réponses mais 

regrette, au moment de la finalisation du présent rapport, l’absence de réponse aux 

communications en date du 23 mai 2007, 21 août 2007, 30 août 2007, 12 novembre 

2007 et 30 novembre 2007 et demande au Gouvernement de répondre aux craintes 

exprimées dans celles-ci. La Représentante spéciale reste notamment préoccupée du 

sort des défenseurs des droits de l’homme opérant au Sahara Occidental et presse le 

Gouvernement de respecter leurs activités. 

Urgent appeal 

Myanmar 


Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, sent an urgent appeal to the 

Government concerning Mr Ko Myint Naing and Mr Ko Maung Maung Lay, 

members of Human Rights Defenders and Promoters (HRDP), a network established 

in 2006 to carry out human rights education activities in Myanmar. According to 

information received, on 18 April 2007, at approximately 12.30pm, Mr Myint Naing 

and Mr Maung Maung Lay, along with Mr Ko Tin Maung Oo, and Mr Ko Yin Kyi,


Page 280 

residents of Henzada Township, were returning from a human rights awareness 

training session in Oat Pho village in the Irrawaddy township of Henzada when they 

were attacked by a crowd of 100 wielding sticks and clubs. It was alleged that the 

crowd had been waiting for them in a monastery and along the main road in the 

village. Both Mr Myint Naing and Mr Maung Maung Lay were admitted to Rangoon 

General Hospital to treat serious head injuries. However reports claimed that on 24 

April 2007 Mr Maung Maung Lay was forcibly discharged from the hospital, whilst 

Mr Myint Naing was due to be discharged on 25 April. Both men were reportedly still 

in need of medical attention due to their injuries. 

1445. According to reports, senior members of the village police and administration 

were present when the attack took place, as well as the Secretary of the Hinthada 

Township, Union for Solidarity and Development Association (USDA), who was 

holding a walkie-talkie at the time and was allegedly awaiting orders from his 

superior. In March 2007, two HRDP members were temporarily detained in Prome 

police station, Pegu division for distributing text from the UN Universal Declaration 

of Human Rights (UDHR). Concern was expressed that the aforementioned events 

form part of an ongoing campaign against human rights defenders in Myanmar. 

Further concern was expressed at reports that members of the police and local 

officials failed to intervene to protect Mr Myint Naing and Mr Maung Maung Lay 

during the attack. 


1446. In a letter dated 6 June 2007, the Government of Myanmar responded to the 

above communication. The letter stated that most incidents occurring in the area were 

as a result of disagreements between groups of disciples of two Buddhist monks from 

separate monasteries in the village of Ok Pho. The letter alleged that Mr Ko Myint 

Naing had estranged himself from other villagers due to his allegiance to one of these 

monks and that the attack of 18 April took place as a result of this ill-feeling, without 

the involvement of police or local administration. The letter further stated that the 

subjects of the appeal were in fact returning from a religious ceremony in Ok Pho, and 

that both parties in the attack had filed complaints against the other, both of which are 

still pending. 

Urgent appeal 


Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, the Chairperson-Rapporteur 

of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Special Rapporteur on the 

promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, sent an 

urgent appeal to the Government concerning 38 human rights defenders, Mr Thant 

Zin Myo, Ms Hla Hla Maw, Mr Yan Naing Htun, Mr Kyaw Soe Win, Mr Win 

Myint, Mr San Naing, Mr Soe Nge, Mr San Win, Mr Tin Yu, Mr Mee Thay, Mr 

Thant Zin, Mr Mya Hlaing, Mr Ye Myat Hein, Mr Kyi Phyu, Mr Ye Htut, Ms 

Daw Shuu, Mr Kyaw Ze Ya, Mr Myint Kyaw Oo, Mr Ye Min Thu, Mr Phyo Wai 

Linn, Mr Saw Kyw Kyaw Min, Ms Suu Suu New, Mr Aye Naing, Mr Aye Lwin, 

Ms Tin Yee (Daw), Mr Min Aung Linn, Mr Phyo Wai Aung, Mr Nay Linn Aung, 

Mr Thauta, Mr Nay Htun, Mr Ye Thein Naing, Mr Htun Htun Naing, Ms Mya 

Mya San (Daw), Mr Bo Bo Win Hlaing, Mr Hlaing Htet Aung, Mr Aye Min


Page 281 

Htun, Mr Aung Tin, and Mr Kyi Myint. Ms Suu Suu New (aka Su Su Nway) was 

already the subject matter of Opinion No. 4/2006 adopted by the Working Group on 

Arbitrary Detention on 9 May 2006, in which it held upon the facts of the matter that 

had been submitted that “[t]he detention of Ms. Su Su Nway is arbitrary, being in 

contravention of articles 9, 10 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 

and falls within categories II and III of the categories applicable to the consideration 

of cases submitted to the Working Group.” 

1448. According to the information received, on 15 May 2007, 38 human rights 

defenders were reportedly arrested -and some physically assaulted- in Yangon by 

members of the police force, members of the Union Solidarity and Development 

Association and members of the Swann Arr Shin, while demonstrating for the release 

from house arrest of Ms Aung San Suu Kyi. Some of the aforementioned were 

arrested at Mikwet Market, Tadaphyu bus station in Hlaingthaya on their way to 

Shwedagon Pagoda; others were arrested at Arlein Ngasint Pagoda on their way to 

Kyauktawgyi Pagoda. 

1449. According to reports, all these persons were being held at the Kyaik Ka San 

interrogation camp in Tharmwe Township. Serious concern was expressed that the 

arrest and detention of the aforementioned persons may have been solely related to 

their non-violent activities in defence of human rights in Myanmar. 


1450. In a letter dated 9 July 2007, the Government of Myanmar responded to the 

above communication. The letter stated that, on 15 May 2007, at 07.00, Maung Thant 

Zin Myo was walking from Bo Aung Kyaw Road, Hlaing Thar Yar Township, toward 

Shwe Dagon Pagoda, along with 11 other people, all of whom were wearing red t- 

shirts and holding red roses and other flowers. The letter further stated that while on 

their way, a group wishing to avoid violence attempted to stop them. However, they 

refused to stop and were eventually taken by the same group and handed over to the 

relevant authorities. 

1451. On the same day, at 09.30, Saw Kyaw Kyaw Min as well as other members of 

NLD gathered in front of a motel in Insein Township. They were wearing t-shirts with 

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s photo. Su Su New later joined them. There followed a 

quarrel between photographers and cameramen wishing to record the event and NLD 

members. Then Su Su Nwe and the rest of the group walked to Kyauktawgyi Pagoda. 

They were again stopped by people who wanted to avoid violence in the area and 

brought to Kyaikkasan Stadium. The Government stated that the authorities had kept 

them temporarily for interrogation in accordance with the laws of Myanmar and to 

prevent unrest and that they had now been returned to their families. 

Urgent appeal 





urgent appeal to the Government concerning Ms Phyu Phyu Thin, a prominent


Page 282 

HIV/AIDS activist and member of the National League for Democracy (NLD), 

founded by Nobel Peace Laureate, Ms Aung San Suu Kyi. Ms Phyu Phyu Thin also 

dedicates much of her time to caring for those with HIV/AIDS at her home in 

Yangon, Rangoon and assists with counseling, housing and arranging access to 

medical treatment. According to information received, on 21 May 2007, Ms Phyu 

Phyu Thin was arrested whilst attending a prayer service for the release of NLD 

leader Ms Aung San Suu Kyi in Yangon. Ms Phyu Phyu Thin’s family was apparently 

informed by sources of where she was being detained and of the fact that she had 

initiated a hunger strike on 18 June 2007, however authorities had refused to divulge 

the exact location of her detention.. Ms Phyu Phyu Thin suffers from asthma and her 

family had been unable to contact her directly since her arrest. She had reportedly also 

been denied medical assistance. 

1453. According to reports, in January 2007, Ms Phyu Phyu Thin publicly protested 

against the lack of antiretroviral drugs being administered to HIV/AIDS patients in 

Rangoon hospitals. In an interview prior to her detention she also suggested that 

mortality rates among HIV/AIDS patients in Myanmar were much higher than official 

statistics claimed. In 2000, Ms Phyu Phyu Thin was arrested and detained during a 

period of four months whilst traveling with NLD leader Ms Aung San Suu Kyi. 

Concern was expressed that the aforementioned events form part of an ongoing 

campaign against human rights defenders in Myanmar. Further concern was expressed 

for the health of Ms Phyu Phyu Thin, in light of reports that she had been on hunger 

strike since 18 June 2007 and that she had been denied medical assistance. 

Urgent appeal 


Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar sent an urgent appeal to the 

Government concerning Mr Ko Min Min, a former tutor from Prome. According to 

the information received, on the evening of 9 July 2007, in Pyay Township, Western 

Bago region, human rights activists from the non-Governmental organization Human 

Rights Defenders and Promotors gave a training session to a group of 25 persons, 

including Mr Ko Min Min, on international human rights mechanisms. This session 

was held in Mr Ko Min Min’s home. On 10 July, Mr Ko Min Min was arrested on the 

charge of operating as a private tutor without a license. However, it was reported that 

Mr Ko Min Min had not taught for some time. 

1455. On 11 July, Mr Ko Min Min was sent to Prome prison where he was being 

held on remand for two weeks at time of writing. Concern was expressed that the 

arrest and detention of Mr Ko Min Min may be related to his peaceful activities in 

defence of human rights in Myanmar, and may form part of an ongoing pattern of 

intimidation against human rights defenders in the country. 



Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar sent a letter of allegations to 

the Government concerning Messrs. Ko Myint Naing, Ko Kyaw Lwin, U Hla Shien, 

U Mya Sein, U Win and U Myint, six members of the Burmese-based non- 

Governmental organisation Human Rights Defenders and Promoters (HRDP)


Page 283 

dedicated to the promotion of human rights in Burma. Mr Ko Myint Naing was the 

subject of an urgent appeal sent by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human 

rights in Myanmar and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the 

situation of human rights defenders on 24 April 2007. 

1457. According to the information received, on 24 July 2007, the Henzeda 

Township Court sentenced Messrs. Ko Myint Naing, Ko Kyaw Lwin, U Hla Shien, U 

Mya Sein, U Win and U Myint to four to eight years’ imprisonment for “intent to 

cause public disturbance under the Criminal Procedure Code of Myanmar”. The six 

human rights defenders were being held in prison and were due to lodge an appeal to 

the Higher Court. On 17 April 2007, they had participated in the organisation of a 

human rights education seminar that led to the assault the following day, of HRDP 

members attending this seminar. Serious concern was expressed that the sentencing of 

the six aforementioned human rights defenders is related to their peaceful and 

legitimate activities in defence of human rights. Further concern was expressed for 

their physical and mental integrity while in detention. 

Urgent appeal 





urgent appeal to the Government concerning Min Ko Naing, Ko Ko Gyi, Mya Aye, 

Htay Win Aung, Kyaw Min Yu, Ant Bwe Kyaw, Kyaw Kyaw Htwe, Yin Htun, 

Min Zeya, Pandate Tun, Thet Zaw, Zaw Zaw Min, Nyan Lin Tun and Zeya, 

members of the 88 Generation Students Group; Htin Kyaw, member of the Myanmar 

Development Committee and Zaw Nyunt, former chairperson of Labor Solidarity; 

Kyaw Ko Ko, Nyan Oo, Yar Zar Mon, Nyan Linn Oo and Lyi Lwin Oo, 

university students; Naw Ohn Hla, San San Myint, Cho Cho Lwin, Yin Yin Myat, 

Tin Yee, Than Zaw Myint, Tin Maung Yee, participants in recent protests against 

the rise of oil prices; Tun Myint, Kyi Phyu, Myo Khin, Tin Myint, Tin Zaw Oo, 

Lay Lwin, Zaw Zaw Aung, Ko Ye, Tin Maung Oo, Phyo Min Kyin, Soe Kywe, 

Ms.Khin Aye, Myint Thein, Aung Tun, members of the National League for 

Democracy; Ohn Than, a former political prisoner who participated in the protests; 

Myint Aye, leader of the organization Human Rights Defenders and Promoters. 

1459. According to the information received, on 21 August 2007, Min Ko Naing, Ko 

Ko Gyi, Mya Aye, Htay Win Aung, Kyaw Min Yu, Ant Bwe Kyaw, Kyaw Kyaw 

Htwe, Yin Htun, Min Zeya, Pandate Tun, Thet Zaw, Zaw Zaw Min, Nyan Lin Tun 

and Zeya, members of the 88 Generation Students Group mentioned above were 

reportedly arrested by the police and taken to the Kyaikkssan Ground Detention 

Center in the Tamwe Township of Yangon. At the same time, Htin Kyaw, member of 

the Myanmar Development Committee, along with Zaw Nyunt, former chairperson of 

Labor Solidarity, were arrested in a separate location. Their whereabouts were 

unknown at time of writing. According to information, these arrests were related to 

the participation of these persons in the organization of a protest that took place on 19 

August 2007 against the Government’s decision to increase the prices of diesel, petrol 

and natural gas.


Page 284 

1460. On the same day, Kyaw Ko Ko, Nyan Oo, Yar Zar Mon, Nyan Linn Oo and 

Lyi Lwin Oo, five other university students, were arrested in Yangon by members of 

the Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA) as well as police officials 

on plain clothes. They were allegedly displaying a poster demanding a reduction of 

the price of fuel and other commodities. The five students were allegedly taken to the 

Headquarters of the Shwe Pyi Thar Police Regiment No. 2. No official charges had 

allegedly been brought against these students. 

1461. On 22 August at noon, Naw Ohn Hla, San San Myint, Cho Cho Lwin, Yin Yin 

Myat, Tin Yee, Than Zaw Myint, Tin Maung Yee were allegedly arrested at the 

Parami Junction and were allegedly physically assaulted by Soe Win Than, a member 

of the USDA. On 23 August in the morning, Tun Myint, Kyi Phyu, Myo Khin, Tin 

Myint, Tin Zaw Oo, Lay Lwin, Zaw Zaw Aung, Ko Ye, Tin Maung Oo, Phyo Min 

Kyin, Soe Kywe, Khin Aye, Myint Thein, Aung Tun, members of the National 

League for Democracy were allegedly arrested in Shwe Gone Dyne at the Bahan 

Township in the Yangon Division. They were reportedly protesting by marching to 

the party headquarters in Yangon. 

1462. On the same day, Ohn Than was allegedly arrested during a solo protest 

outside the Embassy of the United States in Yangon. He was reportedly carrying a 

sign calling for UN intervention to reinstate the parliament in Myanmar. On the same 

day, Myint Aye was allegedly detained near his home by the Chairperson of the 

Kemmendine Township Peace and Development Council and the Sub-Lieutenant Win 

Myint of the police force. 

Urgent appeal 



of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Special Rapporteur on 

extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of 

religion or belief, and the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, sent an urgent 

appeal to the Government concerning reports received indicating that, in the course of 

the previous week or more, the military has dispersed demonstrations, peacefully 

initiated by Buddhist monks, in Yangon and other cities by use of force, including 

teargas and beatings. 

1464. According to the information received, the armed forces also have fired 

indiscriminately into the crowds, thereby killing and injuring a significant number of 

persons. The mandate holders had also received allegations that raids on at least six 

monasteries had resulted in numerous monks being beaten and arrested. About 200 

monks were said to be detained in two monasteries in Yangon alone. 

1465. In light of these allegations, the mandate holders appealed to the Government 

not to use excessive force on the protesters. Excessive or disproportionate use of force 

can amount to cruel and degrading treatment and could, under certain circumstances, 

also amount to torture. The mandate holders also appealed to the Government to 

adhere to international human rights norms when arresting persons. In particular, they 

sought clarification regarding allegations of beatings of monks in the recent raids on a 

number of monasteries.


Page 285 

1466. Additionally, in light of the allegations, concern was expressed over the wellbeing 

of the arrested monks. In this context, the mandae-holders stressed that each 

Government has the obligation to protect the right to physical and mental integrity of 

all persons. This right is set forth inter alia in the Universal Declaration of Human 

Rights. 

Urgent appeal 


Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, the Special Rapporteur on 

the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and 


Government concerning Mr Htay Kywe, Ms Mie Mie (also known as Ms Thin Thin 

Aye) and Mr Aung Thu. Mr Htay Kywe, Ms Mie Mie and Mr Aung Thu are all nonviolent 

human rights activists and members of the 1988 Generation Students Group. 

1468. According to information received, on 13 October 2007, in the early hours of 

the morning, approximately seventy members of the security forces reportedly broke 

into the house where Mr Htay Kywe, Ms Mie Mie and Mr Aung Thu were staying. 

The officers arrested all three, as well as the owner of the house and two other 

members of the 1988 Generation Students Group who were also present. Mr Htay 

Kywe, Ms Mie Mie and Mr Aung Thu were initially involved in protests in August 

2007. However, once the authorities began searching for the members of the 1988 

Generation Students Group, they went into hiding. 

1469. On 21 August 2007, thirteen activists who were members of the 1988 

Generation Students Group were arrested, which was the subject of a joint urgent 

appeal sent on 28 August 2007 by the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group 

on Arbitrary Detention, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the 

situation of human rights defenders, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and 


Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar. 

1470. At time of writing, the whereabouts of Mr Htay Kywe, Ms Mie Mie and Mr 

Aung Thu are unknown. Before his arrest Mr Htay Kywe was in poor health. Mr Htay 

Kywe, Ms Mie Mie and Mr Aung Thu had all been previously arrested by the 

authorities under national security provisions criminalizing peaceful protest. Concern 

was expressed that the aforementioned arrest and subsequent detention of Mr Htay 

Kywe, Ms Mie Mie and Mr Aung Thu may have been directly related to their human 

rights activities, in particular their criticism of the current regime in Myanmar through 

peaceful protest. In view of the alleged detention of Mr Htay Kywe, Ms Mie Mie and 

Mr Aung Thu at an undisclosed or unconfirmed location, concern was expressed that 

they may be at risk of torture or other forms of ill-treatment. 

Urgent appeal 



the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and


Page 286 

the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, sent an urgent appeal to the 

Government concerning Mr U Gambira, Mr Aung Kyaw Kyaw, Mr Min Lwin and 

Ms Su Su Nway. Mr U Gambira is a Buddhist monk and human rights activist. He 

was one of the leaders of the peaceful demonstrations that began in August 2007 in 

reaction to an increase in fuel prices. He also led the All-Burma Monks Alliance 

(ABMA). Mr Aung Kyaw Kyaw and Mr Min Lwin are, respectively, the brother and 

father, of Mr U Gambira. Ms Su Su Nway is also a human rights activist, 

campaigning for workers’ rights in Myanmar. 

1472. According to reports received, Mr U Gambira was allegedly charged with 

treason due to his leading role in the August demonstrations, for which he faced either 

life imprisonment or the death penalty. His name also reportedly appeared on a list of 

individuals wanted by the authoritiesand so, he consequently went into hiding. He 

then published an article indicating that hundreds of monks and nuns have been 

beaten and arrested, that thousands of clergy have disappeared and that monasteries 

have been looted or destroyed. Reportedly he was arrested on 4 November 2007 in 

Singaing. His brother, Mr Aung Kyaw Kyaw, and his father, Mr Min Lwin, were 

arrested in October 2007 in an attempt to force him out of his hiding. Both Mr Aung 

Kyaw Kyaw and Mr Min Lwin were still being detained at time of writing. Ms Su Su 

Nway was arrested on 13 November 2007, during the visit of the UN Special 

Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar. Ms Su Su Nway was 

reportedly arrested in the city of Yangon following an attempt to distribute leaflets 

near the hotel where the Special Rapporteur was staying. Ms Su Su Nway also took 

part in the August 2007 demonstrations and had been in hiding since the arrests of the 

suspected leaders of the protests. She had been previously charged with criminal 

intimidation and given 18 months imprisonment in October 2005, following a 

successful lawsuit she brought against village authorities for the use of forced labour. 

1473. On 9 May 2006, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention rendered its 

Opinion No. 4/2006 indicating that the detention of Ms Su Su Nway is arbitrary, 

being in contravention of articles 9, 10 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human 

Rights (A/HRC/4/40/Add.1, pp. 50-51). Ms Su Su Nway was released in June 2006. 

Concern was expressed that the arrests of Mr U Gambira, Mr Aung Kyaw Kyaw, Mr 

Min Lwin and Ms Su Su Nway were a result of the human rights activities of Mr U 

Gambira and Ms Su Su Nway, in particular their work to defend the right to freedom 

of expression in Myanmar. Further concern was expressed for the psychological and 

physical integrity of Mr Aung Kyaw Kyaw, Mr Min Lwin and Ms Su Su Nway while 

detained. 

Urgent appeal 




Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the 

Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, sent an urgent appeal to the Government 

concerning Mr Aung Zaw Oo. Mr Aung Zaw Oo is a member of the Human Rights 

Defenders and Promoters (HRDP) network and is involved in human rights education 

programmes and documenting human rights violations.


Page 287 

1475. According to information received, on 26 November 2007, Mr Aung Zaw Oon 

was arrested by plain-clothes policemen while sitting in a tea-shop in downtown 

Rangoon and his whereabouts were unknown. Mr Aung Zaw Oo had recently been 

involved in organising events on behalf of HRDP in preparation for International 

Human Rights Day on 10 December 2007. Concern was expressed for the physical 

and psychological integrity of Mr Aung Zaw Oo while in detention. Further concern 

was expressed that the aforementioned arrest and reported incommunicado detention 

of Mr Aung Zaw Oo may have been directly related to his peaceful human rights 

activities. 

Observations 

1476. The Special Representative thanks the Government of Myanmar for its 

response to the communations of 24 June 2007 and 18 May 2007 but deeply regrets 

the lack of response to the other eight communications sent this year. The Special 

Representative reiterates her most grave concern for the situation of human rights 

defenders in Myanmar, which has so rapidly deteriorated since they began to exercise 

their legitimate rights to freedom of expression and assembly in August 2007 through 

peaceful protest. 

1477. The violent dispersal of these protests and the arrest and detention of many of 

the human rights defenders involved represent a most serious challenge to 

international norms and standards and the Special Representative urges the 

Government of Myanmar to permit peaceful protest and to refrain from excessive or 

disproportionate use of force against peaceful exercise of the rights to protest against 

human rights violations. 

1478. She also calls for the immediate cessation of intimidation and harassment of 

non-violent human rights defenders such as the members of the 88 Generation 

Students group and the Buddhist monks. In addition, she remains gravely concerned 

for the welfare of those human rights defenders who remain in detention and requests 

that the Government provide further information regarding these cases at the first 

available opportunity. 

Urgent appeal 

Nepal 



Government concerning concerning alleged threats against Mr Jitman Basnet, a 

lawyer, journalist and human rights defender. Mr Basnet has been involved in 

working for the victims of conflict in Nepal for a number of years and in September 

2006 he filed a writ of mandamus before the Supreme Court, requesting that a High 

Level Committee be established to investigate human rights abuses that took place 

during the recent conflicts in the country. Mr. Basnet was the subject of an allegation 

letter sent by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of 

human rights defenders, the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and the 

Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression on 26 January 

2005.


Page 288 

1480. According to information received, on 21 May 2007, at approximately 

18:15pm, Mr Basnet received a threatening phone-call in which the caller informed 

him that he would “bear the consequences” of his work in defence of human rights in 

Nepal. The call was allegedly made from a public phone booth in Swayambhu, 

Kathmandu. In March 2007, Mr. Basnet had published a book entitled 258 Dark Days, 

in collaboration with Advocacy Forum Nepal and the Asian Human Rights 

Commission (AHRC). The book provides an account of the 258 days he spent in 

incommunicado detention and the alleged torture and mistreatment he was subjected 

to during his time at Bhairabnath Battalion’s facilities. He was arrested in Kathmandu 

by members of the Bhairabnath Army Battalion on 4 February 2004. 

1481. The book also refers to allegations of torture, rape, killings and/or 

disappearances at the hands of the Bhairabnath Barracks’ personnel. Concern wass 

expressed that the threats against Mr. Basnet may have been directly related to his 

work in defense of human rights in Nepal, in particular his involvement in 

campaigning for the rights of conflict victims and the publication of the book 258 

Dark Days. 


1482. In a letter dated 19 June 2007, the Permanent Mission of Nepal in Geneva 

acknowledged receipt of the above communication. It was noted that the letter had 

been forwarded to relevant authorities in Kathmandu for investigation. 


1483. On 14 June 2007 the Special Representative sent a letter of allegations to the 

Government concerning the Advocacy Forum (AF), a non-Governmental 

organisation (NGO) that has been providing legal aid to detainees in police detention 

centres since 2001. AF lawyers regularly visit 35 police detention centers in 12 

Districts throughout Nepal. 

1484. According to the information received, on 29 May 2007, lawyers from AF 

were denied access to detainees at the police detention centre, Banke district by the 

District Police Office (DPO). A representative from the Regional Office of AF 

contacted the Chief of the DPO and the Superintendent of Police (SP), Mr Uttam Kark 

later that day to request that access be granted to the lawyers as they wished to 

conduct a routine visit. However Mr Kark informed AF that the organization was 

denied access as they had allegedly “made unnecessary reports stating that Bablu Rai 

was tortured by the police”. 

1485. The comments were made in relation to a complaint lodged by the AF, on 22 

May 2007, on behalf of Mr. Bablu Rai, who was being detained at the District Police 

Office (DPO) of Banke and who had allegedly been subjected to acts of torture and 

ill-treatment whilst in detention, and had been denied medical attention. According to 

reports, on 31 May 2007, lawyers from the Regional Office of AF in Nepalgunj met 

with Mr Kark and the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) to discuss the issue. 

During the meeting, Mr Kark reportedly questioned the relationship between AF 

lawyers and detainees, suggesting that a written request would be required by AF


Page 289 

from the detainees in order for access to be granted to them. Mr Kark also stated that 

AF was creating “unnecessary burdens” for the DPO and implied that Mr. Bablu Rai’s 

claim had been fabricated by the Forum and that he “would continue to work on his 

own terms”. On 3 June 2007, representatives from AF in Kathmandu met Mr. Manoj 

K.C., of the Human Rights Police Cell in the city’s Police Headquarters, to discuss a 

possible solution. However, no progress had yet been made. 

1486. Concern was expressed that the aforementioned events were directly related to 

the work of the Advocacy Forum (AF) in defence of human rights in Nepal, in 

particular the rights of those detained in prisons throughout the country. Grave 

concern was also expressed at the situation of Mr Bablu Rai and the allegations of 

torture and ill treatment against him as conveyed to his Excellency’s Government in 

an urgent appeal sent by the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and the 

Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on arbitrary detention on 7 June 2007. 


1487. In a letter dated 19 June 2007, the Permanent Mission of Nepal in Geneva 


been forwarded to relevant authorities in Kathmandu for investigation. 

Urgent appeal 



concerning concerning human rights defenders Ms. Rita Mahato and Ms Dev 

Kumari Mahara, members of the Women’s Rehabilitation Centre (WOREC), in the 

Siraha district. WOREC is a non-Governmental organization working on social justice 

and human rights, specifically women’s rights, and the rights of marginalized groups 

in Nepal such as the Dalits. Ms Mahato and Ms Mahara have been involved in 

documenting cases of violence against women and providing support to victims for 

several years. 

1489. According to reports received, on 14 June 2007, at approximately 13:00pm, 

the offices of WOREC were surrounded by between 60 to 70 men who warned staff 

working at the time that if they did not leave the village within five days they would 

be raped and killed. According to reports, on 2 June 2007, at approximately 11:50pm, 

unidentified assailants had attacked the WOREC office with sharp bricks. Staff 

working at the centre at the time, went outside to investigate and were met with a 

barrage of bricks before the assailants left. No serious injuries were sustained in the 

attack; however staff claimed they felt their lives were being threatened. The police 

were called after the attack but allegedly maintained that they could not come to the 

scene of the attack for security reasons but assured staff that they would investigate 

the case the following morning. 

1490. A few days later, the main gate of WOREC was dismantled and thrown onto 

the road. Those responsible were identified as the alleged perpetrators in the rape 

cases mentioned below. During the months of April and May 2007, Ms Mahato and 

Ms Mahara documented two cases involving the attack and rape of two local women. 

They also assisted the women in registering their claims with the police and obtaining


Page 290 

legal and medical advice. Ms Mahato and Ms Mahara had been challenged on 

numerous occasions by members of the Govindapur community, in the Siraha district, 

for their activities in defence of human rights, however since April their situation has 

deteriorated considerably. Ms Mahato had reportedly been threatened with death, rape 

and kidnapping, and in one incident an alleged perpetrator in one of the 

aforementioned rape cases, threatened her by saying that he ‘had unleashed a man 

who would rape any woman and who will raise sensitive issues so the women should 

stay alert’. 

1491. The Govindapur community has also strongly criticised Ms Mahato and Ms 

Mahara for taking the cited cases to the police instead of settling them within the 

community. Concern was expressed that the aforementioned events are directly 

related to the work of Ms Mahato and Ms Mahara in defence of human rights, in 

particular their involvement in making public the cases of two female rape victims in 

the Govindapur community. Further concern was expressed at reports of a lack of 

response from the police in investigating the alleged threats against Ms Mahato and 

Ms Mahara, and the attack on the office of WOREC. 


1492. On 31 July 2007 the Special Representative sent a letter of allegations to the 

Government concerning Mr Alex Chimling (called Juli), a meti and HIV/AIDS 

outreach worker with The Blue Diamond Society (BDS), a community-based sexual 

health advocacy service for local networks of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and 

intersex groups in Kathmandu, Nepal. 

1493. According to information received, on the evening of 14 July 2007, Mr 

Chimling was approached for help by an acquaintance who informed him that herself 

and four other transgender persons or ‘metis’ were subject to beatings and sexual 

abuse by three policemen from Janasewa Police Station in Ratna Park, Kathmandu. 

Mr Chimling called the emergency number to alert the police. When two policemen 

from Durbar Marg Police Station arrived, they, together with Mr Chimling, continued 

to the park where the three policemen from Janasewa Police Station, including the 

Sub-Inspector Pradeep Chand, were beating the four remaining metis. However, the 

policemen only watched the incident without wanting to intervene. The Sub-Inspector 

recognised Mr Chimling and started searching his bag while simultaneously beating 

him with batons, and kicking him on the back, legs and face. When the Sub-Inspector 

found that Mr Chimling was carrying condoms in his bag, he proceeded to verbally 

abuse him and said that he was behaving in an immoral and illegal manner. The Sub- 

Inspector then instructed the two policemen from Durbar Marg Police Station to take 

Mr Chimling and one of the other metis into custody. 

1494. The policemen then put both of them into the police van which was parked 

outside the Ratna Park. However, after a while the policemen let the metis go, arguing 

that Ratna Park was not within their duty area. The other three metis were taken to 

Janawesa Police Station there they were held for a short while before being ordered to 

run away in three different directions. That same evening, Mr Chimling and the other 

metis went to Durbar Marg Police Station where they attempted to file a complaint in 

relation to the assault. However, they were told that they could not file a complaint 

without a 5 rupees stamp.


Page 291 

1495. On 15 July 2007, Mr Chimling returned to Durbar Marg Police Station, this 

time accompanied by three staff members of BDS and two representatives from 

Human Rights Watch (HRW). They were told that Ratna Park was not within their 

jurisdiction, but rather was the responsibility of Janawesa Police Station. At Janawesa 

Police Station, they spoke with Police Inspector U. P. Chaturbedi and Sub-Inspector 

Pradeep Chand, as well as the driver of the police van including one of the policemen 

who was involved in the previous night’s assault. A representative from HRW asked 

if they had found any evidence of illegal behaviour, to which Sub-Inspector Chand 

responded that the metis had been carrying condoms and that it was regular police 

practice to keep the public order, which in this case, he admitted, had included beating 

Mr Chimling and the other metis. 

1496. Concern was expressed that the aforementioned mistreatment of Mr Alex 

Chimling may have been in relation to his human rights activities in defence of the 

rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons. Further concern 

was expressed for the physical and psychological integrity of Mr Chimling and other 

staff members of the BDS. 


1497. In a letter dated 10 September 2007, the Permanent Mission of Nepal in 

Geneva acknowledged receipt of the above communication. It was noted that the letter 

had been forwarded to relevant authorities in Kathmandu requesting further 

information. 

Urgent appeal 

1498. On 7 August 2007 the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal to the 

Government concerning Mr Madan Rimal, a peace activist with the human rights 

non-Governmental organization Informal Sector Service Centre (INSEC) in the 

Bardiya district of the Midwest region. He had notably been working as facilitator in 

the "Campaign for Peace" programme run by INSEC. According to information 

received, on 27 July 2007, Mr Madan Rimal was ambushed by six unidentified 

persons on his way home from Taparabazar of Manpur. They allegedly forced him to 

follow them to the nearby Chediya forest of Rajapur VDC where they beat him. They 

then reportedly took Mr Rimal to his home where he was subjected to ill-treatment 

with a stick and a sickle before being left unconscious. 

1499. Mr Rimal and his organization were accused of acting against the interests of 

his attackers. It was alleged that the same group of assailants had attempted to attack 

Mr Rimal on 20 July 2007 in the Khallajayur area of Badalpur VDC, but he managed 

to escape. Concern was expressed that the aforementioned attack against Mr Madan 

Rimal may have been related to his non-violent and legitimate work in the defence of 

human rights. Further concern was expressed for the physical and psychological 

integrity of Mr Rimal as well as for other staff members of INSEC who may also be at 

risk. 



Page 292 




information. 

Urgent appeal 




sent an urgent appeal to the Government concerning Mr Jitman Basnet, a lawyer and 

journalist, and the Secretary General of the Lawyer’s Forum for Human Rights 

(LAFHUR), in Babarmahal, Kathmandu. Mr Jitmas Basnet had previously been the 

subject of three communications sent by manadate-holders; on 16 February 2004, 26 

January 2005, and most recently on 12 June 2007. 

1502. According to information received, on 7 August 2007, Mr Jitman Basnet 

received a threatening telephone call from an unidentified woman. On 11 August 

2007, Mr Basnet received another call from a different unidentified woman who 

informed him that both he and his wife would be killed. Mr Basnet officially reported 

these calls to the authorities on 13 August 2007, filing a complaint at Tinkune police 

station. On 18 August 2007, Mr Basnet received another telephone call, this time from 

an individual identifying himself as both Khadga Mahato and Mahat, who informed 

him that he had been named in a book entitled 258 Dark Days, written by Mr Basnet 

in 2007; chronicling his period of extended custody in Bhairabnath Batallion’s 

facilities and detailing human rights violations allegedly committed against other 

detainees by personnel at the Bhairabnath Barracks. 

1503. Concern was expressed that the aforementioned incidents may have been 

directly related to Mr Jitman Basnet’s legitimate and non-violent human rights work, 

in particular his work to investigate the human rights violations allegedly committed 

during times of recent conflict in Nepal. Further concern was expressed for the 

physical and psychological integrity of Mr Jitman Basnet and his family. 





information. 



Rapporteur on violence against women, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and 

protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and Special Rapporteur 

on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related 

intolerance, sent a letter of allegations to the Government concerning Ms Uma Devi 

Badi, the coordinator of the “Badi Adhikari Sangharsa Samiti” (Badi community


Page 293 

Struggle Committee), and women and male human rights defenders of the Badi 

community in Nepal. 

1506. According to information received, on 22 August 2007, three dozen women 

human rights defenders from the Badi community were reportedly beaten and 

detained in custody. They were protesting in Singha Durbar, in Kathmandu. 

Allegedly, the aim of their protest was the rehabilitation of women who have been 

forced to work as commercial sex workers, the right to own land, the equal 

representation of male and female candidates in the constituent assembly, and the 

establishment of legal bodies at all levels of the Government addressing issues as 

racial discrimination, untouchability and legal identity for their children who are 

deprived of citizenship certificates. All the protestors were released later on that day 

without being charged. 

1507. On 27 August 2007, 450 Badi women and men (225 of them were women 

from the Badi Community Struggle Committee and members of the Dalit Civil 

Society Movement) protested to enter in Singha Durbar. They were beaten with 

truncheons by the police. Reportedly, the police tried to take off the clothes of Ms. 

Uma Devi Badi, the coordinator of the Badi community Struggle Committee. 120 

protestors were arrested by the police. Ms Uma Devi Badi and other women human 

rights defenders of the Women’s rehabilitation centre (WOREC) were taken to the 

Armed Police Battalion number-2 in Maharajgunj. They were released in the evening 

without charge. 

1508. On 7 September, members of the Badi Community again protested in front of 

Singha Durbar. They were severely beaten by the police. On 9 September, during 

another protest in Harihar Bhawan, members of the Badi community were beaten by 

the police with sticks and boots. The police also poked sticks into people’s organs. 

One of the victims is Padma Badi, 18 years old, whose intestine was badly damaged. 

Altogether 140 persons were arrested and taken to Mahendra Police Club in 

Maharagunj, Kathmandu, and were kept there for around 8 hours without being 

provided any food or water. At time of writing, demonstrations continued to take 

place. 


1509. In a letter dated 23 October 2007, the Permanent Mission of Nepal in Geneva 


been forwarded to relevant authorities in Kathmandu requesting further information. 




expression, sent a letter of allegations to the Government concerning the reported 

killing of Mr Birendra Shah, a journalist and human rights activist, member of the 

Central Committee of the Press Chautari Nepal and a correspondent for Nepal FM, 

the Drishti Weekly and Avenues TV; as well as regarding the abduction of Mr Ram 

Dev Das, the editor of the Terai Khabar Weekly magazine. The letter was also sent in 

relation to information received regarding fourteen journalists who were allegedly


Page 294 

arrested in a demonstration to express concern regarding Mr. Birendra Shah’s 

whereabouts: Gangadhar Parajuli, Hemanta Kafle, Yuvraj Bidrohi, Kedar 

Koirala, Navaraj Chalise, Dinesh Acharya, Ram Kumar Chettri, Ram Chandra 

Silwal, Gagan Bista, Yadhav Joshi, Deepak Pandey, Rimesh Shrestha, Santosh 

Neupane and Laxman Karki. 

1511. According to information received, on 5 October 2007, at approximately 5.30 

pm, Mr. Birendra Shah and Mr. Ram Dev Das were driving a motorcycle in the Bara 

district when they were stopped by unidentified men and taken to an unknown 

location near the Tripura Bazaar, where they were detained. On 8 October, Mr. Ram 

Dev Das was released alone from the location and moved to Kathmandu. He was 

subsequently the subject of death threats, allegedly due to speaking publicly about his 

abduction. 

1512. Mr. Birendra Shah and his family had reportedly received death threats from 

members of the CPN-Maoist in August 2007. He has been very active in documenting 

human rights violations carried out by extremist Maoist groups in Nepal and has 

written several reports on the subject. According to the information received, a report 

that was released on 5 November by a Maoist committee investigating the abduction 

claimed that Mr. Birendra Shah had been killed on the day of his abduction. 

According to the report, the perpetrators and organizers of said abduction and 

subsequent murder were known. It was reported that Mr. Birendra Shah’s body was 

found on 8 November at the Dumarwana village, near Tangiya colony at Bara district, 

about 160 kilometers south of Kathmandu. Information was also received of arrests 

conducted during a peaceful sit-in organized prior to the announcement of Mr. 

Birendra Shah’s death. 

1513. On 4 November, a group of journalists gathered at Singhadurbar’s South Gate 

to express their concern regarding Mr. Birendra Shah’s disappearance. Police agents 

reportedly arrested the aforementioned fourteen participating journalists, who were 

reportedly injured during the police actions. The fourteen journalists were detained at 

the Mahendra Police Club in Kathmandu and released later that day. Concern was 

expressed that the reported killing of Mr. Birendra Sah and the abduction of Mr Ram 

Dev Das may have been directly related to their human rights activities, in particular 

Mr Birendra Sah’s work to defend the freedom of the press and report human rights 

violations in Nepal. Further concern was expressed for the physical and psychological 

integrity of Mr Birendra Sah’s family members. 


1514. In a letter dated 15 November 2007, the Permanent Mission of Nepal in 



information. 

Response from the Government to a communication sent before 2 December 

2006 

1515. Furthermore, in a letter dated 5 June 2007, the Nepalese Government 

responded to a letter of allegations sent by the Special Representative, together with


Page 295 

the Special Rapporteur on violence against women on 1 December 2006. The urgent 

appeal sent was concerning alleged verbal abuse of and threats made by police 

officers against a group of people, including Ms Madan Rai Chamling, a human 

rights outreach worker and member of the Blue Diamond Society, a non- 

Governmental organization working with sexual minorities lesbian, gay, bisexual and 

transgender (LGBT) persons. 

1516. The Government response stated that, the location of the alleged incident, 

Thamel, was one of the most crowded areas in Kathmandu, and as such was the scene 

of regular clashes and arguments. The letter further stated that the police were merely 

engaged in facilitating the smooth flow of traffic and had not been involved in taking 

photographs or filming the activities of the aforementioned, nor had they verbally 

abused or harassed them. 

Observations 

1517. The Special Representative thanks the Permanent Mission of Nepal in Geneva 

for its acknowledgement of receipt of the communications sent and hopes that the 

further information requested from the Government by the Permanent Mission will be 

provided at the first available opportunity. 

1518. She is particularly concerned by the cases involving allegations of harassment, 

intimidation or ill-treatment of human rights defenders by members of the Police 

Force and trusts that the Government will acknowledge the seriousness of these 

allegations through comprehensive investigation. 


New Zealand 



people and the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights 

while countering terrorism sent a letter of allegations to the Government concerning 

the arrest of 17 Maori social activists suspected of terrorism-related offenses. 

1520. According to the information received, on 15 October 2007, the police began a 

series of raids and home searches which resulted in the arrest of 17 Maori people as 

suspects of terrorism-related offenses in the cities of Auckland, Wellington, 

Christchurch, Palmerstan North, Hamilton, Whakatane and Ruatoki. The 17 

individuals, described as social activists, are members of Maori organizations and 

other social and environmental support groups. It is reported that search warrants were 

obtained under the Summary Proceedings Act to search for evidence of the 

commission of offences against the Arms Act and the Terrorism Suppression Act. 

Information was obtained that the police were searching for items “of which there is 

reasonable ground to believe will be evidence as to the commission of an offense of 

participating in a terrorist group, unlawful possession of firearms and unlawful 

possession of restricted weapons”. Initially, all but one of the 17 individuals were 

denied bail.


Page 296 

1521. It was further alleged that the police operations leading to the arrest of the 17 

individuals involved unnecessary disturbance of the life of one Maori community. 

According to the reports, blockades were set up by the police in the small township of 

Ruatoki, where all drivers and passengers were questioned by police officers. This 

also included the reported search of school buses of children on their way to preschool 

by armed police officers. These disturbances, as well as the search of several 

homes, led to the claim that the operations targeted the entire Maori community. 

1522. According to article 67 paragraph 1 of the Terrorism Suppression Act, the 

consent of the Attorney-General is required to bring charges against any person for 

alleged offences against this Act. On 8 November 2007, the Solicitor-General, to 

whom this competence is currently delegated, announced that he could not authorise 

charges to be laid under the Terrorism Suppression Act since there was not sufficient 

evidence that a group or an entity was planning or preparing to carry out a terrorist 

act. The police stated that these searches and arrests were carried out in the interest of 

public safety. Investigations commenced in December 2005 when a camp, in which 

armed men were training, was discovered in north eastern New Zealand. This camp 

and others were then put under surveillance. The police reportedly also intercepted 

telephone calls and monitored a number of computer accounts. It was in this context 

that information was received by the mandate-holders about the Government’s 

intention to amend the Terrorism Suppression Act. 

1523. It had been reported that the Government was particularly looking at 

broadening the definition of a terrorist act, reducing judicial oversight, allowing courts 

to consider classified information without giving it to defendants, and giving the 

Prime Minister sole responsibility for designating groups and individuals as terrorists. 

Information was also received that the third reading of the Terrorism Suppression 

Amendment Bill was underway in the Parliament. Concern was expressed that the 

arrests of the said 17 individuals may have been connected to their activities in 

defence of the rights of Maori people, and particularly of the land rights of the Ngai 

Tuhone community, which has involved a claim before the Waitangi Tribunal 

regarding alleged taking by the Crown. Concern was further expressed that the 

planned amendments to the Terrorism Suppression Act, if adopted and implemented, 

would not be in accordance with international human rights standards. 


1524. In a letter dated 10 December 2007, the Permanent Mission of New Zealand in 

Geneva acknowledged receipt of the above communication and advised that it had 

been sent to Wellington for its consideration and response. Further to this, in a letter 

dated 30 January 2008, more comprehensive information was provided by the 

Government regarding the case. The reponse first stated that although applications 

had been made to try 12 of the 17 people arrested under the Terrorism Suppression 

Act, these were denied by the Solicitor-Generaldue to insufficient evidence, although 

it was asserted that the Solicitor –General had observed in a public statement that the 

Police had had a proper and sufficient basis for the investigation under the TSA. 

1525. The letter further noted that the actions of the Police leading to and possible 

discrimination or breaches of human rights standards in the investigation were 

currently the subject of proceedings before several independent bodies, including the


Page 297 

Independent Police Conduct Authority and the Human Rights Commission. A claim 

for compensation and redress had also been made by a number of people said to have 

been unlawfully treated or otherwise adversely affected by the investigation, and it 

had been reported that this would be filed in the courts in the near future. The reponse 

further stated that, in light of the fact that these cases were or were shortly due to be 

before the Court and other complaints mechanisms, it was not, at this juncture, 

appropriate for the Government to make comment on the conduct of the police 

involved in the investigation or the consistency or otherwise of their actions with 

human rights standards. 

1526. With regard to the Terrorism Suppresssion Act, the Government stated that its 

primary purpose was to ensure New Zealand’s compliance with its obligation under 

the United Nations Charter and the relevant Security Council resolutions on terrorism. 

It had also been decided that some provisions had provided unworkable in practice or 

uncertain in effect and should be amended or repealed. In addition, provision had been 

included to enable New Zealand to ratify two international anti-terrorism treaties, the 

International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism and 

amendments to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. 

Observations 

1527. The Special Representative thanks the Government of New Zealand for its 

detailed reponse to the communication and awaits further information upon 

conclusion of the investigation by the Independent Police Conduct Authority. 

Urgent appeal 

Nigeria 

1528. On 9 March 2007 the Special Representative, together with the Special 


expression, sent an urgent appeal to the Government concerning Mr. Anyakwee 

Nsirimovu, Executive Director of the Institute for Human Rights and Humanitarian 

Law (IHRHL) in Rivers State. IHRHL works to promote human rights, democracy 

and social justice in local communities of the Niger delta region. 

1529. According to the information received, on 2 March 2007, Mr Nsirimovu 

reportedly received anonymous text messages on his mobile, threatening him and his 

family and urging him to stop his human rights activities. The messages stated “"Did I 

steal your money? Did I kill your wife? Did I kill your children? Stop doing what you 

are doing” and “We don’t want to talk to you, you either repent or not”. These threats 

were believed to be related to the publication in February 2007 by IHRHL of a 

document in which it questioned the state Government's allocation of funds with 

regards to the Rivers State budget expenditure. Moreover, IHRHL published a 

newsletter which presented the report of the international non-Governmental 

organization Human Rights Watch, entitled Chop Fine: The Human Rights Impact of 

Local Government Corruption and Mismanagement in Rivers State, Nigeria. 

1530. On 4 March, Mr Nsirimovu was reportedly attacked by unknown assailants 

near the city of Port Harcourt when driving back from a meeting during which he


Page 298 

referred to the threats that he had received. When attempting to stop the car, the 

assailants smashed the rear windscreen. Mr Nsirimovu managed to drive away and 

neither he nor his passenger was injured. This attack was reportedly premeditated 

since Mr Nsirimovu’s car was the only one targeted on the busy street where the 

incident occurred. Concern was expressed that the aforementioned acts of intimation 

against Mr Nsirimovu may have been related to his peaceful and legitimate activities 

in defence of human rights, in particular his public denunciation of alleged corruption 

in the state Government. 

Urgent appeal 



expression, sent an urgent appeal to the Government concerning Mr. Kola Olabisi, 

editor of the privately-owned weekly Osun Defender, Mr. Sola Jacobs, reporter, and 

Mr. Amitolu Shittu, a human rights activist and president of the Committee for 

Democracy and Rights of the People. According to the information received, on 16 

May 2007, warrants for the arrest of the aforementioned were issued by a court in 

Oshogbo. Reportedly, these warrants were in response to a 14 May 2007 report in the 

Osun Defender about a news conference that Mr. Shittu gave in which he condemned 

irregularities in a trial of demonstrators who had protested against the alleged rigging 

of the 14 April 2007 presidential election. 

1532. According to information, all three men had been in hiding since the warrants 

were issued. Concern was expressed that the arrest warrants of Mr. Kola Olabisi, Mr. 

Sola Jacobs and Mr. Amitolu Shittu may have been related to their legitimate 

activities in defence of human rights, in particular to their exercise of the rights to 

freedom of opinion and expression. 

Urgent appeal 

1533. On 4 June 2007 the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal to the 

Government concerning alleged threats against Mr. Ledum Mitee, and Mr. Bariara 

Kpalap, and Mr. Legborsi Pyagbara, members of the Movement for the Survival of 

the Ogoni People (MOSOP). MOSOP has been a vocal organization in the defense of 

the rights of the Ogoni vilages affected by oil exploitation and transport in their 

traditional lands, in Nigeria’s Niger Delta. 

1534. According to information received, on 9 May 2007, around 11.00 am, in the 

City of Port Hatcourt, Rivers State, Mr. Ledum Mitee, President of MOSOP, received 

a message from Chief G.N.K. Giniwa, a Government-funded traditional, who 

threatened to ‘eliminate’ Mr. Mitee for mobilising people against the signing of the 

proposed MoU. Chief Giniwa mentioned that he had the support of the Government 

and of the Shell Company. The incident was reported to the Governor of the State and 

to the police. 

1535. On 18 May 2007, around 2.00 am, at least four unidentified gunmen broke 

into the residence of Mr. Bari-ara Kpalap, Information Officer of MOSOP, in Port 

Hatcourt, in his absence. The gunmen allegedly beat Mr. Kpalap’s spouse, Ms. Baridi 

Kpalap, and harassed their children at gunpoint. The gunmen eventually departed and


Page 299 

threatened to return for Mr. Kpalap. No goods were stolen. These incidents were 

reported to the police. Concern was expressed that these events may be related to the 

active role played by MOSOP in the defence of the rights of Ogoni people over its 

traditional lands. 

Observations 

1536. The Special Representative regrets that to date, she has received no response 

to any of the three communications sent. She is concerned by the harassment of and 

threats made against human rights defenders as outlined in these cases and requests 

that the Government investigate these allegations and provide further information in 

the near future. 

Urgent appeal 

Pakistan 



the question of torture and the the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges 

and lawyers, sent an urgent appeal to the Government concerning Mr Khalid 

Khawaja, a resident of Rawalpindi, detained in a high security detention facility in 

Faisalabad. Mr Khawaja had reportedly been active with an organisation called 

Defence for Human Rights, which brings together relatives of people subjected to 

enforced disappearance, particularly those allegedly held by the security forces on 

suspicion of having links with terrorist networks. 

1538. According to the information received, Khalid Khawaja was taken into 

custody by security forces at daybreak on 26 January 2007 outside his family home in 

Rawalpindi. After some hours of inquiries his family was told that he was held in 

Adiala Jail in Rawalpindi, charged with “distributing pamphlets that incite sectarian 

violence.” On 21 February 2007 the Islamabad Additional and Sessions Court granted 

him bail, but instead of being released that night he was moved to a different 

detention facility on the orders of the Home Secretary of Punjab. News reports 

claimed that he had been moved to a high-security detention facility in Faisalabad, but 

when his lawyer called the detention centre to confirm the reports, he was told that no 

one by that name was in custody there. 

1539. On 22 February 2007 the District Magistrate of Islamabad ordered that Mr 

Khawaja’s detention be extended by 30 days under the Maintenance of Public Order 

Act 1960.Mr Khawaja's family and lawyer filed an appeal with the Lahore High Court 

(Rawalpindi Bench). On 28 February 2007 the High Court directed the provincial and 

federal authorities to establish Khalid Khawaja’s whereabouts and produce him in 

court by 2 March 2007, and make known the charges against him. The authorities did 

not present Mr Khawaja in court. However, in a hearing on 2 March 2007 they 

disclosed that he was being held in a high security detention facility in Faisalabad. 

The High Court ordered that he be transferred to Adiala Jail in Rawalpindi by 5 

March at the latest. At time of writing Mr Khawaja continued in incommunicado 

detention with no access to his lawyer or family.


Page 300 

1540. Concern was expressed that Mr Khawaja’s detention might be linked to his 

human rights activities on behalf of persons allegedly subjected to enforced 

disappearance and their families. Further concern was expressed about his physical 

integrity, during his prolonged incommunicado detention, in light of the fact that he 

suffers from diabetes and may not be receiving adequate medical care. 

Urgent appeal 



expression and the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, sent an urgent 

appeal to the Government concerning the situation of demonstrators, including 

lawyers from the prime bar associations, political activists, civil society actors and 

members of the public, engaged since 13 March 2007 in protests against the decision 

of the President of Pakistan to suspend the Chief Justice. 

1542. According to the information received, on 16 March 2007, law enforcement 

authorities used force in an excessive manner against peaceful protestors in 

Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi. Several of these protesters, including lawyers from 

the prime bar associations, political activists, civil society actors and members of the 

public, were physically assaulted by the forces, and subsequently arrested. According 

to reports, in Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi, law enforcement authorities fired tear 

gas shells at the protesters leading to several injuries. Rubber bullets were also used in 

Islamabad to disperse the demonstrators in different parts of the city. 

1543. Furthermore, journalists were denied access to key points from where the 

public protests could be covered. Several of them were physically and verbally 

abused, and their cameras and other equipment damaged by the police. Finally, law 

enforcement authorities raided the premises of the private GEO TV station, using tear 

gas and beating up the journalists present inside. Serious concern was expressed that 

the excessive use of force against the protestors and the subsequent arrests of some of 

them may have been related to their legitimate and peaceful activities in defence of 

human rights and their attempts to safeguard the independence of the judiciary in 

Pakistan. 


1544. In a letter dated 23 March 2007, the Government of Pakistan responded to the 

above communication. The letter outlined that all decisions regarding the Supreme 

Court Justice had been filed in accordance with the Pakistani Constitution. With 

regard to the street protest and civil unrest, the Government conceded that there had 

been some ‘unfortunate mishandling’ of protesters, including lawyers, journalists and 

political activists, as well as the incident in the private television station, however it 

denied that rubber bullets had been used on protesters and maintained that tear gas 

shells were only used to disperse ‘violent and unruly’ crowds and not to inflict harm. 

The Government further stated that it had instructed law enforcement agencies not to 

obstruct peaceful protests and that the Government of Pakistan remained committed to 

freedom of the press and to addressing the current situation in a legal and 

constitutional manner.


Page 301 

Urgent appeal 

1545. On 24 April 2007, the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal to the 

Government concerning Mr Mehran Baluch, resident and national of the United 

Kingdom where he has been living for twenty-three years. Mr Baluch is a member of 

the non-Governmental organization Interfaith International, and an advocate of the 

rights of the Baluchi people in Pakistan. Mr Baluch has highlighted the plight of 

Baluchi people, notably before the Commission on Human Rights, the Human Rights 

Council, the Sub-Commission for the promotion and protection of human rights as 

well as the Working Group on Minorities. 

1546. According to the information received, Mr Baluch was reportedly listed as one 

of the eight individuals that the Pakistani security services had requested in return for 

the hand-over to the United Kingdom of Mr Rashid Rauf, a terrorist suspect in 

London and Islamabad who is currently detained in a high-security jail in Rawalpindi. 

According to reports, Mr Baluch had no legal cases pending against him, and hewas 

not suspected to be involved in terrorism. Serious concern was expressed that the 

demand of exchange of Mr Baluch from the Pakistani security services may have been 

related to his legitimate and peaceful activities in defence of human rights of the 

Baluchi people. 



Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers sent a letter of allegations to 

the Government concerning Mr Ali Ahmed Kurd, Vice-President of the Pakistan Bar 

Council (PBC) and a lawyer acting on behalf of Mr Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, 

Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Council who was removed from his position as 

Chief Justice on 9 March 2007; and Mr Ghulam Mustafa Kundwal, a member of the 

Bar Association in Pakistan. Both Mr Kurd and Mr Kundwal have been involved in a 

campaign advocating for the independence of the judiciary in Pakistan. 

1548. According to information received, on 28 April 2007, Mr Kurd was arrested at 

the district court in Quetta for his alleged involvement in a violent incident during the 

funeral of Mr Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti, a political leader in Balochistan who was 

killed on 30 August 2006. Mr Kurd was detained at Quetta district court before being 

released later the same day after lawyers across Pakistan staged protests at various 

locations throughout the country against his detention. It was reported that unknown 

individuals had made several failed attempts to abduct Mr Kurd prior to his arrest. 

1549. According to reports, in a separate incident on the evening of 27 April 2007, 

Mr Kundwal, was severely beaten by uniformed men and left for dead in a ditch near 

the Cantonment area in Rawalpindi. Concern was expressed that the aforementioned 

events were directly related to the work of Mr Kurd and Mr Kundwal in defence of 

human rights in Pakistan; in particular their attempts to ensure the independence of 

the judiciary in the country. 

Urgent appeal


Page 302 



Government concerning Mr Munir Malik, President of the Supreme Court Bar 

Association, and one of the lawyers representing, Mr Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, 

Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Council who was suspended on 9 March 2007. 

Mr Malik had also been instrumental in leading the movement for the protection of 

the independence of the judiciary in Pakistan. 

1551. According to information received, on 9 May 2007, Mr Malik’s office, in the 

Southern Port of Karachi, was blockaded without prior warning by the Karachi 

Building Control Authority (KBCA), on the grounds that the building was being used 

for commercial purposes in a residential area. Later that same day, the Sind High 

Court issued an interim order in favour of Mr Malik, stating that the authorities had no 

legal basis on which to close the office considering that it had been in use since 2002, 

and the premises were restored. The closure took place three days before the office 

was due to host a reception for the suspended Chief Justice Chaudhry. 

1552. According to reports, in the early hours of the morning, on 10 May 2007, Mr 

Malik’s house was sprayed with bullets. Mr Malik was at home at the time along with 

his wife and young children. A complaint has been lodged with Darakhshan Police 

Station, Karachi, however at time of writing; the perpetrator had not been identified. 

Concern was expressed that the aforementioned events may be directly related to the 

work of Mr Malik in defence of human rights in Pakistan and in particular his 

attempts to ensure independence of the judiciary in the country. 

Urgent appeal 

1553. On 6 November 2007, the Special Representative, together with the 



promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the 

Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering 

terrorism, sent an urgent appeal to the Government concerning the imposition of the 

state of emergency by the President of Pakistan on 3 November 2007 and the 

suspension of fundamental freedoms, including the right not to be deprived of one's 

liberty, save in accordance with the law and to the enjoyment of safeguards as to 

arrest and detention, the right to freedom of movement, the right to assemble in public 

and the freedom of expression. 

1554. Furthermore, the proclaimed state of emergency entailed an attack on the 

independence of the judiciary. The State of Emergency declared by President 

Musharraf was said not to be a constitutional emergency envisaged in the 

Constitution, which has now been declared to remain in abeyance and replaced by a 

"Provisional Constitution Order". According to the information received, seven 

members of the Supreme Court issued a declaration against the emergency rule order 

stating that it appeared not to be legal, neither under the Constitution nor under 

international law. 

1555. In particular, the mandate-holders were concerned about the situation of some 

70 human rights defenders arrested during a meeting inside the premises of the NGO


Page 303 

Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) in Lahore. They were initially taken 

to the police, and requested to sign a declaration not to engage in any human rights 

activities. They all refused to sign it and were verbally abused by police officers. 

Those arrested on 4 November include the following 55 human rights activists (31 

male and 24 female): Mr. I.A. Reham, Director of HRCP, Mr. Syed Iqbal Haider, 

Secretary General of HRCP, Ms. Shahtaj Qazalbash, Mr. Mehboob Khan, Mr. 

Nadeem Anthony, Ms. Saleema Hashmi, Ms. Rubina Saigol, Ms. Samina 

Rehman, Brig Rao, Abid Hameed, Faisal Akhtar, Waseem Majeed Malik, Irfan 

Barket, Dr. Naseem Ali, Dr. Khurram Iftikhar, Dr. Yousaf Yaseen, Mr. Irshad 

Choudhry, Imran Qureshi, Shams Mahmood, Zaffar ul Hassan, Khalid 

Mehmood, Bilal Hassan Minto, Muhammad Bashir, Ali Cheema, Shahid Hafeez, 

Syed Mozam Ali Shah, Mansoor Ali Shah, Shahzeb Masood, Javed Amin, 

Suleman Akram, Muhammad Bilal Sabir, Shahid Amin, Khawaja Amjad 

Hussain, Mahmood Ahmed, Rahim ul Haq, Ashtar Ausaf Ali, Alia Ali, Samia 

Ali, Azhra Irshad, Jona Anderyas, Ayra Anderyas, Zeba, Neelam Hussain, 

Gulnar, Sonobar, Sadaf Chughtai, Nasreen Shah, Shaista Parvaiz Malik, Iram 

Sharif, Amina Sharif, Taina Sabah ud Din, Tamkant Karim, Lala Raukh, Huma 

Shah, Nasreen Shah, and Samia Ameen Khawaja. 

1556. All 55 human rights activists were brought before the Judicial Magistrate on 5 

November 2007 and were sent to Kot Lakhpat Jail Lahore. A hearing took place on 6 

November 2007 and these 55 activists have reportedly been released on bail. The 

practising lawyer and United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or 

belief, Ms Asma Jahangir, has been placed under house arrest for a period of 90 

days, and her house has been declared a sub-jail were some of the activists mentioned 

above are currently detained. Two women defenders, Ms Shahtaj Qazalbash and Ms 

Saleema Hashmi, were transferred to a police-owned residence at an unknown 

location. None of them have been charged. Neither a warrant nor judicial order was 

issued. The activists had not had access to lawyers or to their families and were 

detained for several hours without receiving food. 

1557. Concern was expressed at the health of some of these leaders who are rather 

elderly. One of the detained activists, Mr. Ashtar Ausaf Ali advocate was sent to 

hospital after suffering a heart attack in police custody. The Proclamation of 

Emergency states that some members of the judiciary have undermined the executive 

and legislative branches in the fight against terrorism and extremism, thereby 

weakening the Government’s ability to address this grave threat. Immediately after 

the imposition of the State of Emergency judges were required to take an oath of 

allegiance to the Provisional Constitutional Order to continue exercising their 

functions as judges. A high number of the judges refused to take the oath, as they 

refused to accept the state of emergency order, declaring it unconstitutional. In 

particular, only four out of the 17 judges of the Supreme Court took the oath. The 

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was among those who did not agree to take the 

oath. All the judges of the Supreme Court who refused to take oath had been 

immediately replaced by new judges. They were not allowed to leave their homes, 

being prevented by Government forces from doing so. Eight out of the 27 judges of 

the High Court of the Sindh Province took oath, while the other, including the Chief 

Judge, refused. In Balochistan, all five judges of the High Court agreed to take the 

oath. In Punjab Province, 17 out of the 31 judges of the High Court, including the 

Chief Judge, took oath. The most senior judge among those who refused to take oath,


Page 304 

Mr Bokhari, was under house arrest. In the North West Frontier Province, around half 

of the 17 judges had not taken the oath. 

1558. On 5 November 2007, lawyers protested against the declaration of the state of 

emergency. There were indications of extreme brutality in the repression by the police 

and extensive arrests of lawyers. Some 150 lawyers had been arrested in Karachi and 

50 in Lahore, including Ms Hifza Aziz and Ms Abid Saqi. Lawyers had also been 

attacked by the police inside the Court and the bar premises and all office bearers of 

the Bar Associations had been arrested. The Government had suspended the 

transmission of privately owned local and international television channels, in 

particular news stations. Agents of the Electronic Media Regulatory Authority 

(PEMRA) alongside police officers raided the premises of television and radio 

channels to confiscate equipment. Internet service providers were also ordered to stop 

their service, interrupting Internet access for a large number of users. The President 

promulgated a new ordinance under which the print and electronic media had been 

barred from printing and broadcasting “anything which defames or brings into ridicule 

the head of state, or members of the armed forces, or executive, legislative or judicial 

organ of the state”. The ordinance stipulated up to 3 years in prison as punishment for 

non-compliance. 

Urgent appeal 

1559. On 23 November 2007, the Special Representative, the Special Rapporteur on 

the independence of judges and lawyers, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and 

protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the the Special 


concerning the situation of lawyers, judges and human rights activists in Pakistan, 

including the lawyers Mr. Munir A. Malik, Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan, Mr. Tariq 

Mahmood, Mr. Ali Ahmed Kurd, Mr. Abrar Hassan and Mr. Ahsan Bhoon, and 

Mr. Ifetkhar Choudhry, chief justice of Pakistan, other judges of the Supreme Court, 

Mr. Sabih Uddin Ahmed, Chief Justice of Sindh, Mr. Justice Shahani, and Mr. 

Justice Musheer Alam, judges of the Sindh High Court. Mr. Malik and Mr. Kurd 

have been subject to previous communications sent by the Special Rapporteur on the 


General on the situation of human rights defenders on 14 May and 7 May 2007 

respectively. No reply to these communications had been received as of yet. 

1560. The situation of lawyers and judges, including the judges of the Supreme 

Court, had also been addressed by an urgent appeal sent by several mandate-holders 

on 6 November 2007. According to the information received, since 3 November 2007, 

when President Musharraf declared the state of emergency, thousands of lawyers had 

been arrested and detained in all provinces of Pakistan. These arrests and detentions 

constituted an unprecedented attack to the legal profession in Pakistan. Many of them 

were being held for up to 90 days under the Maintenance of Public Order law. Among 

them were numerous lawyers affiliated with political movements striving for the 

restoration of the constitution. It was reported that these lawyers had been arrested 

and put in detention without having committed any offense, for the sole fact of having 

expressed their opinion about the recently declared state of emergency.


Page 305 

1561. Furthermore, it was reported that a new professional ordinance was to be 

passed giving the High Courts and the Supreme Court the power to remove the 

licences of practicing lawyers, which would be in violation of the independence of 

lawyers and their right to exercise their functions without interference. In this context, 

information was received regarding senior lawyers Mr. Munir A. Malik, Mr. Aitzaz 

Ahsan, Mr. Tariq Mahmood, Mr. Ali Ahmed Kurd, Mr. Abrar Hassan and Mr. Ahsan 

Bhoon. It was reported that Mr. Munir A. Malik, former president of the Supreme 

Court Bar Association (SCBA), was being held in Attock Fort under the custody of 

the military intelligence service. Numerous instances of torture are said to have 

occurred at Attock Fort in recent months. Munir A. Malik, who is known to suffer 

from a heart condition, had been reportedly visited by Government doctors on 10 

November. There had been no further reports on his current condition. 

1562. Aitzaz Ahsan, current president of the SCBA, was being held in Adiala prison 

in Rawalpindi. His lawyer had repeatedly been denied access to him. On 6 November, 

the authorities at the Adiala prison were said not to have admitted Atizaz Ahsan's 

lawyer, even though the Deputy Commissioner of Islamabad Administration had 

given permission for the visit. Mr. Tariq Mahmood, former President of the Supreme 

Court Bar Association had allegedly also been imprisoned in Adiala prison. No one 

had been allowed to see him and it was reported that he had been transferred to an 

unknown place. The whereabouts of Ali Ahmed Kurd, former Vice Chair of the 

Pakistan Bar Council, who was also detained on 3 November, continued to be 

unknown. 

1563. Information received suggested that Mr. Ali Ahmed Kurd had been handed 

over to intelligence agencies and had been maltreated. Mr. Abrar Hassan and Mr. 

Ahsan Bhoon were said to have been held incommunicado since their arrest on 3 

November. Although some lawyers had been freed around 20 November, it appeared 

that many of them had been re-arrested, and that the vast majority still remained in 

detention. It was also reported that lawyers, including women lawyers, had been 

severely beaten during demonstrations, and that they would be subjected to cruel and 

degrading treatment while in detention. 

1564. Concerning the situation of judges, it was reported that Mr. Ifetkhar 

Choudhry, Chief Justice of Pakistan, remained in detention, as well as other judges of 

the Supreme Court who had refused to take the new Oath under the new state of 

emergency regulations. Other judges were detained in the country, including the 

following judges of the Sindh High Court who had been put under house arrest: Mr. 

Sabih Uddin Ahmed, Chief Justice of Sindh, Mr. Justice Shahani, Mr. Justice 

Musheer Alam and Ms. Noor Naz Agha. The aforementioned judges had been 

dismissed in violation of the Pakistan Constitution and legislation guaranteeing the 

security of tenure of judges, in particular of Supreme Court judges, and which does 

not provide the President of Pakistan with the authority to dismiss judges. Grave 

concern was expressed at the numerous arrests and detentions of lawyers and judges 

under provisions that allow detention without charge or trial. Of further concern was 

the reported frequent incommunicado detention, which included denial of visits by 

family and lawyers. 

1565. With respect to the lawyers and judges mentioned above and in the annex, 

grave concern was expressed that they are at risk of torture or other ill-treatment. As


Page 306 

regards Mr. Malik, concern was expressed with regard to his health. Great concern 

was also expressed at the dismissal of judges. In this regard, the mandate-holders 

called upon the Government to reinstate all judges that have been illegally dismissed. 

They expressed their deepest concern at the arrests and detentions of human rights 

activists who had been arrested in connection with their peaceful protests to oppose 

the suspension of the Constitution and to support the independence of the judiciary. 

Many activists were reportedly arrested to prevent them from undertaking such 

activities. 

1566. Annexed to this letter were lists of lawyers, judges and human rights activists 

who had been arrested in the aftermath of the imposition of the state of emergency. 

These lists contained the names of those about whom information has been received 

but did not reflect the total number of those arrested. In list A, the mandate-holders 

included information on lawyers who had been released when this information had 

been made available to them. The mandate-holders regretted that the Government had 

not publicly released either the names of those arrested or those released. 

Observations 

1567. The Special Representative regrets that, to date, the Government of Pakistan 

has only responded to the communication of 16 March 2007. She remains seriously 

concerned with regard to the situation of human rights defenders in Pakistan. She 

particularly underlines the detention of judges, lawyers and human rights defenders 

under house movement with the aim of stifling protest as actions that are contrary to 

the right to freedom of movement, expression and assembly. 

1568. She also considers cause for grave concern the restrictions imposed on media 

in Pakistan in recent times. She views this as an unacceptable attempt to curtail the 

right to freedom of expression in the case of those calling attention to any actions that 

violate human rights and fundamental freedoms. 

1569. With regard to those human rights defenders who were placed under 

detention, the Special Representative calls on the Government of Pakistan to provide 

information regarding the legal basis of theses detentions. Furthermore, she requests 

information on any cases that are registered against these human rights defenders and 

any legal proceedings that may be pending against them. . She also requests that 

information be provided concerning the welfare of the subjects of the urgent appeals 

of 6 and 23 November 2007. 


Peru 

1570. El 3 de abril de 2007, la Representante Especial, junto con el Relator Especial 


indígenas, envió una carta al Gobierno peruano en relación con el Sr Javier Rodolfo 

Jahncke Benavente, miembro del Red Muqui, una agrupación nacional de 19 

organizaciones que trabajan en la defensa de los derechos de las comunidades rurales 

e indígenas afectadas por proyectos mineros en el departamento de Piura.


Page 307 

1571. Según la información recibida, el 15 de marzo de 2007, el Sr. Benavente 

habría recibido en su teléfono móvil una llamada amenazante de parte de un hombre 

que le habría dicho: “Vas a morir”. El Sr. Benavente trabaja en defensa de los 

derechos de las comunidades rurales afectadas por el proyecto minero Río Blanco, 

implementado por la empresa Minera Majaz S.A., en las provincias de Ayabaca y 

Huancabamba, departamento de Piura. Minera Majaz S.A. es subsidiaria de la 

empresa británica Monterrico Metals. Se alega que el Sr. Benavente habría 

denunciado el incidente ante la Fiscalía de Lima el 16 de marzo de 2007. Según las 

informaciones, otras personas que trabajan en defensa de los derechos de las 

comunidades rurales y indígenas en el norte del país también habrían recibidos 

amenazas de muerte a través de llamadas telefónicas anónimas, incluyendo Mirtha 

Vásquez Chuquilín, Directora Ejecutiva del Grupo de Formación e Intervención para 

el Desarrollo Sostenible (GRUFIDES); el padre Marco Arana Zagarra, fundador de 

GRUFIDES; así como la sobrina del padre Arana. GRUFIDES es una organización no 

gubernamental dedicada a la defensa del medio ambiente con sede en Cajamarca. 

GRUFIDES es parte de la Red Muqui. 

1572. El Relator Especial y la Representante Especial instaron al Gobierno a que 

adopte todas las medidas necesarias para proteger los derechos y las libertades de la 

persona mencionada e investigar, procesar e imponer las sanciones adecuadas a 

cualquier persona responsable de las violaciones alegadas. Instaron también a que 

tome las medidas eficaces para evitar que se repitan tales hechos. 


1573. En comunicaciones de fecha 13 y 20 de agosto de 2007, el Gobierno del Perú 

remitió copia del informe Nº 106-2007-JUS/CNDH-SE-CESAPI, de fecha de 24 de 

julio de 2007, elaborado por la Secretaría Ejecutiva del Consejo Nacional de Derechos 

Humanos, con respecto a la situación del Sr. Javier Rodolfo Jahncke Benavente, así 

como de otros documentos pertinentes relacionados con el presente caso. Según se 

informa en la nota del Gobierno, con fecha de 16 de marzo, se interpuso denuncia ante 

la fiscalía por la presunta comisión del delito contra la vida, el cuerpo y la salud en 

agravio de Javier Rodolfo Jahncke Benavente. Con fecha de 22 de abril, se dispuso 

abrir investigación policial y se remitió la denuncia a la División de Investigación de 

Secuestros de la Policía Nacional del Perú para que practique una exhaustiva 

investigación con participación de la 16ª Fiscalía Provincial Penal de Lima en las 

diligencias a realizarse. El Gobierno informaba asimismo de las acciones policiales 

efectuadas con relación a la denuncia presentada por Javier Rodolfo Jahncke 

Benavente. En este sentido, una unidad especializada de la Policía Nacional del Perú 

habría llevado a cabo las investigaciones, habiendo solicitado al juez de turno 

permanente la medida limitativa del derecho del celular del denunciante a fin de 

obtener el reporte de llamadas entrantes y salientes, así como la identidad de los 

propietarios. Asimismo, la policía había orientado a la víctima para evitar una rutina 

diaria, con el fin de evitar cualquier hecho que afecte su vida e integridad física. 


1574. El 11 de abril de 2007, la Representante Especial, junto con el Presidente del 


derechos humanos y obstaculizar el ejercicio del derecho de los pueblos a la libre


Page 308 

determinación, envió un llamamiento urgente al Gobierno en relación con la Sra. 

Mirtha Vásquez Chuquilin, Directora del organismo no gubernamental Grupo de 

Formación e Intervención para el Desarrollo Sostenible ‘GRUFIDES’, y el Padre 

Marco Arana Zegarra, fundador de dicha institución. 

1575. Los titulares de mandato habían recibido alegaciones de acciones de 

intimidación, hostigamiento y difamación dirigidas a causar daño moral y que atentan 

contra la vida privada de miembros de GRUFIDES o personas vinculadas a esa 

institución que se indican a continuación: Sr. Pablo Sánchez de Francesch, Sr. 

Segundo Alarcón Cobeñas, Sr. Jesús León Ventura, Sr. Luis Urtecho Linares, Sr. 

Mario Lanatta Velarde, Sra. Fanny Briceño Escobar, Sra. Patricia Rejas Caro, 

Sr. Miguel Castro Morales, Sr. Antonio Gálvez Horna, Sr. Juan Miranda 

Rodríguez, Sr. Jorge Camacho Cerna, Sr. Francisco Centurión Obando, Sr. 

Sergio Sánchez Ibáñez, Sra. Ivette Sánchez Gamboa, Sr. Segundo Alarcón 

Cobeñas y Sr. Oreto Ortega Miquel. 

1576. De acuerdo con las informaciones recibidas una empresa de seguridad privada 

denominada ‘C&G’, que estaría vinculada a ‘FORZA’ (esta última empresa de 

seguridad privada proporcionaría servicios de seguridad a la compañía Yanacocha), 

habría participado en acciones de hostigamiento destinadas a intimidar a miembros de 

GRUFIDES o personas vinculadas con dicha institución. Según la información 

recibida, el Padre Marco Arana Zegarra y la Sra. Mirtha Vásquez Chuquilin habrían 

denunciado tales actos a la Quinta Fiscalía Provincial Penal del Distrito Judicial de 

Cajamarca en septiembre del 2006, la cual después de iniciar una investigación habría 

decidido archivar definitivamente dicha investigación, por considerar que no había 

merito para formular denuncia penal contra los miembros de la empresa C&G, los 

señores Cesar Cáceres Garrido y Miguel Angel Saldaña Medina. 

1577. Los titulares de mandato reiteraron su profunda preocupación por la seguridad 

del personal del GRUFIDES porque se temía que las alegaciones de amenazas 

directas o disfrazas de las empresas de seguridad privadas podrían estar relacionadas 

con el trabajo en defensa de derechos humanos y en la protección del medio ambiente 

en la región de Cajamarca en el Perú. 


1578. El 11 de abril de 2007, la Representante Especial, junto con Relator Especial 

sobre la independencia de magistrados y abogados, envió un llamamiento urgente al 

Gobierno en relación con la Sra. Iscra Chavez Loaiza y la Sra. Evelyn Cevallos 

Enriquez, abogadas defensoras de derechos humanos de la Institución APORVIDHA, 

una organización miembro de la Coordinadora Nacional de Derechos Humanos con 

sede en Cuzco. La Coordinadora Nacional de Derechos Humanos es un colectivo 

nacional que agrupa a 66 organismos no gubernamentales dedicadas a la defensa y la 

promoción de los derechos humanos en Perú. El 13 de enero de 2006 la Representante 

Especial por los defensores de derechos humanos envió un llamamiento urgente al 

Gobierno señalando informaciones recibidas en relación con amenazas en contra de la 

Sra. Iscra Chavez Loaiza y la Sra. Evelyn Cevallos Enriquez. 

1579. De acuerdo con la información recibida, el 29 de marzo de 2007, hacia las 

18:30, la Sra. Enríquez habría recibido un mensaje anónimo en su móvil


Page 309 

amenazándole con que algo le sucedería si no dejaba su actividad. Ese mismo día, la 

Sra. Loaiza habría recibido en su móvil un mensaje de texto proveniente de alguien 

anónimo, con el siguiente contenido ‘cuídate te estoy chequeando’. La Sra. Enríquez y 

la Sra. Loaiza atienden el caso de la matanza de 34 campesinos, ocurrida en 

Lucmahuayco, Cuzco en 1984. El proceso penal ha sido remitido a la Sala Penal 

Nacional, en Lima, para que se especifique si se inicia el juicio oral. 

1580. Según se informó, en enero de 2006 la Sra. Enríquez, la Sra. Loaiza y el Sr. 

Freddy Rodríguez Olivera, otro miembro de APORVIDHA, habrían recibido 

amenazas de muerte a través de mensajes de texto anónimos en sus móviles. Se 

habrían denunciado las amenazas ante la Fiscalía Provincial del Cuzco. Se temía que 

estos eventos podrían estar relacionados con la actividad en defensa de los derechos 

humanos de la Sra.Iscra Chavez Loaiza y la Sra. Evelyn Cevallos Enriquez y se 

expresaba profunda preocupación por su seguridad e integridad física así como la del 

resto de los miembros de la Institución APORVIDHA. 


1581. En comunicación de fecha 8 de agosto de 2007, el Gobierno peruano 

respondió a la comunicación arriba. La respuesta gubernamental afirmaba que se 

realizaban pertinentes con la finalidad de identificar, de procesar y, de ser el caso, 

imponer al presunto autor las sancioned adecuadas por la presunta amenaza, con la 

finalida de proteger los derechos y libertades de los sujetos del llamamiento urgente y 

de los integrantes de APORVIDHA. 


1582. El 29 de noviembre de 2007, la Representante Especial, junto con el Relator 


los indígenas, envió un llamamiento urgente al Gobierno peruano en relación con el 

Sr. Robert Guimaraes Vásquez, líder de la comunidad indígena Pekon Sani y un 

conocido activista en relación con la protección del medioambiente en Perú. El Sr. 

Guimaraes es también Vicepresidente de la organización regional de la Asociación 

Interétnica de Desarrollo de la Selva Peruana (AIDESEP) del Departamento de 

Ucayali. 

1583. Según la información recibida, el día 9 de noviembre de 2007, un desconocido 

habría interceptado al Sr. Robert Guimaraes Vásquez en una calle cerca de su casa, 

arrebatándole su computadora portátil. La computadora contendría informes de 

derechos humanos, así como información que comprometería su propia seguridad. El 

día 6 de octubre de 2007, a las 21.00, el Sr. Guimaraes habría sido interceptado 

delante de su casa por dos hombres armados que se desplazaban en una camioneta. 

Dichos hombres habrían amenazado con matarle si continuaba con su trabajo en 

defensa de los derechos humanos, afirmando que se trataba de su “última 

advertencia”. El 25 de julio de 2007, en la noche, dos desconocidos que se trasladaban 

en una camioneta con vidrios polarizados habrían cortado el paso al Sr. Guimaraes 

mientras se dirigía a casa. Los hombres le habrían advertido que si no cesaba sus 

actividades en contra de los madereros ilegales “lo pagará muy caro”.


Page 310 

Dos días antes, Robert Guimaraes Vásquez habría denunciado ante las autoridades el 

supuesto tráfico ilegal de madera desde Puras hacia Lima, acusando a efectivos de la 

Fuerza Aérea del Perú de dicho tráfico. Se temía que las amenazas de muerte y actos 

de intimidación contra el Sr. Robert Guimaraes Vásquez podrían estar relacionadas 

con sus actividades en defensa de los derechos humanos, en particular, su trabajo para 

proteger los derechos de los pueblos indígenas y el medioambiente en Perú. Se 

expresaba profunda preocupación por su integridad física y psicológica. 

Respuesta del gobierno a una comunicación emitida antes del 2 de diciembre de 2006 

1584. Mediante carta con fecha de 23 de enero de 2007, el gobierno peruano 

respondió a un llamamiento urgente emitido por la Representante Especial el 24 de 

noviembre de 2006 en relación con el Padre Marca Anara el Sr Edmundo Becerra 

Palomino y la Dra Mirtha Vásquez Chiquilín 

1585. El gobierno respondió que las autoridades competentes se encontraban 

coordinando a fin de actualizar la información sobre el caso de la ONG GRUFIDES, y 

que se estaba a la espera de los resultados de la investigación que estaba desarrollando 

el Ministerio Público, a fin de poderlos alcanzar a la Representante Especial. 

Adicionalmente, el Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores afirmó que está siguiendo 

muy atentamente la problemática de la situcación de seguridad de los defensores de 

los derechos humanos en el país y promoviendo a nivel intersectorial alternativas de 

solución. 

Observaciones 

1586. La Representante Especial agradece al Gobierno sus comunicaciones en 

respuesta a los llamamientos urgentes de fecha 3 y 12 de abril de 2007 y aprecia las 

informaciones muy detalladas proporcionadas, así como las copias de la 

documentación relevante. 

Urgent appeal 

Philippines 

1587. On 14 December 2007 the Special Representative, together with the Special 


expression, sent an urgent appeal to the Government concerning death threats against 

Father Rolando de Leon, a Roman Catholic Priest of the Diocese of Malolos, 

Bulacan and Parish Priest of San Andres Apostol Parish, Norzagaray, and 

spokesperson for the Catholic Church’s provincial human rights office in Bulacan’s 

capital of Malolos. Fr Rolando de Leon was the subject of a joint communication 

addressed to the Government from the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and 



dated 2 December 2005. 

1588. According to the new information received, Fr de Leon had repeatedly been 

subjected to acts of intimidation and death threats since October 2005 when he 

received envelopes containing M-16 bullets. It is reported that during a series of


Page 311 

meetings held by members of the military in Bulacan Province between January and 

October 2006, Fr de Leon was accused of membership of the New People’s Army. 

Previously, in December 2005, he was reportedly depicted in posters displayed in the 

main public square of Norzagaray and its immediate environs, wearing a robe with the 

logos of the Communist Party of the Philippines and the New People’s Army. 

Furthermore, in March 2006, General Jovito Palparan Jr, the former military 

commander of the region, reportedly stated in local newspaper Balita that Fr Rolando 

de Leon “cannot be trusted because he is a liar”. This statement was apparently made 

in response to comments Fr de Leon had made at a press conference in relation to 

human rights violations in Bulacan Province which had been documented by the 

aforementioned human rights office in Malolos. 

1589. It was also reported that uniformed soldiers had repeatedly visited the church 

asking for Fr de Leon without giving a reason for their presence. According to 

sources, armed soldiers were also present in the church’s courtyard on occasion. 

Concern was expressed for the safety and security of Fr Rolando de Leon as it was 

feared that the sustained campaign of hostility against him represented an attempt by 

the military, to deter him from carrying out his legitimate activities in defence of 

human rights, in particular his work in documenting and raising awareness of human 

rights violations in the Bulacan Province. 


1590. In a letter dated 2 March 2007, the Filipino Government responded to the 

above communication. The letter stated that no complaint had been lodged by or on 

behalf of the victim. An investigation had been conducted by the Philippine National 

Police (PNP). Following to the death threat Fr. Leon had goneto the media and gave 

interviews to news networks, saying that if something were to happen to him the 

military should be blamed for it. The military had denied any knowledge about the 

incident and had assured their cooperation to the police. 

1591. The PNP was conducting a follow-up investigation and was coordinating with 

Fr de Leon on matters pertaining to his security. If requested, appropriate security 

would be provided to him. The PNP was of the view that the involvement of Gen. 

Jovito Palparan in the death threat received by Fr de Leon was a personal conjecture 

with no legal basis for proof. 



Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions sent a letter of 

allegations to the Government concerning Mr Alberto Yadan, peasant leader, activist 

for agrarian reform and director of Ugnayan ng mga Nagsasariling Lokal na 

Organisasyon sa Kanayunan (UNORKA – Pilipinas), Mr Bong Gonzal, a community 

organiser for PROGRESO and regional coordinator for PEACE, a national non- 

Governmental organization in Visayas, Mr Jesus Buth Sevida, labour activist and 

member of the Solidarity of Cavite Workers (SCW), Mr Joel Sale and Mr Kenny 

Mari Severo.


Page 312 

1593. According to the information received, on 6 December 2006, Mr Alberto 

Yadan was shot dead at his home in Barangay Tipas, San Juan, Batangas, in the 

presence of his family. Sources alleged that the police had failed to conduct a proper 

investigation of the crime scene and did not take into account any forensic evidence 

which may have been present. Reportedly Mr Alberto Yadan and other family 

members had been receiving death threats since 2004, most recently on 5 December 

2006, from policemen in the village. Mr Yadan and his cousin Ms Lorenza Marcos 

had allegedly been involved in a land dispute with landowner Ms Norma De Leon and 

her son-in-law, Mr Melanio Gazzingan, who is a Municipal Police Officer. However, 

Mr Melchor Bataller, another village policeman, has reportedly been arrested in 

connection with the murder as it is believed he made threatening remarks to Mr 

Yadan the day before his death. 

1594. On 8 December 2006, Mr Bong Gonzal was the victim of an armed attack in 

Estancia, Iloilo, in which he suffered gunshot wounds to his arms and legs. 

Furthermore, on 11 December 2006, Mr Jesus Buth Servida, Mr Kenny Mari Severo 

and Mr Joel Sale were subjects of an attack carried out by an unidentified gunman 

which resulted in the death of Mr Servida and injuries to his two companions. The 

attack was apparently carried out at 6:15am in front of Gate No. 2 of the Yakazi-EMI 

(EDS Manufacturing Incorporated) factory in Imus, Cavite. 

1595. Grave concern was expressed that the killing of Mr Alberto Yadan and the 

attack on Mr Bong Gonzal may have been related to their legitimate activities in 

defence of human rights, in particular their involvement in campaigns to advocate for 

genuine land reform and the defence of the rights of peasants and of other members of 

the community who are affected by land disputes. Concern was expressed that the 

attack on Mr Jesus Buth Servida, Mr Kenny Mari Severo and Mr Joel Sale may be 

related to Mr Servida’s active involvement in the defence of labour rights. Further 

concern was expressed that a full and detailed investigation was necessary in each of 

the cases described above, as it was feared that they may represent a sustained 

campaign of harassment of human rights defenders in the Philippines. 


1596. In a letter dated 8 January 2007, the Filipino Government responded to the 

above Communications requesting further information or details on the cases outlined 

to help ensure proper coordination with concerned authorities in the Phillipines. 




the Government concerning repeated killings of lawyers and judges in the country. 

Only in the past two months, four individuals have been killed, namely Nathaniel 

Pattugalan, judge, shot dead by men on a motorcycle on 19 January 2007; Gil Gojol, 

human rights lawyer, killed in a similar manner on 12 December 2006, and Froiland 

Siobal and Leonito Tapel, attorneys, ambushed and killed on 19 November 2006 and 

2 December 2006 respectively.


Page 313 

1598. Furthermore, the mandate-holders had been informed that an International 

Fact Finding Mission concluded in its report ‘From Facts to Action. Report on the 

attacks against Filipino Lawyers and Judges’, issued on 24 July 2006, that the 

Government had not taken sufficient measures to address the continuing extrajudicial 

killings of lawyers and judges effectively. In particular, criticism had been expressed 

that the Government had not responded seriously to strong allegations that its own 

security forces were involved in the killings nor taken effective measures to ensure 

that appropriate investigations and prosecutions of the perpetrators be conducted. 

1599. It was also brought to the attention of the mandate-holders that a Special 

Commission of Inquiry, headed by former Supreme Court Justice Jose Melo, had been 

established to investigate the killings. According to information received, the 

Commission concluded its work in December 2006 and was expected to report its 

findings to the Government in the first week of 2007. At time of writing, however, the 

findings and recommendations of the Commission appeared not to have been made 

public. 


1600. In a letter dated 4 April 2007, the Filipino Government responded to the above 

communication. The letter stated that Judge Nathaniel Pattugalan, had, on 15 January 

2007, sent a letter to the Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato Puno, requesting to be 

transferred to another Court in Manila, mentioning continuing threats to his life that 

may have been connected to the ambush incident, which he survived unharmed on 27 

October 2006 in Baggao, Cagayan. The PNP was still validating information 

regarding the motorcycle used by the assailants as it was seen parked near a sidewalk 

at the vicinity of the DAR Building, a few hours before the incident. Continuous 

coordination among PNP Units was being undertaken in order to resolve the case as 

soon as possible. 

1601. The Government response further stated that the motive behind the murder of 

Gil Gogol was reportedly politically motivated. His driver was also killed in the 

incident. One of the three suspects was identified as Mario Fortun, a.k.a. Omar. A 

case had been filed against the suspects at the Sorsogon Provincial Prosecutor’s 

Office under IS No. 2007-1411. Regarding Froilan Siobal; results of the investigation 

conducted by Task Force Siobal headed by Police Sr. Supt. Noli G. Talino, revealed 

that Froilan Siobal and his wife, Mrs. Erlinda Siobal, were killed on 19 November 

2006 at about 10.00am along Siobal St., Barangay Inerangan, Alaminos City, 

Pangasinan. Witnesses, Reynaldo A. Dacon and Bernals A. Caballero, had made 

sworn statements that the victims were in their vehicle when SPO1 Agapito “Pitong” 

Celino, member of the PNP and assigned at 106 th Police Mobile Group (PMG) based 

in Alaminos, Pangasinan, together with Ojing Olivarez, both armed, suddenly 

appeared and shot the victims. 

1602. On 29 November 2006, a case of double murder was filed before the 

Provincial Prosecutor’s Office, Alaminos, Pangasinan, against suspects Agapito 

Celino and Ojing Olivarez, Barangay Councilman Edgar Parang and other John Does 

under ID No. AC-06-341. Agapito Celino was being re-assigned from the 106 th Police 

Mobile Group to Pangasinan Police Provincial Office and be restricted inside the 

camp pending the disposition of an administrative case against him.


Page 314 

Urgent appeal 



on the question of torture, and the Special Rapporteur on violence against women sent 

an urgent appeal to the Government concerning Mr Nilo Arado, national council 

member of Kilusang Magbubukidng Pilipinas (Peasant Movement of the Philippines) 

and Chair of Bayan - Bagong Alyansang Makabayan, an alliance of human rights 

organizations which promote and defend the rights of peasants, workers, women, 

students and minorities; Ms Maria Luisa Posa-Dominado, an active campaigner for 

women's rights and a member of Selda, the Society of Ex-Detainees for Liberation, 

Against Detention and for Amnesty; and Mr Jose Ely Garachico, Secretary-General 

of the Panay of Karapatan. 

1604. According to the information received, on 12 April 2007, Mr Arado, Ms Posa- 

Dominado and Mr Garachico were driving back home from the Antique province 

when they were ambushed by unidentified armed men in Oton town in Iloilo 

province. The gunmen opened fire at the vehicle and hit Mr Garachico in the left side 

of his neck. Mr Arado and Ms Posa-Dominado were forcibly taken to the van of the 

assailants who drove off. The van was later found charred in Barangay Guadalupe, 

Janiuay, 30 kilometres northwest of Iloilo City. The whereabouts of Mr Arado and Ms 

Posa-Dominado remained unknown at time of writing. Mr Ely Garachico was taken to 

the Iloilo hospital for surgery, and remained in critical condition. 


1605. In a letter dated 7 June 2007, the Filipino Government responded to the above 

communication. The letter stated that continuous investigation was being undertaken 

by Police Regional Station 6 to determine the whereabouts of of Mr Arado and Ms 

Posa-Dominado and for the possible identification and apprehension of anyone 

suspected of involvement in the attack. 



Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, sent a letter of 

allegations to the Government concerning Mr Charlie Solayao, the Vice-Chairperson 

of Kadamay, a community organisation dedicated to the protection of the rights of the 

urban poor, and Mr Mario Auxilio, the Secretary-General of Bayan Muna, a farmers’ 

rights organisation. 

1607. According to information received, at approximately 1am on 17 July 2007, 

Charlie Solayao and his wife were standing near their home waiting to be collected 

and taken to Old Road, Sagkahan, Tacloban City when a motorcycle carrying two 

men appeared. The driver wore a hooded balaclava while the other man was carrying 

a gun and began shooting at Mr Solayao. The two men then drove off on the 

motorcycle in the direction of Tacloban City. The victim’s family took him to the 

Divine World Hospital where he died 10 hours later.


Page 315 

1608. At the time of his death, Mr Solayao was Vice-Chairperson of the community 

organisation, Kadamay, and was involved in campaigns protecting street-vendors in 

Tacloban Market and the urban communities in the metro. Last month, Mr Solayao 

reportedly received a visit from an agent of the Philippines Military, who advised him 

that he would be killed if he did not cease his activities. Mr Solayao was scheduled to 

have a meeting with the human rights organisation Katungod-Sinirangang Bisayas, 

based in Tacloban City, in order to discuss this warning and the possible dangers 

which he may have been facing. 

1609. On 15 June 2007, Mario Auxilio was having an informal meeting in front of a 

store in Barangay Poblacion, Bien Unido, in order to organise a meeting with the 

farmers of Barangay Panaghiusa in Trinidad. Mr Auxilio noticed Hilario Diola, a 

military agent whom he recognised as Mr Auxilio had provided him with medical 

assistance in the past. Mr Diola was accompanied by someone unknown to Mr 

Auxilio. Their presence made him nervous and he decided to end his meeting and 

make his way home. As he was mounting his motorcycle, Mr Diola allegedly began 

shooting at him. Mr Auxilio was first taken to Talibon District Hospital before being 

transferred to the Celestino Gallares Memorial Hospital in Tagbilaron City where he 

died from gunshot wounds at approximately 10.00 on 17 June. 

1610. Prior to his death, Mr Auxilio had been leading protests against the alleged 

abuses committed by the 15th Infantry Batallion. Two day before he was shot, he had 

led a protest against tests for oil exploration in the Bohol strait. For the past year, he 

and his organisation, Bayan Muna, had been the object of intimidation and defamation 

allegedly instigated by the Mata na Bol-anon Movement, a group reported to have 

connections with the military. Concern was expressed that the killings of Charlie 

Solayao and Mario Auxilio may have been related to their peaceful human rights 

activities, in particular their work to protect the rights of the urban poor and farmers. 

Further concern was expressed for the physical and psychological integrity of their 

families and colleagues. 


1611. In a letter dated 19 September 2007, the Filipino Government responded to the 

above communication. The letter stated that regarding the case involving Mr Solayao, 

no penal or disciplinary sanctions had been imposed, as the identities of the suspects 

had not yet been established. This was also the case in the investigation of the killing 

of Mr Auxilio; no penal or disciplinary sanctions have been imposed, as the Bien 

Unido Police Station was still in the process of obtaining sufficient evidence against 

the suspect. 


1612. On 4 October 2007 the Special Representative sent a letter of allegations to the 

Government concerning Mr Franklin Cabiguin Labial. Mr Franklin Cabiguin Labial 

was the President of Don Carlos Bukidnon United Farmers Association (DCBUFA) 

and representative of the Task Force AR-AD, an organisation dedicated to the 

protection of land rights in Bukidnon.


Page 316 

1613. According to information received, on 10 August 2007, Franklin Cabiguin 

Labial was shot and killed outside his home in North Don Carlos by two unidentified 

individuals on a motorcycle who had reportedly been following him prior to the 

attack. That same day, Franklin Cabiguin Labial had visited the offices of Southern 

Fruit Products Inc. and its sister company, Davao Venture Corporation (SFPI- 

DAVCO) in order to discuss a lease agreement relating to land the companies 

allegedly intended to clear. He also had a meeting with the Secretary of the 

Department of Agrarian Reform. 

1614. According to reports, Mr Franklin Cabiguin Labial received death threats via 

text message on 14 July 2007 following an inter-agency meeting he had attended in 

which he questioned the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform 

Program (CARP) and contract between SFPI-DAVCO. Concern was expressed that 

the killing of Mr Franklin Cabiguin Labial may have been related to his activity in the 

defense of human rights, in particular, the protection of workers’ rights and land rights 

in the Philippines. 

Urgent appeal 


Government concerning Mr Jaime Rosios, a member of the Board of Trustees of the 

Yellow Bus Line (YBL) Employees Union and Committee Chair of the Collective 

Bargaining Agreement (CBA). According to information received, on 11 August 

2007, at approximately 6.45pm, Mr Jaime Rosios was leaving the garage where he 

works in Korondal, South Cotabato, when he was abducted by three armed 

individuals. The three men reportedly forced him into a Toyota Tamaraw FX, before 

driving at high speed in the direction of General Santos City. Earlier that day, Mr 

Alex Magbanua, one of the accused in a bombing attack which took place on 3 

August 2007 inside the YBL terminal, had reportedly signed a confession implicating 

Mr Jaime Rosios and fellow worker Mr Ibrahim Bacal in the crime. 

1616. On 9 August 2007, Mr Ibrahim Bacal was allegedly summoned to the office of 

the Regional Intelligence Group (RIG) in General Santos City and he was requested to 

sign a statement implicating Mr Jaime Rosios in the aforementioned bombing. Mr 

Ibrahim Bacal refused to comply with the demand on two occasions. The whereabouts 

of Mr Jaime Rosios were unknown. Concern was expressed that the aforementioned 

abduction of Mr Jaime Rosios may have been related to his activity in the defense of 

human rights, in particular, the protection of workers’ rights and land rights in the 

Philippines. Further concern was expressed for the physical and psychological 

integrity of Mr Jaime Rosios. 


1617. In a letter dated 8 October 2007, the Permanent Mission of the Philippines in 

Geneva acknowledged receipt of the above communication and stated that the letter 

had been forwarded to the appropriate authorities in Manila. The letter further stated 

that information regarding to the case would be made available to the Special 

Representative once received by the Permanent Mission. 

Urgent appeal


Page 317 


Government concerning Ms Sherlyn Cadapan, Ms Karen Empeño and Mr Manuel 

Merino. Ms Sherlyn Cadapan is a community organiser with the youth group 

Anakbayan and works in a voluntary capacity for Alyansa ng Magbubukid sa Bulacan 

(Alliance of Peasants in Bulacan – AMB), an organization dedicated to the promotion 

and protection of peasant rights based in Central Luzon. Ms Karen Empeño is a 

member of the League of Filipino Students (LFS) and Mr Manuel Merino is a local 

peasant and a member of the Alyansa ng Magbubukid sa Bulacan. 

1619. According to information received, on 26 June 2006 at approximately 2.00am, 

Ms Sherlyn Cadapan, Ms Karen Empeño and Mr Manuel Merino were reportedly 

abducted by armed men in San Miguel, Hagonoy Bulacan. According to reports, Ms 

Sherlyn Cadapan, and Ms Karen Empeño were staying in a villager’s house while 

conducting research for local peasant organisations, while Mr Manuel Merino lives in 

the area and was abducted while trying to help Ms Sherlyn Cadapan and Ms Karen 

Empeño. The three were allegedly forced on to a vehicle that was last seen driving in 

the direction of Iba, Hagonay. Ms Cadapan was reportedly pregnant at the time of the 

abduction. 

1620. Concern was expressed that the aforementioned abduction of Ms Sherlyn 

Cadapan, Ms Karen Empeño and Mr Manuel Merino may have been related to their 

human rights activities, in particular their work to defend student and peasant rights in 

the Philippines. Further concern was expressed for the physical and psychological 

integrity of Ms Sherlyn Cadapan, Ms Karen Empeño and Mr Manuel Merino and for 

the members of Anakbayan, Alyansa ng Magbubukid sa Bulacan and the League of 

Filipino Students. 


1621. In a letter dated 5 November 2007, the Filipino Government replied to the 

above communication. The letter stated that, according to a witness who refused to be 

identified, the Ms Sherlyn Cadapan, Ms Karen Empeño and Mr Manuel Merino were 

abducted by six unidentified men, believed to be military agents. A complaint had not 

been lodged and the alleged perpetrators had not been identified. An investigation 

conducted by Hagonoy, Bulacan Police Station revealed that on 26 June 2006 at about 

3.25pm, members of the Hagonoy, Bulacan Police Station accompanied Ms Paulino 

Purok 6, Barangay San Miguel, Hagonoy, Bulacan, to verify her report of the 

abduction. 

1622. The following day, at around 9.20pm, Mr Mon L. Mangaran of Malolos, 

Bulacan, and Mr Antonio S. Idanan of Meycauayan, Bulacan, reported to the 

Hagonoy, Bulacan Police Station that while they were conducting a fact-finding 

mission at the place of the abduction, four unidentified males were allegedly seen 

spying on them, however, a certification dated 29 June 2006 issued by Barangay San 

Miguel Chairman Guillermo L. Fajardo, stated that there was no recorded incident 

regarding the abduction of the three. 

1623. On 3 July 2006, verification at the UP Los Banos revealed that Sherlyn and 

Karen were not students at said university. However, a letter from the President of UP


Page 318 

Diliman, confirmed that Karen was a BA Sociologist there and Manuel was a 

respondent to the thesis allegedly being completed by Karen. A certificate also stated 

that Sherlyn was a student under the B.Sports Science program in 1994-1995 and 

2000-2001. It was also stated most of the potential witnesses were allegedly staying at 

the Refugee Centre in Bulacan where letters had been sent but remained unanswered. 

A petition for habeas corpus was filed before the Supreme Court on 17 July 2006 by 

the relatives of Sherlyn and Karen requesting that a Writ of Habeas Corpus be issued 

directing the respondents: Maj. Gen. Romeo Tolentino, Maj. Gen. Jovito Palparan, Lt. 

Col. Rogelio Boac, Lt. Francis Samson and Arnel Enriquez to bring the bodies of the 

three before the court. 

1624. However, on 29 May 2007, the petition was dismissed, there being no strong 

evidence that the missing persons were in the custody of the respondents. The 

Provincial Intelligence and Investigation Branch of Bulacan Police Provincial Office 

were later able to contact Mrs Erlinda Cadapan, mother of Sherlyn. She agreed to 

grant an appointment later but all attempts to contact her had failed. Mr Ceferino 

Manzano, Barangay Councilor and neighbour, told the investigators that Mrs Paulino, 

Sherlyn’s mother-in-law was still in Los Banos, Laguna, and stated that he had not 

seen Sherlyn since her abduction.On 25 September 2007, a case conference was 

conducted at the Task Force Usig Secretariat and directed the investigators to exert 

more effort in gathering relevant information from potential witnesses in the 





expression, sent a letter of allegations to the Government concerning Mr Pete Pinlac, 

Mr Arturo Castillo, Mr John Beato, Mr Aurelio Veloso, Ms Virginia Suarez 

Pinlac, Ms Mitzi Chan and Mr Roy Fernandez. Mr Pete Pinlac is the President of 

Manggagawa sa Komunikasyon ng Pilipinas (MKP – The Telecommunications 

Workers’ Union of the Philippines); Mr Arturo Castillo and Mr John Beato are First 

and Second Vice-Presidents of MKP respectively; Aurelio Veloso works with 

Manggagawa para sa Kalayaan ng Bayan, MAKABAYAN (Workers for People's 

Liberation); Ms Virginia Suarez Pinlac is Vice-Chairperson of Pagkakaisa ng 

Kababaihan (KAISA KA), a womens’ rights organisation; Ms Mitzi Chan is 

Chairperson of the People's Struggle Commission of Kilusan para sa Pambansang 

Demokrasya (KPD); and Mr Roy Fernandez is an MKP Representative. 

1626. According to information received, on 10 October 2007, Mr Pinlac, Mr 

Castillo, Mr Beato, Mr Veloso, Ms Pinlac, Ms Chan and Mr Fernandez were arrested 

during their participation in a peaceful protest against the labour policies of the 

Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company. The protest, which was held outside 

the Department of Labour and Employment in Manila, was reportedly violently 

dispersed by members of the Western Police District of the Philippine National 

Police. The individuals arrested have reported having suffered severe bruising and Ms 

Mitzi Chan had her nose broken, allegedly as a result of being hit by a member of the 

police.


Page 319 

1627. Mr Pinlac, Mr Castillo, Mr Beato, Mr Veloso, Ms Pinlac, Ms Chan and Mr 

Fernandez were later released on bail. The charges filed against them include having 

held a rally without a permit; obstructing traffic; and disturbing the peace. Concern 

was expressed that the aforementioned arrests of Mr Pete Pinlac, Mr Arturo Castillo, 

Mr John Beato, Mr Aurelio Veloso, Ms Virginia Suarez Pinlac, Ms Mitzi Chan and 

Mr Roy Fernandez, as well as the charges that have been filed against them, may have 

been directly related to their non-violent human rights activities, in particular their 

work to promote and protect workers’ rights in the Philippines. 

Responses from the Government 

1628. In a letter dated 8 November 2007, the Permanent Mission of the Philippines 

in Geneva acknowledged receipt of the above communication and stated that the letter 

had been forwarded to the appropriate authorities in Manila. The letter further stated 

that information regarding to the case would be made available to the Special 

Representative once received by the Permanent Mission. 

1629. In a letter dated 29 January 2008, the Government further responded to this 

communication, submitting a report provided by the Philippine National Police and 

the Dept. of Labour and Employment. The government stated that results of the 

investigation into the case would be passed to mandate-holders upon completion. 

1630. The government stated that the demonstration referred to in the 

communication of 1 November 2007 took place without the requisite permits. While 

workers staged their demonstration outside outside the building, officials from the 

Dept of Labour and Employment were holding conciliation talks with with 

representatives of PLDT workers, with the additional presence of the management of 

the company on 10 October 2007. In the spirit of tolerance and conciliation, the 

workers were allowed to hold demonstrations unhamperesd, except that the police had 

to warn them on the second day to break up before nightfall. 

1631. The response stated that police authorities had also held dialogue with the 

demonstrators and that it had been agreed that the group would be given until 5.00 

p.m. on 10 October 2007 to air their grievances. However; at 5.40 p.m. that evening, 

the group showed no sign of terminating their activity. The Government stated that eh 

police only moved to arrest some of the demonstration leaders after they resisted all 

efforts to get them to disperse peacefully on their own. Arrested individuals had been 

brought for a medical check-up and were then turned over to the General Assignment 

Section (GAS) for filing of appropriate charges. The government response stated that 

the subjects of the communication had been apprehended for Violation of Batas 

Pambansa (BP) 880, Breach of Peace, Obstruction and Disobedience to Lawful Order. 




people, sent a letter of allegations to the Government concerning Mr Jose “Joe” 

Cawiding, the Secretary-General of the Metro Tribal Elders Assembly (MBTELA), a 

non-Governmental organization undertaking education work among tribal elders and


Page 320 

leaders in Baguio City. Mr Cawiding is also an accredited local mediator of the 

Supreme Court Mediation Center. 

1633. According to information received, on 1 October 2007, Mr Cawiding was 

arrested by the Philippine National Police after a warrant was first issued against him 

on 15 September 2003. He had allegedly been accused of membership in the New 

People’s Army and involvement in the ambush between the New People’s Army and 

the Armed Forces of the Philippines which left eight soldiers dead. However, at the 

time of the incident, Mr Cawiding was reportedly in Baguio City, taking part in the 

Byan Muna National Council meeting at the Teacher’s Camp. On 9 November 2004, 

the Regional Trial Court in Bontoc ruled to hold the execution of the arrest warrant in 

abeyance in order to further verify the real identity of the Jose Cawiding named in the 

warrant. 

1634. On 29 March 2007, the same Court stated that “the court deems it necessary to 

conduct further hearing on the Motion to Dismiss in order to give opportunity to 

movant Jose Cawiding to prove that he is not the same Cawiding named in several 

charges of murder before this Court”. On 27 April, the Court re-issued a warrant 

against Mr Cawiding, who was being held at the Benguet Provincial Police Office 

(BPPO) at Camp Dangwa. Concern was expressed that the aforementioned arrest and 

detention of Mr Cawiding may have been related to his peaceful human rights 

activities, in particular his work to protect the victims of human rights violations. 


1635. In a leter dated 29 January 2007, the Filipino Government responded to the 

above communication. The letter stated that Mr Cawiding was the intelligence officer 

of the KLG Marco/ Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP)/ New People’s Army 

(NPA) operating within the areas of Mountain Province Abra and Benguet and that, 

on 12 October 2007, Mr Cawiding was arrested in Baguio City in connection with 

outstanding warrant on suspicion of murder and attempted murder. The letter further 

stated that he carried a reward of Php 500,000 pesos for his arrest. The charges were 

in relation to six criminal cases (Numbers 1749 -1755) and no bail was recommended. 



the Government concerning Prolabor Legal Assistance Centre (PLACE), a non- 

Governmental organisation providing legal aid to workers in the Philippines. 

According to information received, as of 16 October 2007, PLACE’s offices located 

at No.33B, E. Rodriguez Avenue, Quezon City, were subject to surveillance which 

lasted several days. Five men equipped with fire arms and two-way radios were 

reportedly seen stationed across the street from the offices until the following 

morning. On 17 October 2007, a group of four men arrived and were observed 

sketching the front of the building where PLACE’s offices are located and observing 

the movements of staff members and others coming and going from the offices. A 

continued presence was reported on 25 October 2007, with the men on duty being 

rotated. When asked what they were doing, the men allegedly admitted to being 

intelligence agents, but said that their objective was to observe a nearby petrol station 

and not the PLACE offices.


Page 321 

1637. According to an eye-witness, one of these men was reportedly involved in an 

attempted break-in of PLACE’s offices in October 2006. Also in October 2006, 

Corporal Romel Santiago of the Philippine Army was arrested and questioned for 

having followed workers and labour leaders as they left a meeting with lawyers from 

PLACE. Prior to his release, Corporal Romel Santiago admitted to having been 

instructed to conduct surveillance of the PLACE offices. Concern was expressed that 

the aforementioned surveillance of PLACE may have been directly related to the 

organisation’s peaceful work in defense of human rights, in particular workers’ rights. 



to the Government concerning Mr Ricardo Bellamia y Becaril. Mr Ricardo Bellamia 

y Becaril is a coordinator with Kilusang Mayo Uno Labour Centre (KMU), an 

organisation dedicated to the promotion and protection of workers’ rights. He is also a 

member of the National Federation of Labour based in Barangay Casay, in Dalaguete 

town, Cebu province. 

1639. According to information received, on 2 November 2007, Mr Ricardo 

Bellamia y Becaril was reportedly arrested at his home by members of the Regional 

Command of the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the Armed Forces of the 

Philippines Central Command (CENTCOM). A warrant for his arrest had been issued 

on 21 March 2006 by Judge Sylvia Aguirre Delanga of the Regional Trial Court 

(RTC), Branch 25, Danao City. On 5 November 2007, Mr Bellamia y Becaril was 

charged with “rebellion” before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, Danao City, 

accused of being a member of the New People’s Army (NPA). He was additionally 

accused of involvement in the killing of soldiers of the 78th Infantry Battalion during 

rebel-military encounters that allegedly occurred in 2004 at Brgy Dalid, Tabuelan 

town, Brgy Sumon and Brgy Kalanggaman in Tuburan, and Brgy Baliang in Danao 

City, Cebu province. Mr Bellamia y Becaril consistently denied being a member of 

the NPA. Mr Bellamia y Becaril was being detained at the Central Command of the 

Armed Forces of the Philippines at Camp Lapu-lapu in Apas, Lahug, in Cebu City. 

1640. Concern was expressed that the aforementioned detention of Mr Bellamia y 

Becaril, as well as the charges of “rebellion” that have been brought against him, may 

be directly related to his peaceful human rights activities, in particular his work to 

promote workers’ rights in the Philippines 

Response from Government 

1641. In a letter dated 21 November 2007, the Filipino Government responded to the 

above communication. The letter stated that Mr Bellamia y Becaril had been arrested 

and charged as outlined in the communication. It proceeded to state that Ms Edith 

Bellamia, the wife of the aforementioned had filed a petition for habeas corpus before 

the presiding judge of RTC Branch 9 Cebu City to present her husband, who was at 

that time being detained in Guadalupe Police Station, and to determine the legality of 

his detention.


Page 322 

1642. The habeas corpus petition was rejected by the court on 7 November 2007 as 

the police authorities reportedly justified the legality of Mr Bellamia’s arrest to the 

presiding judge. The Philippines National Police PRO-7 presented further information 

identifying Mr Bellamis as ‘Ka Yuri’, the alias indicated in the original charge sheet. 

The police also produced an alias warrant and two commitment orders from RTC 

Branch 25 in Dano City, Cebu. 

1643. The government further responded that Mr Bellamia remained in detention at 

the Central Command, Camp Lapu-Lapu, Cebu City after the Court granted the 

CPDRC authorities’ request to have him detained there 



to the Government concerning Mr Ruel Munasque, a leader of the Christian Youth 

Fellowship and a community development worker of the Consortium of Christian 

Organizations in Urban Development. According to information received, on 24 

October 2007, Mr Ruel Munasque was traveling to Tigbao Town on a passenger 

vehicle when he was forcibly abducted by soldiers at a checkpoint in Barangay village 

in Dumalinao, Zamboanga del Sur. The soldiers at the checkpoint in question were 

allegedly affiliated with the 53rd Infantry Battalion of the Philippine Army. A farmer 

named Mr Roger Morales was traveling with Mr Ruel Munasque and was also 

abducted. He was later released and reported the arrest of Mr Ruel Munasque. 

1645. According to Mr Roger Morales, Mr Ruel Munasque was subjected to 

physical abuse while in the custody of the aforementioned soldiers. On 28 October 

2007, Mr Ruel Munasque's sister received a phone call from someone introducing 

himself as a soldier. This person informed her that her brother was undergoing 

medical treatment. He also warned her that she was under surveillance and that if she 

continued to seek legal assistance to effect her brother’s release, criminal charges 

would be brought against her brother. Mr Ruel Munasque was reportedly released on 

7 November 2007. Concern was expressed that the aforementioned arrest, detention 

and ill-treatment of Mr Ruel Munasque may be directly related to his peaceful human 

rights activities. 


1646. In a letter dated 4 January 2008, the Filipino Government responded to the 

above communication. The letter stated that, according to a report of the Philippine 

National Police, on 21 October 2007 member of the 53 rd Infantry Batallion were 

conducting a clearing operation when they encountered a group of New People’s 

Army (NPA) in Libagoy, Tigabo, Zamboanga del Sur which resulted in the death of a 

Government soldier and apprehension of two NPA members. M-14 and M-16 rifles 

were confiscated from the NPA members. On 24 October, Mr Raul Munasque, who 

had allegedly been wounded in the aforementioned encounter, arranged to meet with 

soldiers and be brought to hospital for treatment. 

1647. According to the Government letter, this agreement was confirmed by Mr 

Munesque in an affidavit of voluntary custody, signed by him on 26 October 2007. In 

the affadavit, Mr Munasque also reportedly confirmed that it was his group which was


Page 323 

found by soldiers and that as a result of this, three of his fellow members of the NPA 

had died and he had sustained a gunshot wound to his leg, which had forced him to 

seek medical treatment. He reportedly also stated that he had been treated very well 

while in military custody. 

1648. On 31 October 2007, Mr Munasque was the first person to be granted a writ of 

Amparo, which is a legal measure, available since 24 October 2007, to persons whose 

right to life, liberty and security has been violated or is threatened with violation by 

any unlawful act or omission by public officials or by private individuals or entities. 


2006 

1649. In a letter dated 15 June 2007 and, the Filipino Government responded (further 

to initial responses on 16 October and 27 November 2006) to a communication sent 

by the Special Representative on 15 September 2006, together with the Special 

Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions regarding the 

extrajudicial killings of Pastor Isaias Sta. Rosa, Mr Ceasar Quimco, Mr Victor 

Olayvar, and Mr Napoleon Bautista allegedly by members of the military. The 

mandate-holders had also addressed the wider issue of extrajudicial killings in the 

Philippines, annexing a list of more than 50 reported cases of extrajudicial killings 

since January 2006. 

1650. The Government responded that the killing of Victor Olayvar was regarded as 

a purge ordered by members of the Communist Party of the Philippines/New People’s 

Army/National Democratic Front. Witnesses had identified three alleged perpetrators, 

one was arrested on 11 September 2007 and a file had been opened against all three 

for murder. The letter further stated that the cases of the killing of Mr Napoleon 

Bautista and Mr Ceaser Quimco remained under investigation by the Philippine 

National Police. The letter stated that there were a number of suspects in the killing of 

Pastor Isaias Sta Rosa and that a case on murder charges had been filed against twelve 

people, including Maj. Ernest Marc Rosal, Arnaldo L. Manjares on 18 May 2007. 

1651. The lack of cooperation on the part of the Army of the Philippines was cited as 

an obstacle in the aforementioned investigation but the Government response did not 

address the wider concerns raised by the mandate-holders regarding extrajudicial 

killing in the Philippines. 


1652. In a letter dated 19 June 2007, the Filipino Government responded (further to 

an initial response on 11 September 2006) to a communication sent by the Special 

Representative, on 2 June 2006, together with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, 

summary or arbitrary executions, regarding the issue of extrajudicial killings in the 

Philippines, in particular the cases of Mr Vicente Denila, Mr Florencio Perez 

Cervantes, Mr Rico Adeva, Porferio Magsalang, Mr Enrico Cabanit, Ms Elena 

Mandiola and her husband Mr Ricardo Balauag, Ms Annaliza Abanador-Gandia, 

Reverend Andy Pawican, and Mr Noel Capulong: All of the aforementioned were 

human rights defenders and civil society activists in the fields and were killed in 

separate incidents in the first half of 2006.


Page 324 

1653. In a communication dated 2 June 2006, the mandate-holders expressed their 

grave concern in relation to these and other extrajudicial killings. The Government 

response provided information concerning four of the above cases. Regarding the 

killing of Mr Vicente Denila, the letter stated that investigation were ongoing with a 

view to possible identification and apprehension of suspects. With regard to Mr 

Magsalang, it was the view of the police that he had been killed due to links with 

military intelligence. Four men had been identified as suspects in his murder, warrants 

had been issued for their arrest and Kabankalan City Police were engaged in a 

manhunt operation to apprehend them. In the case of Mr Cabanit, the Government 

asserted that the gunman alleged to have been directly responsible for his death had 

died, and that this and the reluctance of Mr Cabanit’s daughter – injured in the 

incident - to cooperate in the investigation were hindering progress. 

1654. However, the letter further stated that investigations were ongoing to attempt 

to ascertain the identity of those indirectly for the attack. Investigations conducted 

into the killing of Rev Pawican concluded that he had been killed during an encounter 

between soldiers of the 48 th Infantry Batallion and a group of communist terrorists on 

21 May 2006. However the letter did not elaborate on who, if anyone was a suspect in 

the case. Nor did it address the wider issue aluded to by the mandate-holders in their 

communication. 


1655. In a letter dated 6 February 2007, the Filipino Government responded to an 

urgent appeal sent by the Special Representative on 15 November 2006, together with 

the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of 

indigenous people, concerning the assault of Ms Abigail Bengwayan and the 

surveillance of Mr Santos Mero. The Government responded that the assault of Ms 

Bengwayan had been found to be an attempted robbery and was coordinating with Ms 

Bengwayan to ascertain any other possible motives for the assault. Mr Mero did not 

make a complaint to police regarding the surveillance and had not given them a 

description of the suspect. 

Observations 

1656. The Special Representative thanks the Government of the Philippines for its 

responses to eleven of the thirteen communications sent. With regard to the letter of 

allegations of 21 December 2006, the Special Representative had provided all the 

information at her disposal and considered it is the responsibility of the Government 

to ensure that investigations are undertaken. 

1657. The Special Representative remains deeply concerned regarding the high 

incidence of forced disappearance and extrajudicial killings of human rights defenders 

and calls on the Government of the Philippines to conduct thorough investigations of 

such cases and, as requested in the letter of allegations of 2 June 2006, provide the 

relevant information in detail. 

1658. She expresses her concern that cases of assault, disappearance and killing of 

human rights defenders which go uninvestigated mean that human rights defenders in


Page 325 

the Philippines are unable to fully carry out their work due to fear of intimidation and 

reprisal. 


Poland 

1659. In a letter dated 6 August 2007, the Polish Government responded to an urgent 

appeal sent by the Special Representative on 15 November 2006, concerning threats 

made against Ms Hejna Katarzyna, a member of the Campaign against Homophobia 

in Torun, by members of the neo-Nazi organization Blood & Honour (BH). The 

Government letter stated that the BH-Poland website (Redwatch) which displayed Ms 

Katarzyna’s personal information, and as such facilitated the threats made against her, 

was based on a server in the US, where the law permits this. The Prosecutor’s Office 

asked US law enforcement agencies for legal assistance in obtaining information 

relating to server and the IP numbers of the computers logging onto the website. 

1660. As a result of Polish-US cooperation, the website was closed down twice, but 

since US law does not ban such organisations, the website was again operational. In 

view of a criminal investigation being conducted into this activity, the General 

Inspector for the Protection of Personal Data had refrained from opening 

administrative proceedings in connection with infringement of regulations on the 

protection of personal data. To date, Ms Hejna had not complained to the General 

Inspector concerning the use of her personal data by people connected to BH-Poland. 

Observations 

1661. The Special Representative thanks the Government of Poland for its reponse 

to the communication of 15 November 2006, and trusts that the Government will 

continue to make efforts to ensure that intimidation of and threats made against 

human rights defenders working in defence of LGBT rights are thoroughly 

investigated, thus allowing them to carry out their work without fear of such 

harassment. 


Russian Federation 



the Government concerning information received regarding the International 

Protection Centre (IPC) and its founder Ms Karinna Moskalenko. The IPC is a 

Russian human rights organisation that assists Russian citizens in gaining access to 

international mechanisms of human rights protection. Specifically, the IPC has 

brought a number of cases before the UN Human Rights Committee and the European 

Court of Human Rights in relation to alleged human rights violations committed by 

the Russian authorities. 

1663. According to the information received, on 17 July 2006, the IPC was fined 

$170,000 USD by the Russian tax authorities, based on the accusation that the IPC


Page 326 

failed to pay taxes in respect of foreign grants received between 2002 and 2005. The 

IPC had declared these grants, which were used for research and education purposes 

related to human rights, to the Russian authorities regularly during the period 2002 to 

2005 but the authorities had not requested the IPC to pay any taxes on them. A tax 

inspection had been ongoing for more than a year which had curbed the IPC’s activity 

and might render the IPC’s directors to be criminally liable. 

1664. Furthermore, it was reported that the IPC was unable to pay the 

aforementioned fine and would be forced to close. It was also alleged that in 

December 2005, a representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of 

Human Rights requested the lawyers’ registry body of the Ministry of Justice to 

initiate disciplinary proceedings against Ms Moskalenko and to have her disbarred. 

Concerns were expressed that the above events may have been connected with the 

human rights activities of the IPC and particularly Ms Moskalenko’s advocacy work 

bringing case on human rights before the UN Human Rights Committee and the 

European Court on Human Rights. 


1665. In a letter dated 20 February 2007, the Government of the Russian Federation 

responded to the above communication. The letter stated that under the legislation of 

the Russian Federation, the work of newly registered non-profit organizations, 

including voluntary associations, is inspected on a regular basis by public inspection 

authorities. The Procurator’s Office, tax authorities and State registration authorities 

have the power to carry out such inspections. The Federal Tax Service monitors 

compliance with the tax laws and the accuracy of calculations, ensures that tax 

deductions, duties and other compulsory payments to the appropriate budget are made 

in full and on time, and oversees compliance with the clemency laws of the Russian 

Federation, within the jurisdiction of the tax authorities. 

1666. According to information provided by the Federal Tax Service, its Moscow 

inspectorate No. 9 carried out a routine inspection for the fourth quarter of 2006 to 

verify that the International Protection Centre was complying with the tax laws. 

According to inspection report No. 12-04/2351 of 17 July 2006, the Centre owed 4 

million roubles in tax on profits for 2002, 2003 and 2004, including unpaid fines and 

penalties. Following action by the Centre to challenge the results of this inspection, 

inspectorate No. 9 issued decision No. 12-04/342 of 29 August 2006 on the conduct 

of a further inspection. The records of this case are currently at the Moscow office of 

the Federal Tax Service, which is still examining whether the tax claims presented to 

the Centre are justified. Information on the decision taken by the Moscow tax office 

will be provided in due course. 

1667. According to information provided by P.A. Laptev, the representative of the 

Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights, he did not request the tax 

services to inspect the Centre; nor did he make any other requests concerning the 

activities of the Centre on matters not directly related to the complaints procedure of 

the European Court. In accordance with Decree No. 310 of 29 March 1998 of the 

President of the Russian Federation, the representative of the Russian Federation at 

the European Court of Human Rights does not have the authority to make such 

requests.


Page 327 

1668. The letter further denied tha allegation that the representative of the Russian 

Federation at the European Court of Human Rights ever requested the Ministry of 

Justice of the Russian Federation or any other Government body to have K.A. 

Moskalenko disbarred and noted that K.A. Moskalenko did not currently hold the post 

of director of the International Protection Centre as she stepped down voluntarily on 

12 August 2003. 


1669. On 8 February 2007 the Special Representative, together with the Special 


expression, sent a letter of allegations to the Government concerning the Federal 

Supreme Court of Moscow’s decision to uphold a ruling to close the Russian 

Chechen Friendship Society (RCFS), a registered, independent non-Governmental 

organization based in Nizhny Novgorod which monitors human rights violations in 

Chechnya and other parts of the North Caucasus. Mr Stanislav Dmitrievsky, Director, 

and Ms. Oksana Chlysheva, Deputy Director of RCFS were previously the subjects of 

several communications sent by these mandate-holders; an allegation letter on 9 June 

2005, of an urgent appeal on 15 November 2005, of a joint allegation letter on 21 

November 2005 and of a joint urgent appeal on 20 October 2006. 

1670. According to information received, on 23 January 2007, the Federal Supreme 

Court of Moscow upheld a decision of the Regional Court of Nizhny Novgorod to 

close the Russian Chechen Friendship Society (RCFS). The original order was issued 

on 13 October 2006, on the grounds that the organization had violated laws relating to 

public association, NGO reporting procedures and had been involved in alleged 

extremist activities. The decision taken by the Regional Court of Nizhny Novgorod’s 

to close RCFS was based on recently adopted legislation enshrined within the Federal 

Law on NGOs. According to the Court’s decision, Article 19 required that Mr 

Dmitrievsky step down as Director of RCFS for his alleged involvement in extremist 

activities. In addition, according to the Regional Courts decision, Article 15 of the 

Law on the Fight against Extremist Activities, required RCFS to publicly condemn 

Mr Dmitrievsky’s alleged extremist activities within five days of the court hearing if 

its reputation was to remain intact. 

1671. On 2 September 2005, Mr Dmitrievsky was charged under Article 282 (1) of 

the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, for inciting hatred. In February 2006, he 

was again charged with the same alleged offence, on the basis of articles published in 

the RCFS newspaper calling for peace in Chechnya. According to reports, legal 

actions had been pursued by the Russian Government on two previous occasions in an 

attempt to close the RCFS. The first was initiated by the Federal Registration Service, 

which claimed that the organization was unable to produce original copies of financial 

records. It later transpired that the documents were with another Government agency 

and RCFS was unable to comply with both requests simultaneously. 

1672. In 2005, legal action was taken against the organization by the tax authorities 

and the registration department of the Ministry of Justice. Serious concerns were 

expressed that the decision to close the Russian Chechen Friendship Society formed 

part of an ongoing campaign against human rights defenders in the Russian


Page 328 

Federation and may have been the latest attempt to silence organizations because of 

their legitimate activities in monitoring the human rights situation in Russia. 


1673. On 9 February 2007 the Special Representative sent a letter of allegations to 

the Government concerning Ms Karinna Moskalenko, leading human rights lawyer, 

Commissioner with the International Commission of Jurists and recipient of the 

International Helsinki Federation's annual human rights award for 2006. Ms 

Moskalenko was the subject of an urgent appeal sent by the Special Rapporteur on the 


General on the situation of human rights defenders on 1 December 2006. 

1674. According to information received on the evening of 4 January 2007, whilst 

checking-in for a flight to Siberia at Domodedovo airport, Moscow, Ms Moskalenko 

was instructed to proceed to a special police room. Ms Moskalenko’s passport was 

confiscated temporarily and she was subjected to a ‘special security check’. Personal 

items, including confidential legal documents were examined in the presence of a 

significant number of police officers. The ‘security check’ was reportedly conducted 

by the Linear Department of the Ministry of the Interior in Domodedovo Airport, and 

was recorded on camera. Ms Moskalenko was later allowed to board the flight, which 

was delayed for a further 40 minutes without further explanation. Ms Moskalenko was 

accompanied by defence lawyers, Mr Jury Shmidt, Mr Yevgeny Baru, Mr Leonid 

Saykin and Mr Konstatin Riskin who were also subjected to a ‘special security 

check’. 

1675. The lawyers were traveling to Chitta, Siberia to visit their client Mr Mikhail 

Khodorkovsky. According to reports, Ms Moskalenko has been the target of repeated 

harassment including attempts to disbar her in December 2005. As founder of the 

International Protection Centre, she has also been subjected to a series of intrusive tax 

inspections. Concerns were expressed that the aforementioned events may have been 

connected with Ms Moskalenko’s interaction with the Human Rights Committee and 

the European Court of Human, as noted above. Further concern was expressed that 

this harassment may form part of an ongoing campaign against human rights 

defenders in Russia and that this may represent an attempt to prevent lawyers from 

carrying out their legitimate work in defence of human rights and to discredit them. 


1676. In a letter dated 12 April 2007, the Government of the Russian Federation 

responded to the above communication. The letter stated that, in accordance with the 

provisions of article 85 of the Air Code of the Russian Federation, Government 

Decision No. 897 of 30 June 1994 on the federal system for protecting civil aviation 

from acts of illegal interference, and Ministry of Transport Order No. 102 of 21 

November 1995 on guidelines for inspecting passengers and crew members of civilian 

aircraft, service personnel, carry-on luggage, baggage, freight, the mail and on-board 

supplies, all passengers must present all personal items and their carry-on luggage for 

inspection. Passengers Shmidt, Baru, Saykina, Rivkin and Rivkina refused to present 

their personal items and carry-on luggage for inspection; they behaved inappropriately


Page 329 

and defiantly and began an altercation with officials who were carrying out their 

duties, thereby provoking a conflict situation. 

1677. In light of this, the decision was taken to bring them to the duty office of the 

sectoral internal affairs department in Domodedovo airport for closer examination, 

including a records check. Ms. Moskalenko was not taken to the duty office of the 

internal affairs department in Domodedovo. After a pre-flight inspection, which was 

conducted with their consent, all of the aforementioned citizens boarded their flight 

and travelled to their destination. The allegation that the pre-flight inspection of Ms. 

Moskalenko was conducted because of her human rights activities was denied. In this 

situation, the internal affairs officers acted in accordance with Federal Act No. 1026-1 

(Police Act) of 18 April 1991 and did not exceed their duties and the Government was 

of the opinion that there were no grounds for the procurator to take any action. 



Government concerning Ms Karinna Moskalenko, prominent human rights lawyer 

and defender. Ms Moskalenko was the subject of letters of allegation sent by 

mandate-holders on 4 December 2006 and on 9 February 2007. According to 

information received, on 18 April 2007, Ms Moskalenko was informed that a motion 

had been issued by the Prosecutor General's office to the Russian registration service 

in order to disbar her from practicing law. The decision was based on her failure to 

attend a meeting between Mr Khodorkovsky and his criminal defence team. Ms 

Moskalenko was representing Mr Khodorkovsky in his complaint to the European 

Court for Human Rights in which he claimed that his right to a fair trial had been 

violated. However, she was not part of his criminal defense team in Russia. 

1679. Ms Moskalenko was reportedly scheduled to accompany another high-profile 

client to a meeting with the Russian security service when she received notice of the 

call for her disbarment. According to reports, Ms Moskalenko has been the target of 

repeated harassment, as outlined in the previous communications. Concern was 

expressed that the motion disbarring Ms Moskalenko may have been related to her 

peaceful and legitimate activities in defence of human rights in Russia. Further 

concern was expressed that this harassment may form part of an ongoing campaign 

against human rights defenders in Russia and that this may represent an attempt to 

prevent lawyers from carrying out their legitimate work in defence of human rights, 

and to discredit them. 



Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia 

and related intolerance, sent a letter of allegations to the Government concerning an 

attack on Ms Valentina Uzunova, Director of the Minority Rights Commission in St. 

Petersburg. Ms Uzunova is an ethnologist and expert on extremism and racist 

incitement in Russiam and was acting as an expert witness in a case of incitement of 

violence against minorities involving Rus Pravoslavnaya, a local extremist Russian 

Orthodox newspaper.


Page 330 

1681. According to the information received, on 19 June 2007, at approximately 

18:00, Ms Uzunova was brutally attacked by an unidentified female outside the family 

home of a former colleague, Mr Nikolai Girenko, in St. Petersburg. Mr Girenko, ex- 

Director of the Minority Rights Commission, professor of ethnology and prominent 

expert on ethnic and racial issues in the country, was shot dead on his doorstep in June 

2004. The masked assailant allegedly demanded that Ms Uzunova turn over the 

documents she was carrying. When Ms Uzunova refused, the woman physically 

attacked her before absconding with the dossier containing the documents along with 

Ms Uzunova’s earrings. The assailant did not take Ms Uzunova’s purse. Ms Uzunova 

suffered concussion as a result of the attack and was treated at Alexandrovskaya 

Hospital for her injuries. 

1682. According to reports, the attack took place the day before Ms Uzunova was 

due to testify against Mr Vladislav Nikolsky, a publisher of xenophobic literature who 

has been accused of inciting ethic hatred. Prior to the attack Ms Uzunova had 

allegedly received an anonymous phone call threatening her and her family with death 

if she did not assist in clearing Mr Nikolsky’s name. Ms Uzunova was apparently 

refused police protection on the basis that there was not enough evidence to support 

the threat. Concern was expressed that the above-mentioned events were directly 

related to Ms Uzunova’s legitimate work in defence of human rights in Russia, in 

particular, her activities in relation to the protection of minority rights, activism 

against extremism and incitement to racial hatred in Russia, research on these issues 

and participation in the aformentioned trial. 


1683. In a letter dated 13 August 2007, the Government of the Russian Federation 

responded to the above communication. The letter stated that the woman who attacked 

Ms Uzunova did not utter any threats relating to her victim’s professional activity. On 

the basis of the attack on Uzunova, the Petrograd Side internal affairs office in St. 

Petersburg instituted criminal proceedings under article 161, paragraph 2 (d) 

(Robbery) of the Criminal Code. The theory that “supporters” of V.I. Nikolsky were 

involved in the attack was being studied. The criminal proceedings in question were 

being specially monitored by the Office of the Procurator General of the Russian 

Federation. 

Urgent appeal 

1684. On 6 August 2007 the Special Representative, together with the Chairperson- 

Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention sent an urgent appeal to the 

Government concerning Ms. Larissa Arap, a Russian journalist and member of an 

organization called “United Civil Front”, resident in Murmansk. According to the 

information received, Ms. Larissa Arap was arrested on 5 July 2007 in a clinic in 

Murmansk where she had gone for a medical examination needed to renew her 

driver’s license. Following her arrest, Ms. Arap was transferred to a psychiatric 

hospital 150 km outside Murmansk, where she was allegedly injected with drugs 

against her will. She was also beaten and tied to a bed. 

1685. On 18 July 2007, the local district court ordered that Ms. Arap be subjected to 

compulsory treatment. Since then she has been held in a wing for violent patients. On


Page 331 

8 June 2007, Ms. Arap’s article on the reported ill-treatment of children in psychiatric 

hospitals in the Murmansk region was published in a newspaper published by the 

“United Civil Front”. In particular, she had reported about the use of electroshock and 

alleged that patients had been beaten and raped repeatedly. Concern was expressed as 

regards Ms. Arap’s state of health in view of the reported forced administration of 

injections, allegations of ill-treatment and her alleged detention in a wing for violent 

patients. Further concern was expressed that her compulsory admittance to a 

psychiatric hospital might be solely connected to her activities in defence of human 

rights. 


1686. In a letter dated 19 September 2007, the Government of the Russian 

Federation responded to the above communication. The letter stated that L.I. Arap had 

been under psychiatric observation at the municipal outpatient clinic in the closed city 

of Severomorsk since 18 June 2004 for an acute psychotic disorder with suspected 

schizophrenia and a paranoid syndrome. She had been committed to the Murmansk 

provincial neuropsychiatric clinic, a State health facility, for treatment in 2004. Ms. 

Arap saw a psychiatrist on several occasions in 2006, sometimes at the insistence of 

family members, and had received the necessary outpatient psychiatric care. 

1687. On 5 July 2007, Ms. Arap visited a psychiatrist from the Severomorsk 

municipal outpatient clinic for the medical clearance that she needed to obtain a 

driving licence. During the consultation, the psychiatrist found medical reasons why 

Ms. Arap should not drive. It was explained to Ms. Arap that she would need to 

undergo psychiatric tests before a panel in accordance with article 3 of Federal Act 

No. 3185-1 of 2 July 1992 on psychiatric assistance and guarantees concerning its 

availability to the public (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Ms. Arap disagreed 

with the psychiatrist’s opinion, however, and turned aggressive, screaming and 

running around the consultation room. She also started threatening to complain to the 

procurator’s office and accused the physician of trying to “stick her in the madhouse”, 

motivated, according to Ms. Arap, by plans to take over her apartment. Ms. Arap also 

began to make threats against various people and to claim that her telephone was 

being tapped by the secret service and that her neighbours were “gassing her”. 

Moreover, her speech was confused and irrational and she jumped from one subject to 

another without responding to the physician’s remarks. 

1688. The psychiatrist, M.O. Rekish diagnosed Ms. Arap’s condition as an acute 

psychotic disorder, as evidenced by the thought disorders manifested as irrationality, 

incoherence, delusions and confused behaviour. It was impossible to leave Ms. Arap 

without qualified psychiatric help under such circumstances and, acting on the 

grounds stipulated in article 29, paragraph (a), of the Act, the psychiatrist took the 

decision to commit her to the Murmansk provincial neuropsychiatric clinic for 

treatment, until such time as a court could take a decision. In accordance with article 

303 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation and article 32 of the 

Act, Ms. Arap was examined by a panel of experts from the Murmansk provincial 

neuropsychiatric clinic on 6 July 2007 and was diagnosed with “paranoid-type 

schizophrenia and a shift-like affective paranoid syndrome”.


Page 332 

1689. On the basis of the panel’s findings, an application was submitted to the 

Leninsky district court in Murmansk, for Ms. Arap to be committed to a psychiatric 

hospital under article 29, paragraph (a), of the Act. On 18 July 2007, a special session 

of the Leninsky district court was convened (case No. 2 1483), with the participation 

of a procurator and a lawyer. The application by the Murmansk provincial 

neuropsychiatric clinic for Ms. Arap to be committed to hospital was granted. As a 

result of ward overcrowding (one member of nursing staff for every 30 patients, 

instead of every 25, as recommended), Ms. Arap was transferred along with 20 other 

patients of the Murmansk provincial neuropsychiatric clinic, following standard 

procedure, to the Murmansk provincial psychiatric hospital on 26 July 2007. Ms. Arap 

was examined by the psychiatrist V.V. Denisov in the hospital’s admissions unit and 

presented no signs of injury or physical deterioration. 

1690. On 27 July 2007, she was examined in the ward by a panel of psychiatrists 

consisting of the chief consultant of ward No. 3, V.N. Reeva, the chief of ward No. 2, 

Y.V. Denisova and the chief of ward No. 1, P.N. Zimin. The panel found that the 

patient was suffering from paranoid-type schizophrenia with affective paranoid 

syndrome and confirmed that compulsory hospital treatment was necessary. On 9 

August 2007, as Ms. Arap had been in hospital for an entire month and in the light of 

the recommendation of the principal outside psychiatric expert of the Murmansk 

provincial health committee that another medical examination should be carried out in 

accordance with the legally prescribed schedule (as from the time of hospitalization), 

a medical examination of Ms. Arap was carried out by a panel of psychiatrists. The 

panel found that Ms. Arap met the criteria for compulsory hospital treatment set out in 

article 29, paragraph (c), of the Act; this necessitated a further consideration by the 

court of the issue of extending Ms. Arap’s compulsory hospital treatment. On 11 

August 2007, a special session was convened of the Apatity municipal court in 

Murmansk province, by decision of which Ms. Arap’s compulsory hospital treatment 

was extended. 

1691. On 28 August 2007, pursuant to the findings of the psychiatrists of the 

Murmansk provincial neuropsychiatric hospital and in accordance with article 40 of 

the Act, Ms. Arap was released from hospital into outpatient care at her place of 

residence consequent to an improvement in her state of health. The Leninsky 

administrative district procurator’s office in Murmansk closely examined Ms. Arap’s 

committal to the psychiatric hospital, but did not find that the law had been breached 

in any way where the committal procedure was concerned. 




expression, sent a letter of allegations to the Government concerning the non- 

Governmental organization Tolerance Support Foundation and Mr. Stanislav 

Dmitrievsky, one of the Foundation’s collaborators, editor-in-chief of the newspaper 

Pravozaschita and Executive-Director of the Russian-Chechen Friendship Society. 

Mr. Dmitrievsky was previously the subject of several communications sent by 

mandate-holders; the subject of an allegation letter sent on 9 June 2005, of an urgent 

appeal on 15 November 2005, of a joint allegation letter sent on 21 November 2005,


Page 333 

of a joint urgent appeal on 20 October 2006 and of a joint allegation letter sent on 8 

February 2007. 

1693. According to the information received, on 30 August 2007, three officers from 

the department of computer crimes in the internal affairs directorate presented a 

search warrant to the Nizhni Novgorod’s office of the Tolerance Support Foundation. 

They conducted a complete inspection of the foundation’s financial and 

administrative operations as well as other activities, which were allegedly not covered 

by the warrant. All four computers in the organization were confiscated on the basis 

of lack of a software licence. The Foundation’s director and administrator were 

ordered to appear for questioning at the Nizhni Novgorod police. 

1694. According to reports, the inspection in the Tolerance Support Foundation may 

have been related to the activities of Stanislav Dmitrievsky, who received a two-year 

suspended sentence in February 2006 on the charge of inciting racial hatred after 

publishing critical articles in the Russian-Chechen Friendship Society’s newspapers. 

In April 2007, Mr. Dmitrievsky organized a demonstration called the “March of 

Dissenters”, which was not authorized by the authorities. Subsequently, he received a 

written statement from the Federal Service to Executive Punishment warning him that 

his conditional sentence might be commuted to imprisonment. Allegedly, the 

authorities refused to hand him a copy of the warning. This prevented him from filing 

an appeal. 

1695. On 5 and 6 June 2007, the Peace Court 1 of the Nizhegorodskiy district also 

issued two rulings ordering that administrative proceedings be undertaken against Mr. 

Dmitrievskiy. According to information, the terms of Mr. Dmitrievskiy's suspended 

sentence had also become more severe and he may now be imprisoned if he commits 

administrative violations. Concern was expressed that the inspection of the Tolerance 

Support Foundation’s activities and the confiscation of its computers as well as the 

written warning and administrative proceedings against Mr. Dmitrievsky may have 

been related to their legitimate exercise of their right to freedom of expression and to 

their peaceful actions in the defence of human rights. 


1696. In a letter dated 23 November 2007, the Government of the Russian 

Federation responded to the above communication. The letter stated that the internal 

affairs agencies of the Russian Federation are taking measures to prevent violations of 

copyright and related rights by carrying out regular checks of enterprises and 

organizations to determine whether they are using unlicensed computer software. 

Over nine months in 2007, the Department for the Prevention of Computer Crime of 

the Central Internal Affairs Department for Nizhny Novgorod province checked 47 

organizations for compliance with legislation on intellectual property. 

1697. On 29 August 2007, the Central Internal Affairs Department for Nizhny 

Novgorod province, in accordance with article 11, paragraph 1, subparagraphs 16 and 

25, of the Militia Act, decided to inspect the financial, economic, entrepreneurial and 

commercial activities of the Tolerance Support Foundation, situated at 26 Korolenko 

St., room 5, in Nizhny Novgorod. On the same day, members of the Department for 

the Prevention of Computer Crime of the Central Internal Affairs Department, in the


Page 334 

presence of witnesses and representatives of the Tolerance Support Foundation, Ms. 

O.A. Chelysheva and Mr. S.M. Dmitrievsky, in accordance with articles 11 and 23 of 

the Militia Act, inspected the premises of the Foundation with a view to discovering 

violations of Russian legislation on the protection of copyright and related rights. 

1698. During the inspection, it was found that four base units in the office of the 

Tolerance Support Foundation were using pirated software. The inspection and 

confiscation of the articles were reported in accordance with legislation currently in 

force. When the Expert-Criminalistic Centre of the Central Internal Affairs 

Department for Novgorod province examined the aforementioned base units, it found 

that the software installed was not licensed. 

1699. According to the representative of the company for Privolzhsky federal 

district, Mr. V.G. Bunatyan, the damages caused by the Tolerance Support Fund to 

the Microsoft Corporation amounts to 75,870 roubles and 51 kopecks. On 1 October 

2007, the investigative department for Nizhny Novgorod district of the investigative 

committee attached to the office of the procurator of the Russian Federation for 

Nizhny Novgorod province instituted criminal proceedings (case No. 35410) on the 

basis of evidence of an offence contrary to article 146, paragraph 2 (Unlawful use of 

objects of copyright), of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Proceedings in 

connection with the pretrial investigation of the criminal case were under way. 


1700. On 24 October 2007 the Special Representative sent a letter of allegations to 

the Government concerning the late Ms Anna Politkovskaya, the Nizhny Novgorod 

Foundation to Promote Tolerance and Mr Stanislav Dmitrievsky. Ms Anna 

Politkovskaya, who was killed on 7 October 2006, was known for her independent 

reporting on human rights violations against civilians in Chechnya. She also published 

several books about Chechnya and on the political situation in the country. 

1701. Ms Politkovskaya was the subject of an allegation letter sent by the Special 


together with the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and the Special 


expression on 12 October 2007. Mr Stanislav Dmitrievsky is the former Executive 

Director of the Russian-Chechen Friendship Society (RCFS). Mr Dmitrievsky was the 

subject of previous allegation letters sent by mandate-holders on 12 January 2007 and 

on 9 June 2005. 

1702. According to information received, one year after her killing, it appeared that 

limited progress has been made in the investigation of the murder of Ms Anna 

Politkovskaya. There had also been reports expressing concern that there had been 

irregularities in procedure such as the release in the public media of the names of 

those suspects detained. Furthermore, a conference organized by the Nizhny 

Novgorod Foundation to Promote Tolerance and the Nizhny Novgorod branch of 

Novaya Gazeta, the publication for which Ms Anna Politkovskaya formerly worked, 

was scheduled to be held on 5 and 6 October 2007 in memory of the killing of Ms 

Politkovskaya.


Page 335 

1703. The Nizhny Novgorod Foundation to Promote Tolerance and the Nizhny 

Novgorod branch of Novaya Gazeta encountered obstacles in the organisation of this 

conference, when they were refused access to the Foundation’s funds on the grounds 

that the Foundation had been black-listed by the Russian Committee for Financial 

Monitoring, and when the hotel that had been reserved to host the conference 

cancelled the booking on 5 October 2007, stating a supposed water leak as the reason 

for the cancellation. In addition, several representatives from human rights 

organisations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights First, who were to 

attend the conference were arrested and detained for more than four hours by police at 

the offices of the Nizhny Novgorod Foundation to Promote Tolerance on charges of 

having violated the law on visa policy as they had entered the Russian Federation on 

tourist visas. They were later ordered to pay fines ranging between 3,000 to 5,000 

roubles. Police also arrested Mr Stanislav Dmitrievsky and interrogated him for two 

hours before releasing him. 

1704. The offices of the Nizhny Novgorod Foundation to Promote Tolerance were 

searched by six members of the police who allegedly took computers and software 

licensing documents. The Nizhny Novgorod Foundation to Promote Tolerance was 

previously subject to a police search in August 2007, when its computers were also 

confiscated. Concern was expressed at the limited progress in the investigation into 

the killing of Ms Anna Politkovskaya and at the aforementioned suspected obstruction 

of a conference in her memory organised by the Nizhny Novgorod Foundation to 

Promote Tolerance and the Nizhny Novgorod branch of Novaya Gazeta as well as the 

arrests of the representatives of human rights organisations and the search of the 

offices of the Nizhny Novgorod Foundation to Promote Tolerance. 


1705. In a letter dated 26 November 2007, the Government of the Russian 

Federation responded to the above communication. The letter stated that the Moscow 

procurator’s office instituted criminal proceedings following the murder, on 7 October 

2006, of Anna Politkovskaya. On the same day, the criminal case was withdrawn 

from the Moscow procurator’s office and referred to an investigator from the Office 

of the Procurator-General of the Russian Federation for further investigation. The 

Office of the Procurator-General of the Russian Federation was developing a number 

of versions, including the possibility that the journalist was murdered in connection 

with her professional activity, bearing in mind her publications on the situation in the 

northern Caucasus. 

1706. In order to verify the assumptions contained in the journalist’s last article, 

entitled “We appoint you terrorist”, concerning the unlawful activities of internal 

affairs officers in the Chechen Republic, on 13 December 2006 the office of the 

procurator of the Chechen Republic instituted criminal proceedings against these 

officers on the basis of evidence of an offence contrary to the relevant article of the 

Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Exceeding of official powers). The 

investigation was under the personal supervision of the Procurator-General of the 

Russian Federation, Mr. Yury Chaika. At present, 10 persons had been arrested for the 

commission of this offence. These persons were the indirect organizers, accomplices 

and the perpetrators of the offence. In the words of Mr. Chaika, it was also possible to 

identify the person who ordered the murder of Ms. Politkovskaya; however, this


Page 336 

person was not available for investigation, since he lived abroad. The letter further 

stated that, as the results of the investigation show, the crime was organized very 

carefully. The organization was headed by the leader of a Moscow criminal group, a 

person from the Chechen Republic, who engages in criminal business and specializes 

in contract killings. 

1707. With regard to the reasons for the murder, the Procurator-General emphasized 

that the removal of Ms. Politkovskaya could be of interest only to persons living 

outside the Russian Federation. The removal of Ms. Politkovskaya primarily benefits 

those persons and organizations that are seeking to destabilize the situation in the 

country, change its constitutional order, create a crisis in the Russian Federation, 

return to the former system of Government and discredit the leaders of the Russian 

State. Bearing in mind the considerable public interest in the investigation of the 

murder of Ms. Politkovskaya, and the number of untrue reports in the mass media, on 

4 September 2007 the Office of the Procurator-General of the Russian Federation 

issued a press release, which reads as follows: “ 

1708. In connection with the large volume of work in securing evidence, on 29 

August 2007, another team of investigators of the department for the investigation of 

particularly serious cases was incorporated into the investigative group headed by the 

investigator for particularly serious cases, P. Garibyan. Each of them carries out the 

necessary investigative measures, pursuing their activities in accordance with the plan 

for investigating the criminal case. The director of the department for the investigation 

of particularly serious cases of the Office of the Procurator-General of the Russian 

Federation, S. Ivanov, is responsible for overall guidance and coordination of the 

activities of these groups, including cooperation with the strategic services of the 

Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Federal Security Service. The investigation of the 

criminal case remained under the personal supervision of the Procurator-General of 

the Russian Federation, Yury Chaika”. 




expression and the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, sent a letter of 

allegations to the Government concerning Mr Oleg Orlov, head of the human rights 

organization Memorial, and three journalists from the Russian TV station REN TV, 

Mr Artem Vysotskii, Mr Karen Sakhinov and Mr Stanislav Goriachikh. Several 

communications concerning members of the organization Memorial had previously 

been sent by the Special Representative on the situation of human rights defenders 

since 2002 (see E/CN.4//2003/104/Add.1, paras. 434-451, E/CN.4/2004/94/Add.3 

paras. 376, 378, 381, 382, 384 and 387, E/CN.4/2005/101/Add.1 paras. 445 and 460, 

E/CN.4/2006/95/Add.1 para. 446 and A/HRC/4/37/Add.1 paras. 572-573). 

1710. According to the information received, during the night of 23 to 24 November 

2007, armed masked men in camouflage woke up Oleg Orlov, Artem Vysotskii, 

Karen Sakhinov and Stanislav Goriachikh at the “Assa” hotel in Nazran in Ingushetia. 

They took all their possessions from the hotel, including computers, money, 

notebooks, their clothes and mobile phones, and put plastic bags over their heads 

threatening to shoot them. The four men were then taken to an unknown place, where


Page 337 

they were beaten and abandoned after two hours. As they had not been given time to 

dress or take their shoes before they left the hotel, they had to walk barefoot to the 

nearest police station in the village of Nesterovskoye, where they sought assistance. 

From there they were taken to the Sunzhenkoye police station where they reported 

formally on what had happened. On the morning of 24 November, the four men also 

told the police of Nazran about their abduction and ill-treatment. At the police station 

they were examined by a medical doctor who recommended that Artem Vysotskii 

should be urgently hospitalized. However, the police did not allow him and the other 

two journalists to leave until 1 p.m. Oleg Orlov was allowed to leave the police station 

at around 11.30 a.m. 

1711. It was feared that this attack was an attempt to prevent the media and the 

human rights defender from monitoring and reporting about a demonstration, which 

was scheduled to take place in Nazran on that day, in which about 70 or 80 persons 

took part, vastly outnumbered by the police. During the demonstration, several of the 

persons, who protested against repressive actions by law enforcement officials 

including enforced disappearances, unlawful killings, torture and ill-treatment, were 

reportedly ill-treated. According to participants in the demonstration, Special Forces 

(OMON) fired in the air and beat several demonstrators with batons. The police 

detained several young men and took them to a police station. 



responded to an urgent appeal sent by the Special Representative on 20 October 2006, 

together with the the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, 

concerning threats made against several human rights defenders, including Mrs 

Svetlana Gannuchkina, President of the Committee of Civil Assistance, Mr. Sergey 

Kovalov, a founder of the Memorial Society in Grozny and Mrs Lidia Yusupova, 

lawyer, director of the Memorial Society and Nobel Peace Prize nominee. Further 

reports had also been received in relation to the harassment of Mr Stanislav 

Dmitrievsky and Ms Oksana Chelysheva, and the subsequent closure of their non- 

Governmental organisation, the Russian-Chechen Friendship Society (RCFS), which 

monitors human rights violations in Chechnya. 

1713. The letter stated that The Russian-Chechen Friendship Society was dissolved 

by the decision of the Nizhny Novgorod provincial court of 13 October 2006. After 

the decision was handed down, the respondent appealed against it but the ruling was 

upheld by the Supreme Court in January 2007. The court found that the activities of 

the Russian-Chechen Friendship Society were not in keeping with the declared aims 

of the organization as contained in the Society’s statute; the Society’s activities 

grossly violated the legislation of the Russian Federation and had extremist 

tendencies. 

1714. Maryinsky park district internal affairs office in Moscow was investigating the 

threats made against Ms. L. Yusupova. The Moscow procurator’s office is monitoring 

the investigation. The Office for Special Technical Measures of the Central Internal 

Affairs Office was taking necessary measures to investigate the placing on the 

Internet site of the magazine Russian Will, of the publication “Enemies of the nation”, 

containing basic information about, and the addresses and contact telephone numbers


Page 338 

of Mr. S.A. Kovalev, Ms. S.A. Gannushkina and other Russian human rights 

defenders. 

Response from the Government to communications sent before 2 December 2006 



responded to a letter of allegations sent by the Special Representative on 12 October 

2006, together with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the 

right to freedom of opinion and expression, the Special Rapporteur on the question of 

torture concerning the murder of Anna Politkovskaya. The letter stated that, the 

Office of the Procurator-General of the Russian Federation was considering several 

leads, including the possibility that the murder was motivated by the journalist’s 

professional activities, bearing in mind her publications concerning the situation in the 

Northern Caucasus. 

1716. In order to investigate the journalist’s suppositions, contained in her last 

article entitled “We appoint you terrorist”, which deals with the illegal activities of 

internal affairs officers of the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation, on 13 

December 2006 the procurator’s office of the Chechen Republic instituted criminal 

proceedings against the officers in question on the basis of evidence of an offence 

contrary to the relevant article [art. 286] of the Criminal Code of the Russian 

Federation (Exceeding official authority). The investigation of the criminal case 

involving the murder of Anna Politkovskaya was being monitored by the Office of the 

Procurator-General of the Russian Federation. 



responded to a letter of allegations sent by the Special Representative, together with 

the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of 

opinion and expression, on 6 October 2006, concerning Mr Lev Ponomarev. 

1718. On 29 August 2006, the prefecture of Moscow central administrative district 

was notified by a group of citizens (L.A. Ponomarev, E.V. Ihlov, A.A. Naletov) of 

their intention to hold a peaceful demonstration in honour of the victims of the Beslan 

tragedy by the Solovki stone on Lubyanka Square on 3 September 2006 (organizer - 

L.A. Ponomarev). In view of the fact that it would coincide with the holding in the 

city centre of events dedicated to the Day of the City, and in accordance with article 5, 

paragraph 5, of Federal Act No. 54 of 19 July 2004 on assemblies, meetings, 

demonstrations, processions and pickets, the prefecture suggested that the place or 

date of the demonstration be changed. Thus, the authorities had not given their 

consent to the demonstration and the organizer did not have the right to hold a public 

event. 

1719. Nevertheless, at 1 p.m. on 3 September 2006, a group of approximately 30 

people unfurled seven posters and attempted to hold a demonstration. The participants 

of the event ignored repeated orders to stop the unauthorized demonstration and 

refused to obey the law enforcement officers. Following repeated orders by militia


Page 339 

officers to stop the unauthorized demonstration and to clear the area, 13 of the most 

active participants, including the organizer of the event, L.A. Ponomarev, were 

arrested and brought, in the presence of the deputy prosecutor of the Tverskoy interdistrict 

prosecutor’s office, V.A. Mityaev, to the duty office of the Kitai-gorod district 

internal affairs division in Moscow. They were booked for administrative offences 

under article 20.2, paragraph 2, and article 19.3 of the Code of Administrative 

Offences of the Russian Federation. 

1720. L.A. Ponomarev was booked for administrative offences under article 19.3 

(Failure to obey the lawful order of a militia officer, an army officer or a correctional 

officer) and article 20.2, paragraph 1 (Breach of the established procedure for the 

organization or conduct of a meeting, rally, demonstration, procession or picketing) of 

the Code of Administrative Offences. The court sentenced him to three days of 

administrative detention and a fine of 2,000 rubles. No breaches by the militia officers 

of Federal Act No. 54 of 19 July 2004 on assemblies, meetings, demonstrations, 

processions and pickets and Act No. 1026-1 of 18 April 1991 on the militia have been 

established. 

1721. A decision issued by the magistrate of judicial district No. 370 in 

Moscow’s Tverskoy district concerning the administrative measures taken against the 

organizer and the participants of this event confirmed that the refusal by the Moscow 

central administrative district prefecture to authorize the holding of the demonstration 

on Lubyanka Square on 3 September 2006 was lawful. No unlawful actions on the 

part of the militia officers have been established. This decision also stated that the 

administrative measures taken against L.A. Ponomarev were not related to his 

activities as a human rights defender. 

Observations 

1722. The Special Representative thanks the Government of the Russian Federation 

for it replies to eight communications sent. 

1723. She continues, however, to have grave concerns regarding the situation of 

human rights defenders in the Russian Federation, particularly lawyers working in 

defence of human rights and journalists who seek to document human rights 

violations. Both groups come under increasing pressure due to threats and 

intimidating behaviour. In light of the killing of the journalist Anna Politkovskaya the 

Special Representative calls on the Government of the Russian Federation to proceed 

with thorough impartial investigations of this killing and the other cases of threats and 

assaults of journalists across the Federation. 

1724. Also of particular concern to the Special Representative is the case of Ms 

Larissa Arap, raised in a communication of 6 August 2007. Notwithstanding the 

Government response of 19 September 2007, the Special Representative has grave 

concerns regarding the psychiatric treatment of human rights defenders following 

their detention and urges the Government to cease any involvement it may have in 

such cases. 

1725. She further expresses her most serious concern regarding registration laws and 

regulations which may have as their sole objective the stifling of criticism and the


Page 340 

curbing of civil society movements in the Russian Federation and urges the 

Government to be transparent in its motives in the monitoring, investigation and 

closing down of non-Governmental organizations, as in the case of the Russian- 

Chechen Friendship Society, outlined in a communication of 12 October 2006, 

responded to on 20 February 2007. 


Rwanda 

1726. Le 2 juillet 2007, la Représentante spéciale a envoyé une lettre d’allégations 

sur le cas de M. François-Xavier Byuma, coordinateur du Réseau des défenseurs des 

droits de l’Homme en Afrique centrale et président de Turengere Abana, l’association 

rwandaise pour la protection et la promotion de l’enfant, une organisation nongouvernementale 

basée a Kigali qui lutte notamment contre les violences sexuelles et 

le travail forcé des enfants. M Byuma est également l’ancien vice-président de la 

Ligue rwandaise pour la promotion et la défense des droits de l’Homme. Selon les 

informations reçues: 

1727. Le 3 mai 2007, M. Byuma aurait été notifié à comparaître devant le tribunal 

gacaca pour « complicité dans le génocide rwandais de 1994 ». M. Byuma aurait alors 

été poursuivi pour « entraînement à la manipulation d’armes à feu pendant le génocide 

» ; « port illégal d’armes » ; « constitution de barrières » érigées en vue d’empêcher 

les Tutsis de fuir le génocide et « participation dans les attaques des Interahamwe » 

pendant le génocide. Il est avancé que cette notification serait liée à une enquête 

menée par Turengere Abana sur des allégations de viol d’une fille de 17 ans commis 

par le juge président du tribunal gacaca. 

1728. Au cours de l’audience du 13 mai, M. Byuma aurait récusé le siège et le 

président du siège en arguant que son droit à un procès juste et équitable n’était pas 

garanti du fait de la mise en cause du président du siège dans l’enquête de Turengere 

Abana. La requête de M. Byuma aurait été rejetée et celui-ci aurait été placé en 

détention le lendemain à la prison centrale de Kigali. 

1729. Le 20 mai 2007, M. Byuma aurait plaidé non coupable devant le tribunal 

gacaca et aurait été libéré le jour même dans l’attente du verdict. 

1730. Le 27 mai 2007, M. Byuma aurait été condamné à 19 ans d’emprisonnement 

par le tribunal, en vertu de l’article 53, alinéa 5 de la loi organique n°16/52004 du 19 

juin 2004 qui, tel que modifié le 1er mars 2007, vise les personnes « qui dans 

l’intention de donner la mort, ont causé des blessures ou commis d’autres violences 

graves mais auxquelles les victimes n’ont pas succombé ». M. Byuma aurait été 

acquitté des chefs de port illégal d’armes, de constitution de barrières et de 

constitution de listes de Tutsis. Il aurait en revanche été reconnu coupable de 

participation à un entraînement à la manipulation d’arme à feu et participation aux 

attaques alors qu’il était autorité administrative « au niveau de la cellule ». Par 

ailleurs, il aurait été reconnu coupable de plusieurs chefs d’accusation non mentionnés 

lors de la première lecture de l’acte d’accusation, notamment l’agression et 

l’enlèvement d’une femme dénommée « Batamuliza ». Or, de nombreuses 

divergences et lacunes caractériseraient l’établissement des faits reprochés à M.


Page 341 

Byuma, notamment quant aux circonstances de l’enlèvement de Mme Batamuliza. La 

décision du tribunal n’éclaircirait en rien les contradictions entourant ces éléments de 

preuve. Enfin, plusieurs témoins à décharge auraient été l’objet d’actes 

d’intimidations. 

1731. Des craintes ont été exprimées que la condamnation de M. Byuma serait liée à 

ses activités de défense des droits de l’homme, en particulier son travail au sein de 

l’organisation Turengere Aban qui lutte notamment contre les violences sexuelles et le 

travail forcé des enfants. 


1732. Le 22 août 2007, le Gouvernement a répondu à la lettre d’allégations envoyée 

le 2 juillet 2007, en informant que M. Byuma avait été informé au préalable sur les 

accusations portées contre lui avant d’être convoqué à se présenter devant la 

juridiction Gacaca et que la citation à comparaître est intervenue bien avant les 

allégations de son organisation « Turengere Abana » accusant le Président du siège 

d’être l’auteur d’un viol commis sur une fille mineure. 

1733. Il est indiqué que le siège a trouvé non-fondés et injustifiés les arguments 

présentés par M. Myuma en se basant sur les faits suivants : 

- bien avant qu’il soit cité à comparaître, M. Byuma n’avait jamais eu de conflit 

personnel avec le Président du siège ; 

- M. Byuma n’a fourni aucune preuve pour appuyer ses allégations de viol dont 

le Président du siège serait l’auteur ; 

- les allégations de viol ont été portées devant les juridictions compétentes et 

doivent ainsi être séparées des accusations de participation au génocide portées contre 

M. Byuma devant les juridictions Gacaca. 

1734. Le 17 mai 2007, M. Byuma a été reconnu coupable de : 

- participation aux entraînements des miliciens interahmawe regroupés au sein 

d’un groupe connu sous le nom de « IREBERO » et supervisé par M. Stanis Simbizi, 

alors Président de la branche du parti extrémiste CDR dans le secteur Biryogo ; 

- coups sur la personne de Batamuliza pendant que cette dernière était arrêtée et 

interrogée par les miliciens interahamwe ; 

- participation aux attaques visant les Tutsi pendant qu’il était un des 

responsables de la cellule ; 

- conduite de Batamuliza sur le lieu des massacres avec l’intention de tuer. 

1735. Le 18 août 2007, M. Byuma a été jugé en appel et la juridiction a confirmé le 

jugement rendu au premier degré par la juridiction Gacaca et condamné à dix-neuf ans 

de prison. Le Gouvernement informe également qu’il a déjà pris les dispositions 

nécessaires pour que le cas porté à la connaissance de la Représentante spéciale 

comme ceux d’autres personnes coupables de crime de génocide et autres crimes 

contre l’humanité bénéficient d’un procès équitable et puissent participer à la 

reconstruction nationale à travers la peine alternative à l’emprisonnement. Ainsi, M. 

Byuma n’ira pas en prison mais purgera sa peine en exécutant les travaux d’intérêt 

général en compagnie d’autres personnes coupables de crimes relavant de la même 

catégorie.


Page 342 

1736. Le Gouvernement rappelle enfin que les juridictions participatives Gacaca ne 

sont pas des juridictions classiques pilotées par des juristes professionnels. Elles ont 

été choisies par la société rwandaise comme la seule alternative possible à la gestion 

du lourd contentieux lié au génocide afin de connaître la vérité sur celui-ci, 

d’accélérer les procès, de punir les coupables et de consolider le processus de l’unité 

et de la réconciliation. 

Observations 

1737. La Représentante spéciale remercie le Gouvernement de sa réponse. Toutefois, 

celle-ci ne dissipe pas ses inquiétudes dans la mesure où, selon de nouvelles 

informations, la décision de la Cour d’Appel ne serait fondée sur aucun élément 

matériel, n’aurait pas été motivée et serait intervenue au terme d’un procès au cours 

duquel les nouveaux arguments avancés par les témoins à décharge n’auraient pas été 

pris en considération. La Représentante spéciale presse le Gouvernement de lui 

fournir des éclaircissements à ce sujet. 

Urgent appeal 

Saudi Arabia 



Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, sent an urgent appeal to the 

Government concerning Mr. Abdelwahab Al Humaikani, a Yemeni citizen from 

Sanaa, secretary general of the charity Al Rochd, and member of the Geneva-based 

non-Governmental organization Al Karama for Human Rights. Mr. Al Humaikani 

also collaborates with the Arab Commission for Human Rights and attended the 62nd 

session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva in April 2006 as their representative. 

1739. According to the allegations received, on 19 December 2006, Mr. Al 

Humaikani was arrested by the Saudi security services at about 14.30 at the Al Toual 

checkpoint on the border between Saudi Arabia and Yemen. He was on a pilgrimage 

to Mecca with his mother, sister and brother-in-law, and was trying to enter Saudi 

Arabia for that reason. He was taken to Jizane where he was being reportedly detained 

by Saudi security services in incommunicado detention. The exact whereabouts of Mr. 

Al Humaikani were unknown. Concerns were expressed that the arrest and detention 

of Mr. Al Humaikani are linked to his activities in defence of human rights. 


1740. In a letter dated 5 February 2007, the Government of Suadi Arabia responded 

to the above communication. The letter stated that Mr. Al Humaikani was detained on 

19 December 2006 in the light of information pertaining to his activities in 

Afghanistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and his links with presumed terrorist 

organizations. Since this coincided with the period of the Hajj, he was permitted to 

perform the pilgrimage rites by arrangement with the authorities in his country, who 

were notified when he was detained and when he departed to his country on 3 January 

2007 in furtherance of the joint Saudi-Yemeni endeavours to combat terrorism.


Page 343 

Urgent appeal 



Rapporteur on the question of torture, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of 

judges and lawyers and the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of 

human rights while countering terrorism, sent an urgent appeal to the Government 

concerning Mr. Sulieman al-Rushudi, lawyer, Mr. Essam al-Basrawi, lawyer, Dr. 

Saud al-Hashimi, medical doctor, Mr. Al-Sharif Saif al-Ghalib, Dr. Musa al-Qirni, 

university professor, Dr. Abdel Rahman al-Shumayri, university professor, Mr 

Abdelaziz al-Khariji, and at least three other persons, whose identities are yet to be 

confirmed. All these individuals have been active as human rights defenders. In 

particular, they engaged in the past in signing petitions addressed to His Majesty King 

Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud calling upon him to initiate political and democratic 

reforms and to respect human rights. 

1742. According to the information received, the aforementioned were arrested in 

the cities of Jeddah and Madinah on 3 February 2007 where they had met to discuss 

the organisation of peaceful activities in favour of political and democratic reforms in 

Saudi Arabia. The 10 men are currently being held incommunicado at the offices of 

the General Intelligence Service (al-Mabahith al-‘Amma) in Jeddah. Requests for 

access by their families and to appoint lawyers had been denied by the General 

Intelligence Service. On 5 February 2007 Mr. Al-Basrawi’s son asked for a visit and 

attempted to hand over medicine for his ill and disabled father. He was ordered to 

return home and warned never to ask again to meet with Mr. Al-Basrawi. The 

Ministry of the Interior issued a statement alleging that the detainees were arrested on 

suspicion of fund-raising to support terrorism. Mr. Al-Rushudi and Mr. Al-Ghalib had 

been detained before and released after several weeks following the signing of a 

petition in March 2004 calling for political change in Saudi Arabia. 

1743. Concern was expressed that the detention of Mr. Al-Rushudi, Mr. Al-Basrawi, 

Dr. Al-Hashimi, Mr. Al-Ghalib, Dr. Al-Qirni, Dr. Al-Shumayri, Mr. Al-Khariji, and 

the three other persons mentioned above may have been related to their legitimate and 

peaceful activities in defense of human rights. In view of their incommunicado 

detention concern was expressed that these individuals may be at risk of ill-treatment. 

Further concerns are expressed as regards Mr. Al-Basrawi’s status of health since he 

has reportedly been denied to receive medication from his son. Concern was also 

expressed that the charge of “terrorism” was used in order to prevent them from 

pursuing human rights and political activities. 

Urgent appeal 

1744. On 2 May 2007, the Special Representative, together with the Chairperson- 


on the question of torture, sent an urgent appeal to the Government concerning Mr 

Walid Ali Lamri, aged 24 years, Saudi citizen, student, and member of the non- 

Governmental organization Alkarama for Human Rights (AHR). Mr Lamri took part 

in the first training for human rights defenders organized by AHR in Doha (Qatar) 

from 27 to 30 March 2007.


Page 344 

1745. According to the information received, on 27 April 2007, Mr Lamri had been 

arrested at his parents’ residence in Taif by agents of the intelligence services, and 

was being detained incommunicado in the Al Mabahit al Aama intelligence facilities 

in Taif. The arrest took place after Mr Lamri had met with several relatives of victims 

of arbitrary detention who shared information regarding alleged acts of torture, poor 

conditions of detention, and cases of arbitrary detention. Mr Lamri intended to share 

the information he collected with different United Nations human rights mechanisms. 

Serious concern was expressed that the arrest and detention of Mr Lamri may have 

been in reprisal for his legitimate and peaceful activities in defence of human rights in 

Saudi Arabia. With a view to his incommunicado detention, concern for his physical 

and mental integrity was expressed. 

Urgent Appeal 



of judges, sent an urgent appeal to the Government concerning Mr. Saad Ben Zair, 

aged 28, resident in Riyad, defense lawyer, human rights defender, active in the 

Reform Movement and his father, Dr. Said Ben Zair. According to the allegations 

received, Mr. Saad Ben Zair’s car was stopped on 10 April 2007 when he was driving 

along King Abdullah Avenue in Riyad with his wife and his one year old daughter. 

The three of them were taken to the Secret Services premises and detained separately. 

Some days later Mr. Saad Ben Zair’s wife and daughter were released, but he was still 

being held in secret detention. When his father, Dr. Said Ben Zair, another prominent 

human rights defender, publicly protested against his son’s detention, he was arrested 

himself on 6 June 2007 and also remained in secret detention. 

1747. Before his arrest in April, Mr. Saad Ben Zair had worked as lawyer defending 

proponents of constitutional reform and other critics of the Government. In 

connection with his work as a lawyer, he had regularly advocated the use of Royal 

decree n. M 39, which guarantees basic rights to detainees, including that a specific 

term of detention should be determined by a competent authority, and prohibits 

torture. He had already spent three years in secret detention without any judgment 

starting from 17 July 2002 presumably for having protested against the imprisonment 

of his father, who had been imprisoned for 8 years without any legal process. He had 

been secretly detained again for several months starting from 19 June 2006. 

1748. With a view to Mr. Saad Ben Zair and Dr. Said Ben Zair’s secret detention, 

concern was expressed for their physical and mental integrity. Further concern was 

expressed that their detention was related solely to their work in protecting and 

promoting human rights. 

1749. In a letter dated 22 January 2008, the Government of Suadi Arabia responded 

to the above communication. The letter stated that Mr Saad Ben Zair had been 

detained under provisions of article 35 for involvement in conspiring to blow up the 

Abqaiq refinery. The investigating authority deemed it advisable to extend his 

detentionin accordance with article 114 of the same Code and with Royal Order No. 

7560/MD of 5/6/1426 AH providing for extension of the period of detention by up to 

one year in crimes involving terrorism and State security, in the interests of the 

investigation and in the light of the above-mentioned person’s association with other


Page 345 

parties in this case. The letter further stated that Mr Ben Zair was being well treated in 

conformity with the safeguards provided for in article 2 of the Code of Criminal 

Procedure, which prohibits subjection to torture or degrading treatment and in 

accordance with his rights guaranteed by the Prison and Detention Regulations and 

the International Convention gainst Torture. 

Observations 

1750. The Special Representative thanks the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for its 

response to the communications of 22 December 2006 and 23 August 2007. She urges 

the Government to ensure there is a clear legal basis which respects international 

norms and standards in any case of arrest and detention of a human rights defender 

and that while in custody, detainees suffer no ill-treatment and have regular access to 

independent legal representation and contact with family. 


Serbia 


to the Government concerning insults and hate speech addressed against Ms Natasa 

Kandic, Executive Director of the NGO Humanitarian Law Centre and against 

citizens of Croatian nationality. According to the information received, on 14 

November 2007 Natasa Kandic was subjected to a day-long attack, with insults and 

hate-speech also addressed towards citizens of Croatian nationality by members of the 

Parliament belonging to the Serbian Radical Party, who were selling and giving away 

in the Parliament’s hall a booklet entitled “Hrtkovci Affair and Utasa whore Natasa 

Kandic”. 

1752. Without expressing an opinion on the merits of this specific case, the Special 

Representative was concerned that this was a further episode illustrating the hostile 

environment surrounding human rights defenders in Serbia that she found during my 

visit to the country in September 2007. As stated in her press statement at the end of 

her visit, one of the major concerns she has on the situation of human rights defenders 

is the hostile attitude against some prominent defenders, mostly women, who are 

under constant attack by some sectors of the political establishment. These attacks 

appear to be linked to the work of defenders on transitional justice and minority 

rights. Such a climate of stigmatization and marginalization of defenders needs to be 

countered by supportive statements of State authorities firmly condemning attacks and 

campaigns against human rights defenders. The Special Representative is concerned 

that episodes such as the one outlined continue to take place. 

Observations 


from the Serbian Government. She refers to her report on the mission undertaken in 

Serbia in September 2007 /A/HRC/7/028/Add.3) 

Somalia


Page 346 

Urgent appeal 



expression, sent an urgent appeal to the Government concerning Mr Ali Moallim 

Isak, Organising Secretary of the National Union of Somali Journalists (NUSOJ). Mr 

Ali Moallim Isak had been engaged in training and protection activities of Somali 

journalists and was involved in negotiations to release some of them. 

1755. According to the information received, on 3 September 2007, Mr Ali Moallim 

Isak received death threats over the phone from an unidentified person who warned 

him to stop his human rights activities if he did not want to be killed. The caller 

reportedly stated that he knew where Mr Ali Moallim Isak lived and worked. Later 

that day, two armed men entered the premises of NUSOJ and asked for Mr Ali 

Moallim Isak, who, however, was not present at that time. Serious concern was 

expressed that the death threats against Mr Ali Moallim Isak may have been solely 

related to his peaceful activities in defence of human rights, in particular the right to 

freedom of opinion and expression of journalists in Somalia. Further concern was 

expressed regarding recent reports of mounting violence against journalists in 

Somalia, a theme that was the subject of an allegation letter sent by the Special 

Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression on 17 August 2007, subsequent to 

the murders of journalists Mahad Ahmed Elmi and Ali Iman Sharmarke. 

Observations 


from the Somalian Government, but hopes that further information regarding the 

above communication and the concerns raised in it regarding intimidation of 

journalists is provided in the near future. 


South Africa 



expression the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to 

an adequate standard of living sent a letter of allegations to the Government 

concerning a demonstration of shack dwellers in the eThekwini Municipality. 

1758. According to the information received, on 28 September 2007, a group of civil 

society organizations representing shack dwellers in the eThekwini Municipality 

organized a march to deliver a memorandum to the Mayor presenting their views on 

housing and land issues that currently affect the city. According to reports, although it 

was legal and peaceful, the march was stopped by the police, which used water 

cannons, rubber bullets and stun grenades to disperse the protesters. Two participants 

were severely injured, one of which was allegedly struck by a rubber bullet at close 

range. Fourteen participants of the march were arrested during the manifestation and 

released after paying bail. They were due to be tried on 13 November 2007 by the 

Durban Magistrate’s Court.


Page 347 

Observations 


from the South African Government but hopes that further information regarding the 

demonstration of shack-dwellers referred to above and the resulting violence is 

provided in the near future. 


Sri Lanka 




sent a letter of allegations to the Government concerning the arrest and charges 

brought against Fr Jesuratnam Jude Bernard Omi, Director of the Centre for Peace 

and Reconciliation (CPR) in Jaffna, Sri Lanka. 

1761. According to the information received, on 24 November 2006, Fr Omi was 

arrested after he intervened in a matter concerning a young man, Mr Mariyanayaham 

Godfry Morris Gnanageethan who had been detained for allegedly distributing leaflets 

issued by the Justice Peace Commission (JPC) concerning the humanitarian situation 

in Jaffna. It is reported that the Mr Mariyanayaham had been queuing for food at the 6 

CLI army camp when his cousin Ms Alanday Dinosha had spoken with him and given 

him one of the aforementioned leaflets to read. Members of the Sri Lankan Army 

(SLA) reportedly confiscated the leaflet and asked Mr Mariyanayaham questions 

relating to its origin. When he referred to his cousin, members of the army allegedly 

went to her house in order to arrest her but she had gone to seek the assistance of Fr 

Omi who immediately contacted and informed the JPC of the situation. 

1762. A member of the JPC, Fr Francis Xavier Jeyasegaram accompanied Fr Omi, 

Ms Alanday and her mother to the army camp where Mr Mariyanayaham was 

detained. They were allegedly photographed by members of the SLA and threatened 

by Colonel Manjula who said, “If you all can organise a campaign against the forces 

we will also do things against you all. You all will face the consequences soon”. After 

they had left the army camp with Mr Mariyanayaham, the Colonel allegedly circled 

them on a motorcycle. Later that day, it was reported that Fr Omi went to the High 

Court where Brigade Commander Godipilli stated that Fr Omi and Fr Jeyasegaram 

had distributed the leaflets to people in the queue. Two soldiers were apparently 

called as witnesses but they never appeared before the court. It was further reported 

that Fr Omi then went to the District Court to record a statement but while there, 

members of the SLA surrounded the office of the CPR and arrested Fr Jeyasegaram 

and took him to the CPR. 

1763. According to reports, Fr Omi went to the Human Rights Commission and 

recorded a statement before he reported to the 6 CLI Camp escorted by members of 

the Non-Violent Peaceforce (NP). The sources indicated that the SLA transferred the 

two priests along with Mr Mariyanayaham, Ms Alanday and their parents to the police 

station in an army vehicle, where they were handed over to the police. Reportedly


Page 348 

they all made individual statements and Ms Alanday was subjected to a full body 

search. The two priests were then allegedly taken to the acting magistrate at 

approximately 10:55pm in relation to a curfew pass and were released at 11:45pm and 

taken to the Bishop’s house. Mr Mariyanayaham and Ms Alanday were reportedly 

released on court bail the next day. 

1764. On 29 November 2006, the four above mentioned individuals appeared before 

the Magistrate’s Court of Jaffna where they were allegedly charged under criminal 

law although they were not informed of the charges brought against them. They were 

told that their file would be sent to the Attorney General’s Department and the 

charges against them should be announced by 31 January 2007. They were all 

reportedly ordered not to leave the country and they were not to be permitted to leave 

Jaffna before the start of the trial. Concern was expressed that the arrest of Fr 

Jesuratnam Jude Bernard Omi may have been related to his defence of the right of Mr 

Mariyanayaham Godfry Morris Gnanageethan and Ms Alanday Dinosha to exercise 

their freedom of expression. Further concern was expressed that the charges against 

him were fabricated and that he wouldl not receive a fair nor impartial trial. 

Urgent appeal 

1765. On 5 January 2007 the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal to the 

Government concerning four staff members of the National Peace Council (NPC). 

NPC is a leading non-Governmental organization promoting a peaceful solution to the 

ongoing conflict in Sri Lanka. NPC has consistently condemned violent acts by both 

Government armed forces and Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, and encouraged 

both sides to reach a peaceful solution. NPC works closely with local and 

international civil society groups, media, religious leaders, and Sri Lankan politicians 

of various parties. 

1766. According to the information received, on 15 December 2006, four NPC staff 

members reportedly went to Hingurakgoda in the Polonnaruwa district to conduct a 

training workshop on political resolution to the conflict. When they reached the 

location, they were physically assaulted by some elements in a large crowd who 

accused them of being anti-war, supporting the LTTE and asking for the separation of 

the country. 

1767. It is reported that local politicians and supporters from a nationalist alliance 

were present on the scene. NPC reportedly filed a complaint regarding this incident at 

the Police Headquarters. 

1768. Concern was expressed that the attack against the physical integrity of four 

NPC staff may be in retaliation for their activities in defence of human rights, i.e. their 

work promoting a peaceful solution to the ongoing conflict in the country. This 

concern is heightened by reports that civil society groups undertaking such promotion 

have been constantly subjected to verbal attacks as “terrorist sympathizers” and “allies 

of foreign Governments” by hard-line political parties such as the JVP (Janatha 

Vimukthi Peramuna) and JHU (Jathika Hela Urumaya) as well as some sections of the 

media. 

Urgent appeal


Page 349 



Government concerning Mr Dushyantha Basnayake, human rights defender and 

financial director of Standard Newspapers Private Limited (SNPL), which publishes 

the Sinhalese-language weekly Mawbima, in Colombo and Ms Parameswaree 

Munusamy, journalist with Mawbima. 

1770. According to information received, on 26 February 2007, Mr Basnayake was 

arrested at his office in Colombo by officials from the Terrorist Investigation Division 

(TID). He was reportedly being detained incommunicado at the Terrorist Investigation 

Unit in Colombo where he had been denied access to a lawyer. Mr Basnayake was 

questioned by officials from the Criminal Investigations Division (CID) several 

months prior to his arrest. He was later released without charge and the authorities 

allegedly apologised for any inconvenience caused. On 13 March 2007 Mr 

Basnayake’s bank accounts were frozen. 

1771. Previously, on 24 November 2006, Ms Munusamy was detained under the 

Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) at the Terrorist Investigation Unit in Colombo. 

She was reportedly held without charge by the police Terrorist Investigation Division 

(TID). On 21 March 2007, an order was issued by the Supreme Court to release Ms 

Munusamy on the basis that her arrest was illegal and that there was insufficient 

evidence in order to convict her. She was released on 22 March 2007. 

1772. Ms Munusamy is the only Tamil-speaking journalist working for Mawbima 

and her arrest was related to the publication of articles by Mawbima in Tamil, which 

highlighted human rights abuses in Sri Lanka. On 24 February 2006, President 

Rajapaksa reportedly criticised the management and journalists of Mawbima 

newspaper for their coverage of human rights violations in Sri Lanka during a press 

conference. Newspaper staff had been receiving death threats since February. 

1773. Concern was expressed that the arrest and detention of Mr Dushyantha 

Basnayake along with the arrest, detention and subsequent release of Ms 

Parameswaree Munusamy formed part of an ongoing campaign to silence human 

rights defenders in Sri Lanka, and in particular those who aim to highlight human 

rights violations in the country. 


1774. On 17 August 2007 the Special Representative sent a letter of allegations to 

the Government concerning restrictions imposed on non-Governmental organizations 

(NGOs) to raise human rights issues with Mr John Holmes, UN Under-Secretary- 

General on Humanitarian Affairs, during his recent visit to Jaffna. According to 

information received, on 7 August 2007, civil society organizations were reportedly 

instructed by the Sri Lankan military not to refer to human rights issues and to restrict 

themselves to issues of humanitarian assistance during their meeting with Mr Holmes 

in Jaffna. 

1775. Furthermore, the reportedly heavy presence of the military at the Public 

Library of Jaffna, where the meeting with civil society representatives was held,


Page 350 

contributed towards dissuading the NGOs from speaking out on human rights issues, 

due to fear of possible reprisals. Furthermore, there were reports that some NGOs 

working in the field of human rights and humanitarian assistance in Jaffna were not 

invited to the meeting. 

1776. Concern was expressed that such steps taken by the Government to restrict 

civil society representatives in sharing human rights information with Mr Holmes was 

an attempt at silencing human rights defenders in Sri Lanka. Further concern was 

expressed that such action on the part of the Government of Sri Lanka contributes to 

the insecure environment within which civil society organisations currently function 

in Sri Lanka. 


1777. On 10 October 2007 the Special Representative sent a letter of allegations to 

the Government concerning the death of Fr Nicholaspillai Packia Ranjith, a Mannar 

District Coordinator of the Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS), a humanitarian non- 

Governmental organization which provides relief to internally displaced persons in 

the Philippines, and Mr Christopher Eugene, a fellow staff member. 

1778. According to the information received, on 27 September 2007, Fr Ranjith was 

driving a JRS vehicle marked with a white flag and heading towards a JRS run 

orphanage for displaced children in Vidathaltheevu, Mannar, when he was killed by a 

remotely launched mine attack. Fr Ranjith was accompanied by Mr Eugene who was 

severely injured and remains in critical condition at a local hospital. Serious concern 

was expressed that the attack which killed Fr Ranjith and critically injured Mr Eugene 

may have been directly linked to their humanitarian activities for the displaced 

population in Sri Lanka. 


1779. In a letter dated 6 December 2007, the Government of Sri Lanka responded to 

the above communication. The letter stated that the attack on Fr Ranjith and Mr 

Eugene had never been reported to any police station in Government controlled areas. 

The letter further stated that Fr Ranjith had died on 26 September in an area contolled 

by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelan (LTTE). The letter proceeded to identify the 

other subject of the communication as Christopher Sujith Dominic and stated that, on 

27 September 2007, he had been transferred from Kilinochchi Hospital at LTTE 

headquarters to Vavuniya Hospital, from where he had been discharged once 

recovered. 

Response from the Government to communication sent before 2 December 2006 

1780. In a letter dated 6 December 2007, the Government of Sri Lanka responded to 

an urgent appeal sent by the Special Representative on 7 July 2006 concerning Mr 

Krishnapillai Kamalanathan. The government response stated that Mr 

Kamalanathan had been abducted on 2 July 2006 by unknown individuals and 

released after two days. The letter also stated that the aforementioned was now 

residing in Vakarai, an area controlled by the LTTE and continued to work as the


Page 351 

Director of the Tamil Rehabilitation Organization. Hence, no action would be 

contemplated in this regard. 

Observations 

1781. The Special Representative thanks the Government of Sri Lanka for its 

response to the communication of 10 October 2007, but regrets that, to date, no 

response to the other four communications sent has been received. 

1782. Of particular concern to the Special Representative are allegations of 

intimidation of and threats made against human rights defenders by members of the 

armed forces raised in the communication of 8 December 2006, and she urges the 

Government to thoroughly investigate these claims and provide her with the results of 

those inquiries. 

1783. Of further concern are the restrictions imposed on representatives of civil 

society during the visit of the UN Under-Secretary-General on Humanitarian Affairs, 

outlined in a communication of 17 August 2007. The Special Representative calls on 

the Government to ensure that members of non-Governmental organizations and civil 

society movements are free to interact with members of international organizations 

present in Sri Lanka. 

Urgent appeal 

Sudan 



Group on Arbitrary Detention, sent an urgent appeal to the Government concerning 

five members of the Manasir Association Executive Committee (MAEC), namely Mr. 

Osman Al Magdum, Mr. Abdel Rahman Zaidan, Mr. Abdel Aatti Abdel Khair, 

Mr. Hassan Sidiq Atolabi, Mr. Haitham Aldusogi, and Mr. Ahmed Abdel Fatah 

Gabriel, who is not known to be a member of the MAEC. 

1785. According to the information received, on 29 March 2007, the six men named 

above, most of whom are members of the Manasir Association Executive Committee, 

were arrested at their homes in Khartoum by plain clothed national security officers. 

Since then, they had been held incommunicado in Kober prison in Khartoum. No 

charges were known to have been filed against them. Considering that their alleged 

incommunicado detention had already lasted three weeks, the mandate-holders were 

concerned that the six men might be at risk of torture or other ill-treatment. 

1786. The mandate-holders were further concerned that their detention might be 

linked to the activity of the MAEC, which was formed by members of the Manasir 

ethnic community to campaign on behalf of community members allegedly threatened 

with displacement as a consequence of the construction of the Merowe High Dam in 

northern Sudan. 

Urgent appeal


Page 352 


Rapporteur on the question of torture, the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working 




Government concerning the detention of eight persons in connection with protests 

against the construction of the Kijbar dam. 

1788. These eight persons are: Mr Saad Mohamed Ahmed, journalist with Ilaf 

weekly newspaper and activist on dam issue; two lawyers, namely Mr. Imad Al Deen 

Murgani and Mr. Alam Al Deen Abdulghani; Mr. Abdulaziz Mohamed Ali 

Khairi, engineer and head of foreign relations committee of the Kajbar Dam Popular 

Committee (a committee formed by the affected community which has not so far been 

recognized by the authorities); Mr. Raafat Hassan Abbas, information officer in the 

Khartoum support committee of the Kajbar Dam Popular Committee, Dr. Mohamed 

Jalal Ahmed Hashim, a leader of the Mahas community; Mr. Abdallah 

Abdelgayoum, a member of the Mahas community and former National Security 

officer; and Mr. Osman Osman, driver. 

1789. According to the information received, on 13 June 2007 four persons were 

reportedly killed and nine other civilians were injured when police used violence to 

disperse a protest by members of the Nubian population opposed to the building of the 

Kijbar Dam. Five of the aforementioned were arrested on the same day in Dongola on 

their way to investigate and report on the demonstrations and the violence. After 

being questioned about the purpose of their trip, the five men were arrested and were 

being detained in the National Security Section in Kober prison. Mr. Raafat Hassan 

Abbas was arrested by National Security officers at a private house in El-Dim, 

southern Khartoum, at 2 a.m. on 15 June 2007. He was believed to be in the custody 

of Khartoum State Security in Riyad, but a member of his family had been denied 

permission to visit him. Dr. Mohamed Jalal Ahmed Hashim was arrested at his home 

in Riyad after participation in a press conference organized by the SPLM on 16 June 

2007. His whereabouts were unknown. 

1790. On 20 June, Mr. Saad Mohamed Ahmed was arrested at his office in 

Khartoum and was being detained in the National Security Section in Kober prison. 

None of the detainees had been allowed to contact their families or a lawyer. Concern 

was expressed that the arrest and detention of the aforementioned persons may be 

related to their peaceful activities in defence of the human rights of the people 

protesting against the construction of the Kijbar dam. In view of the incommunicado 

detention of the aforementioned the mandate-holders were further seriously concerned 

that they might be at imminent risk of torture or other treatment likely to cause grave 

damage to their physical and mental health. 


1791. In a letter dated 17 September 2007, the Government of Sudan responded to 

the above communication. The letter stated that the detainees had been arrested for 

incitement of mobs by security authorities under preventative measures under the 

provisions of the National Security Act in order to stop the escalation of violence 

surrounding the dam project. The letter further stated that all the detainees had been


Page 353 

treated humanely and according to the law while in detention and that all had been 

released on 19 August 2007, except Dr Mohamed Jalal Hashim, who was released on 

24 August 2007. 

Urgent appeal 


Rapporteur on the question of torture, the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working 




of living , sent an urgent appeal to the Government concerning Mr. Osman Ibrahim, 

spokesperson for an organisation called “Committee against the Kajbar Dam”. 

1793. According to the information received, Mr. Osman Ibrahim was arrested in the 

early morning of 20 July 2007 by police officers at his home in Farraig village, Halfa 

municipality, Northern Sudan. No arrest warrant was produced and no reasons were 

given for Mr. Ibrahim’s removal to an unknown location. His arrest followed 

incidents on 13 June 2007, when Sudanese security forces allegedly killed and injured 

civilians in the Farraig village by shooting at them during a non-violent demonstration 

against the construction of the Kajbar Dam in the area. On that occasion, several 

individuals were arrested and detained in Dongola, the capital of the northern State, 

and in Khartoum. Concern was expressed that the arrest and detention of Mr. Osman 

Ibrahim may have been in reprisal for his activities in defense of the human rights of 

communities at risk of being affected by the Kajbar Dam. In view of Mr. Ibrahim’s 

incommunicado detention at an undisclosed place further concern was expressed 

regarding his physical and mental integrity. 


1794. In a letter dated 29 August 2007, the Government of Sudan responded to the 

above communication. The letter stated that Mr Osman Ibrahim had been released 

along with the other men detained in relation to the Kajbar Dam protests. As outlined 

in the response to the communication of 22 June 2007, Dr Mohamed Jalal Hashim 

was the last detainee to be released on 29 August. 

Urgent appeal 



of living, sent an urgent appeal to the Government concerning the detention of Mr 

Hisham Abbas, and the detention and subsequent release of Mr Nazmi Mohamed 

Hamed, Mr Nayif Mohamed Hamed, Mr Al Khatib Mohamed Selim, Mr Maisara 

Izzeldin Mohamed Munowar, Mr Faroug Nuri, Mr Daoud Suliman, Mr Isam 

Mohamed Fagir, Mr Osman Ibrahim, Mr Ezzeldeen Idris, Mr Abdel Hakim 

Nasor, Mr Mamoun Abdel Aziz, Mr Abdel Razig, and Mr Samil Mohamed Samil. 

All of the named individuals are members of the Committee Against the Building of 

the Kajbar Dam (CABKD). Mr Osman Ibrahim is the spokesperson for the Committee 

and was the subject of an allegation letter sent by several mandate-holders on 25 July 

2007. A communication was also sent on 21 August 2007 by the Special Rapporteur


Page 354 

on adequate housing on the alleged impact of the Kajbar Dam on the human rights of 

the population. 

1796. According to information received, between 27 and 29 August 2007, Mr 

Hisham Abbas was reportedly arrested in Wadi Halfa City on his way to Egypt and is 

currently detained in Wadi Halfa. The other individuals in questions were arrested in 

Kerma. According to reports, they were detained in Dongola, under the supervision of 

the National Intelligence and Security Forces and were released on 13 September 

2007. Concern was reiterated that the arrests and detention of the aforementioned may 

be related to their work in the defence of human rights, in particular the human rights 

of the communities which are at risk of being affected by the Kajbar Dam. 




expression, sent a letter of allegations to the Government concerning Mr. Faisal al 

Bagir, a human rights activist with the Sudan Organization Against Torture (SOAT), 

Ms. Lemia al Jaili Abubakr, a journalist from Khartoum Centre for Human Rights, 

and Ms. Sabah Mohamed Adam, a journalist working for Al-Ayyam who were 

reportedly summoned and questioned by members of the National Intelligence and 

Security Services (NISS). Information was also received by the mandate-holders 

concerning Mr. Amir Mohamed Suleiman, chairperson of the Khartoum Center for 

Human Rights and Mr. Mashair Abdullah Omer, financial officer of the Center, Ms. 

Madiha Abdullah, journalist with the daily newspaper al-Ayyam and collaborator of 

the al-Laq Press Centre, a NGO that provides training for journalists, and Dr. Nagib 

Nagmeldin, former coordinator of the Sudan Organization Against Torture. 

1798. According to the information received, on 4 November, Mr. al Bagir, Ms. 

Abubakr and Ms. Adam were summoned to appear in the office of the political 

department of the NISS in the Bahri district of Khartoum the following morning. 

Upon their arrival, they were taken to a room where they were kept waiting, in the 

presence of a security official, for six hours. A general subsequently informed them 

that their questioning would be postponed for the following morning. On 6 

November, they were reportedly questioned about different human rights and 

journalist groups in whose activities they participate, or whose activities they know 

about, among them SOAT, the Khartoum Centre for Human Rights, and a group of 

journalists working on freedom of the press. They were reportedly asked about the 

organizations' structures, their sources of funding and the activities they conduct. 

They were released without charge at noon. 

1799. On 21 November, Messrs Suleiman and Omer were ordered by two NISS 

officials to follow them to NISS offices in North Khartoum, where they were detained 

for eight hours and questioned about personal matters as well as regarding the finance 

and administrative structure of the Karthoum Center for Human Rights. On the same 

day, Ms Madiha Abdullah and Dr Nagib Nagmeldin were also summoned to the NISS 

offices, where they faced similar questioning. Concern was expressed that the 

summoning and interrogation of the aforementioned persons may be directly linked to 

their peaceful activities in defence of human rights.


Page 355 

Observations 

1800. The Special Representative thanks the Government of Sudan for its response 

to communications sent on 22 June and 25 July 2007 and hopes that responses to the 

other three communications sent are forthcoming. 

1801. The Special Representative is particularly concerned by the issues raised in the 

letter of allegations sent on 29 November 2007, and calls on the Government to limit 

its involvement in non-Governmental organizations and civil society movements. 


Syrian Arab Republic 

1802. On 22 January 2007 the Special Representative sent a letter of allegations to 

the Government concerning Mr Akram al-Bunni, a Syrian human rights defender 

and the brother of Mr. Anwar al-Bunni, a founding member of the Syrian Human 

Rights Association and member of the Committee for the Defence of Prisoners of 

Conscience, who hah been in detention since May 2006. 

1803. According to the information received, on 11 January 2007, Mr Akram al- 

Bunni was reportedly prevented by the security forces from flying to Brussels where 

he was supposed to take part in a meeting with several European Union 

representatives. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the current human rights 

situation as well as the situation of human rights defenders in Syria. It wsa alleged 

that no official reason was given to Mr Akram al-Bunni regarding this ban. Concern 

was expressed that the restriction on Mr Akram al-bunni’s freedom of movement and 

freedom of expression may have been in retaliation for his legitimate activities in 

defence of human rights in Syria. 


1804. In a letter dated 14 August 2007, the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic 

responded to the above communication. The letter stated that Mr. Akram Al-Bunni 

had committed acts and written articles of a kind likely to weaken national sentiment 

and undermine the good name of the State and had also agitated for change of the 

ruling system by unconstitutional means. The letter further stated that since all these 

acts and the negative consequences to which they give rise are criminal offences 

punishable under the General Criminal Code 148 of 1949, Mr. Akram Al-Bunni had 

been banned from travelling as a preliminary to the initiation of legal proceedings 

against him. 






the Government concerning the conviction of Mr Anwar al-Bunni, a lawyer and 

human rights activist, currently held at Adra prison near Damascus. He was the


Page 356 

subject of previous communications sent out 19 May, 2 June and 25 October 2006, to 

which no answers from the Government had so far been received. 

1806. According to new information received, on 24 April 2007, Mr Anwar al-Bunni 

was sentenced to 5 years in prison by the First Damascus Criminal Court for 

“spreading false or exaggerated information that weaken the spirit of the nation,” and 

ordered to pay a fine of US$2,000 to the Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour for his 

membership in an unlicensed human rights centre. Earlier, Mr al-Bunni had been 

charged with “spreading false news” for a statement he had made about the inhumane 

conditions that led to the death of a man in a Syrian prison. 

1807. Furthermore, on 25 January 2007, prison guards made Mr al-Bunni crawl on 

the ground and forcibly shaved his head as punishment during a crackdown on a ward 

where criminal detainees had mounted a protest after being excluded from a recent 

amnesty. Also, on 31 December 2006, Mr al-Bunni was pushed down some stairs and 

then beaten up by another detainee in the presence of prison guards who failed to 

intervene. Concern was expressed that the arrest and conviction of Mr al-Bunni may 

have been in reprisal for his legitimate and peaceful work as a lawyer and human 

rights activist. Concern was also expressed about the repeated ill-treatment of Mr. al- 

Bunni in detention. 




expression, sent a letter of allegations to the Government concerning Mr Michel Kilo, 

journalist and president of the Organisation for the Defence of Freedom of Speech and 

Press, Mr Mahmoud Issa, an opposition member, Mr Hasan al-Shummar, a leading 

member of the Democratic National Community, Mr Khaleel Hussein, president of 

the Public Relations Office at the Kurd Future Trend, and Mr Kamal Labwani, head 

of the Liberal Democratic Party and member of the Administration Board of the 

Committees for the Defense of Human Rights. 

1809. Mr Kilo was the subject of several urgent appeals sent on 17 May 2006, on 2 

June 2006 and on 25 October 2006. Mr Mahmoud Issa was the subject of a joint 

urgent appeal sent by several mandate-holders on 19 May 2005 and another joint 

urgent appeal sent by mandate-holders on 2 June 2006. Mr Hussein’s case was 

included in the communications sent by mandate-holders on 17 May 2006 and on 2 

June 2006. Mr Kamal Labwani was the subject of a joint urgent appeal sent on 11 

November 2005. 

1810. According to the information received, on 13 May 2007, Mr Michel Kilo and 

Mr Mahmoud Issa were sentenced to three years in prison for "weakening the national 

ethic". Both men were reportedly arrested in May 2006, after signing the Damascus- 

Beirut Declaration, a petition signed by more than 300 intellectuals and human rights 

defenders from Syria and Lebanon, calling for the improvement of the relationships 

between both countries. On the same day Mr Hasan al-Shummar, and Mr Khaleel 

Hussein were also sentenced to ten years in prison for "conspiring with a foreign 

country". They were reportedly sentenced without trial.


Page 357 

1811. On 10 May 2007, Mr Kamal Lubwani was sentenced to 12 years 

imprisonment on charges of "contact with a foreign entity" and "encouraging attacks 

against Syria". He had been arrested on 8 November 2005 at Damascus Airport. 

Concern was expressed that the detention and sentences against Mr Michel Kilo, Mr 

Mahmoud Issa, Mr Hasan al-Shummar, Mr Khaleel Hussein and Mr Kamal Labwani 

may represent an attempt to prevent them from carrying out their peaceful human 

rights activities, in particular their work advocating the right to freedom of expression. 


1812. In a letter dated 14 August 2007, the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic 

responded to the above communication. The letter stated that Mr. Kamal Al-Labwani 

had set up an illegal political organization without permission from the relevant 

authorities, and that this was punishable under Syrian law in accordance with article 

288 of the Criminal Code. The letter further stated that he had established personal 

links with official agencies abroad and secretly received material assistance from 

foreign organizations hostile to Syria, and that this was also punishable under Syrian 

law in accordance with article 264 of the Criminal Code. 

1813. The Government response asserted that Mr. Al-Labwani had published 

spurious information on a website of a kind likely to damage the reputation of the 

State locally and internationally, and that this was punishable under Syrian law in 

accordance with articles 286 and 287 of the Criminal Code. The Office of the Public 

Prosecutor in Damascus initiated criminal proceedings against Mr. Kamal Al- 

Labwani for the crimes of damaging the reputation of the State and weakening 

national morale and unity. Mr. Al-Labwani was interrogated on 12 November 2005 

with his legal representatives in attendance. A decision was taken to issue a detention 

order and to remand him in Damascus Central Prison for the crimes with which he 

was charged. 

1814. The Permanent Mission of the Syrian Arab Republic thanked the Special 


expression, and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation 

of human rights defenders for the concern that they had expressed regarding this 

matter but wished to confirm that the reasons for Mr. Al-Labwani’s detention were 

not related to his peaceful calls for democratic reform in Syria. The letter stated that 

he was a Syrian citizen and was protected by Syrian law from torture or any illtreatment 

and allowed regular visits from his lawyers and members of his family. 

Urgent appeal 


Rapporteur on the question of torture and the the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the 


concerning Ma’rouf Mulla Ahmed, aged 53, resident in Qamishli, leading member 

of the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Unity Party (or Yeketi Party) which calls for an 

improvement of basic rights for the Kurdish population in Syria. 

1816. According to the information received, on 12 August 2007, Ma’rouf Mulla 

Ahmed was arrested while traveling by bus to Lebanon. He was asked to leave the bus


Page 358 

at a Syrian checkpoint controlled by State Security (Amn al-Dawla) at the Syrian – 

Lebanese borders. He was beng detained incommunicado at Branch 285 of State 

Security in Damascus. With a view to his incommunicado detention, concern was 

expressed for his physical and mental integrity. Further concern was expressed that 

Ma’rouf Mulla Ahmed’s detention might be linked solely to his non-violent activities 

in defence of Kurdish rights. 


1817. In a letter dated 29 November 2007, the Government of the Syrian Arab 

Republic responded to the above communication. The letter stated that Mr Mulla 

Ahmed was arrested by the police for belonging to a terrorist organization which 

seeks to create discord among Syrian citizens. The letter further stated that he had 

taken part in, and incited others to participate in, riots in breach of public order. He 

was charged with these offences by the public prosecution service and was duly 

brought before the competent court, with his lefal counsel in attendance. 

1818. The letter stated that this case would be heard by the court, which would 

ultimately decide whether to convict or acquit Mr Ahmed. Thus, the Government did 

not view his detention as arbitrary and considered that his full rights to legal 

representation as provided for under Syrian law had been protected and that he had 

not been subjected to any form of torture. 



the Government concerning Mr Muhanad al-Hasani, Director of the Syrian Human 

Rights Organization (Sawasiya), Mr Hassan Mishou, member of the Syrian Human 

Rights Organization, Mr Radif Mustafa, Director of the Kurdish Commission on 

Human Rights, Mr Mustafa Aousou, Director of the Kurdish Organization to Defend 

Human Rights and Public Freedoms in Syria, Mr Khalil Maatouk, lawyer and 

Director of the Syrian Center for Legal Studies and Research, and Mr Jihad Msoti, 

member of the Al-Atassi Forum, a forum created by Syrian human rights activists. 

1820. According to the information received, on 31 October and 1 November 2007, 

the Syrian intelligence prevented Mr Muhanad al-Hasani, Mr Hassan Mishou, Mr 

Radif Mustafa, Mr Mustafa Aousou, Mr Khalil Maatouk, and Mr Jihad Msoti from 

traveling from Syria to Egypt to participate in a workshop on "Human Rights in Syria: 

the Situation in Iraq and the War on Terror". The workshop, to be jointly organized by 

the International Federation of Human Rights and the Cairo Center for Human Rights 

Studies, was to take place from 2 to 3 November 2007 in Cairo. Mr al-Hasani was 

repeatedly banned from leaving the country since the intelligence facility confiscated 

his passport in July 2007 when he tried to travel to Morocco. 

1821. The aforementioned individuals were prevented from departing on order of the 

security intelligence (Al-Amn Al-Siyasi) with no judicial authorization, an act which 

is in contravention of article 33 of the Syria Constitution on freedom of movement. 

Concern was expressed that Mr Muhanad al-Hasani, Mr Hassan Mishou, Mr Radif 

Mustafa, Mr Mustafa Aousou, Mr Khalil Maatouk, and Mr Jihad Msoti were 

prevented from traveling because of their peaceful human rights activities.


Page 359 


1822. In a letter dated 13 February 2007, the Government of the Syrian Arab 

Republic responded to an urgent appeal dated 23 August 2006, sent by Special 

Representative, together with the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on 

Arbitrary Detention, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the 

right to freedom of opinion and expression concerning Mr. Ali Shahabi. The letter 

stated that Mr. Ali Shahabi had been arrested on 10 August 2006 and brought before 

the courts pursuant to article 278 of the Criminal Code for establishing a secret 

association, for infringing the laws and regulations, and for engaging in this 

association’s activities without an official permit from the competent institutions. This 

charge was the core component of an offence under article 288 of the General 

Criminal Code. Mr. Al-Shahabi was, in the view of the Government, engaged in 

clandestine activities, distributing unlicensed publications of a kind likely to make 

Syria vulnerable to attack, to sour its relations with foreign States and to leave Syrians 

or their activities open to revenge attacks. 

1823. The Government added that many Syrians living in Lebanon had been 

physically attacked and some had died at the hands of Lebanese nationals, and further 

stated that Syrian courts would have the final say as to whether Mr Shahabi would be 

convicted or acquitted in accordance with the laws and regulations in force in Syria. 

Response from the Government to communcations sent before 2 December 2006. 

1824. In a letter dated 10 July 2006, the Syrian Government responded to an urgent 

appeal sent by the Special Representative on 6 April 2006, together with the 

Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Special 


expression and the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture regarding the arrest 

and detention of Mr Ali al-Abdullah, a journalist writing for several Arab 

newspapers, including Al Nahar, Al Hayat and Al Quds En Arabi, and a member of 

the Atassi Forum, and his son Mohammad. 

1825. The Permanent Mission of the Syrian Arab Republic in Geneva provided 

information concerning Mr. Ali al-Abdullah and his son Mohammed al-Abdullah. The 

letter stated that the two men were arrested for causing trouble and creating havoc in 

front of the Higher State Security Court and for using foul language to the Court and 

presiding judge. They were sent before the Chief Public Prosecutor of Damascus, a 

member of the “ordinary” judiciary, on 11 June 2006, to be prosecuted in conformity 

with applicable Syrian law. Neither of them was subjected to any unlawful procedure. 

A detention order was issued and they were detained in the Civil Prison, under 

instructions from an established judicial authority, namely, the Chief Public 

Prosecutor of Damascus. The letter further stated that Syrian law protects these two 

men and ensures that they were treated properly and were not subjected to any illtreatment. 

Observations


Page 360 

1826. The Special Representative thanks the Government of the Syrian Arab 

Republic for its responses to three of the five communications sent and hopes that 

further information will be provided with regard to the two cases awaiting response. 

1827. The Special Representative reiterates her concern that human rights defenders 

in Syria are subject to arrest and detention, in connection with their work that their 

treatment while in detention may not respect international norms and standards. She 

calls on the Syrian Government to ensure that all detainees are guaranteed access to 

independent legal representation and medical care and regular contact to family. 


Tanzania (United Republic of) 


Rapporteur on the right to food and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human 

rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, sent an letter of allegations to 

the Govenrment concerning alleged threats to the Hadzabe indigenous community 

as a result of the granting of a hunting licence to a private company on the Hadzabes’ 

traditional lands. In addition, they brought to the attention of the Government 

allegations concerning the detention of Richard Baalow, a Hadzabe spokesperson 

and member of the Hunter-Gatherer Forum of East Africa, in relation to his activities 

in defence of the rights of the Hadzabe community, numbering between 1,200 and 

3,000 people. 

1829. According to the information, on 21 May 2007, a little after 2 p.m., Tanzanian 

police reportedly arrested Richard Baalow in Yadai Chini, Mbulu District. The arrest 

of Baalow was allegedly related to his participation at a meeting that took place in 

Mongo wa Mono village on 25 April 2007, organized by the Commissioner of Human 

Rights and Good Governance, the District Game Officer and other District officials, 

regarding the hunting lease. During this meeting, Baalow reportedly raised critical 

questions regarding the Commissioner’s attempt to convince community members to 

accept the lease. Even though he was subsequently released from prison, Baalow was 

reportedly suspended from his employment. According to the allegations, he faced 

charges under article 89 (1) (b) of the Penal Code for alleged breach of the peace 

during the meeting at Mongo wa Mono village. Concern was expressed that Baalow’s 

arrest may have been related to his vocal role in the defence of the rights of the 

Hadzabe indigenous community and his opposition to the hunting project. 


1830. In a letter dated 13 December 2007, the Government of the United Republic of 

Tanzania responded to the above communication. The letter stated that Mr Baalow 

had not been arrested for his participation in the meeting but rather for disorderly 

behaviour in breach of public peace and tranquility. With regard to the granting of a 

hunting licence to a private company, the Government letter stated that the licence 

was issued by a competent authority in accordance with the laws and regularions 

governing wildlife utilization in the country.


Page 361 

Observations 

1831. .The Special Representative thanks the Government of the United Republic of 

Tanzania for its response to the communication of 28 August 2007 and trusts that the 

Government will continue its efforts to respect the rights of indigenous peoples and 

those human rights defenders working on their behalf. 

Urgent appeal 

Thailand 


Government concerning the enforced disappearance of Mr Thares Sodsri, an 

environmental activist who had actively campaigned against the illegal encroachment 

of protected forest land in the Ban Kha District and raised concerns as to the impact 

such activity has on the human rights of the villagers of Ban Kha District. According 

to the information received, on 1 December 2006, Mr Thares Sodsri was reported 

missing to the police by his housemaid who had reportedly left him on the evening of 

30 November 2006 and when she returned to the residence the following morning she 

found some of the lights were still on and he was missing. 

1833. It was further reported that during a police search, officers found traces of 

blood, three used handgun cartridges, two bullets and tyre prints on the front lawn. On 

2 December 2006, the police apparently found a bloodstained truck and garments and 

confiscated fire weapons at a number of locations in Ban Kha district. In addition, Mr 

Thares Sodsri’s wife alleged that their pet dogs had been poisoned in the days leading 

up to his disappearance. Mr Thares Sodsri had reportedly submitted video evidence, 

to the Ministry of Natural Sources and the Environment, in which illegal forest 

destruction was carried out by a local political leader, in Ratchaburi, an area protected 

under a royally initiated project. Concern was expressed that Mr Thares Sodsri may 

be in grave danger or may even have been killed as a result of his work in defence of 

human rights, in particular his defence of the environmental rights of villagers in the 

Ban Kha District. 

Urgent appeal 


Government concerning threats and acts of intimidation against Dr Ananchai 

Thaipratan, an advisor with the Young Muslim Association of Thailand (YMAT) 

and member of the sub-committee on disappearances of the National Reconciliation 

Commission, Mr. Ismael Salae, student and Deputy Secretary of YMAT and Mr. 

Abdul-aziz Gatae-in, Vice President of YMAT who is actively involved in receiving 

complaints in relation to human rights violations and provides legal assistance to 

villagers and facilitates meetings between victims of violence and state agencies. All 

three men had been involved in monitoring and reporting on human rights violations 

in the three southern-most regions of Thailand and form part of a wider network of 

human rights defenders known as the Working Group on Justice for Peace. 

1835. According to the information received, on 12 December 2006, the office of the 

YMAT in Yala in which all three activists work was attacked and the front door was


Page 362 

smashed. On 7 December 2006, Mr Ismael Salae had noticed a hooded man watching 

the YMAT office as he was returning from a visit to the family of a reported victim of 

a forced disappearance in the Thepha district. Apparently other staff members were 

also aware of the man’s presence. In addition, a few days prior to this incident, Mr 

Salae was reportedly followed as he was driving home from work on his motorcycle. 

Sources indicate that when he made his way to the security checkpoint near Yala 

prison, his pursuer turned around and fled. Furthermore, it was reported that Mr 

Ananchai Thaipratan, Mr Ismael Salae and Mr Abdul-aziz Gatae-in have all been told 

by police, militants and other sources to leave the area and emigrate to Malaysia. Mr 

Abdul-aziz Gatae-in has also allegedly received a number of threatening letters and 

telephone calls in recent years calling for him to cease his work in defence of human 

rights. 

1836. Concern was expressed that the acts of intimidation against Dr. Ananchai 

Thaipratan, Mr. Ismael Salae and Mr. Abdul-aziz Gatae-in may represent an attempt 

to prevent and deter them and other human rights defenders from carrying out their 

legitimate activities in defence of human rights, in particular their work in monitoring 

and reporting cases of disappearances, extra-judicial killings, torture, arbitrary arrests 

and human rights violations perpetrated by State agencies. Further concern was 

expressed for their safety and security as it is feared that they may be subject to 

violent attacks as a result of this work. 

Urgent appeal 



expression, sent an urgent appeal to the Government concerning Ms Angkhana 

Neelaphaijit, wife of human rights lawyer Mr Somchai Neelaphaijit. Ms Neelaphaijit 

was the subject of an urgent appeal sent by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion 

and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the Special 


7 September 2005 and of an urgent appeal sent by the Chairman-Rapporteur of the 

Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, the Special Rapporteur 

on the independence of judges and lawyers, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion 

and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the Special 


28 March 2006. 

1838. According to information received, on 12 March 2007, Ms Neelaphaijit filed a 

complaint with the Central Administrative Court regarding the failure by the police to 

investigate her husband’s disappearance three years ago. He was allegedly abducted 

by members of the police and his case remains unresolved. The complaint was lodged 

against Pol.Gen.Seripisuth Themiyavet in his capacity as National Chief of Police. 

Later that day, Pol. Gen. Seripisuth Themiyavet was quoted in the online newspaper 

Manager, as saying that Ms Neelaphaijit should be prevented from enquiring further 

into her husband’s case, and that she should not “trust other people too much”. He 

also warned that she would make an enemy of him. Ms Neelaphaijit had stated in an 

article published that morning in the Bangkok Post that those responsible for the 

abduction of her husband were still on duty and that they continued to use their 

positions of power to thwart justice.


Page 363 

1839. In February 2007, after Pol. Gen. Seripisuth Themiyavet was promoted, he 

appointed Pol. Gen. Sombat Amornivat as one of his Deputy Officers. Pol. Gen. 

Sombat Amornivat was the former Director of Special Investigations, who allegedly 

obstructed an investigation into the case of Mr Somchi Neelaphaijit, and who was 

later dismissed and transferred to the Ministry of Justice. Concern was expressed that 

the comments allegedly made by the acting Chief of Police form part of an ongoing 

pattern to discredit human rights defenders in Thailand. Further concern was 

expressed for the safety of Ms Neelaphaijit following the alleged remarks made by the 

acting Chief of Police. 




expression, sent a letter of allegations to the Government concerning Mr Jaran 

Ditapichai, Commissioner with the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand, 

Mr Chatuporn Promphan, Mr Jakrapob Penkair, and Mr Nattawut Saiku, PTV 

executives; Mr Veera Musikapong, PTV's President; Mr Viphuthalaeng 

Pattanaphunthar, spokesman for the Saturday Voice against Dictatorship; Dr. Weng 

Tojirakar, adviser to the Confederation for Democracy; Mr Manit Jitjanklab, 

former Chief Justice of the Criminal Court; and Mr Apinant Vinyachai, former Thai 

Rak Thai Member of Parliament. They are all leaders of the United Front against 

Thailand (UDD), a non-Governmental organisation advocating the promotion of 

democracy through peaceful means. 

1841. According to information received, on 22 July 2007, the UDD organised a 

peaceful protest in which 30,000 protesters participated. The aim of the protest was to 

march to the residence of the Privy Council President General Prem Tinsulanonda and 

call for his resignation, due to his alleged involvement in the coup d’état of 19 

September 2006. The protesters set off from Sanam Luang at 2.00pm and were 

prevented from continuing on two occasions. They negotiated with the police present 

at the scene and were permitted to proceed, arriving at the residence of General Prem 

Tinsulanonda’s residence at approximately 5.00pm. The protesters then set up the 

stage from which speakers were to address the crowd. At approximately 9.00pm, 

several hundred policemen allegedly arrived; armed with anti-riot gear, including 

shields, batons, pepper spray and tear gas, which they were reported to have used in 

order to disperse the crowd. 

1842. It was also alleged that military personnel were among the riot police and that 

there were military troops on standby. According to reports, forty-two people were 

injured in the struggle that ensued. The UDD then decided to retreat to Sanam Luang. 

Nonetheless, the following UDD’s nine leaders were arrested: Mr Jaran Ditapichai, 

Mr Chatuporn Promphan, Mr Jakrapob Penkair, and Mr Nattawut Saiku, Mr 

Viphuthalaeng Pattanaphunthar, Dr.Weng Tojirakar, Mr Manit Jitjanklab, Mr Apinant 

Vinyachai, and Mr Jaran Ditapichai. They were all later released on bail, but had to 

report to the police on a regular basis. Concern was expressed that the arrest and 

detention of the nine aforementioned UDD leaders may have been related to their 

peaceful activities in defense of human rights.


Page 364 


1843. In a letter dated 29 November 2007, the Government of Thailand responded to 

the above communication. The letter stated that exercising the rights to assemble had 

to be in conformity with the law and not adversely affect public safety, public order, 

or the rights and freedom of others. The protesters caused damage to public and 

private property, injuring more than 250 people, over 200 of whom were police 

officers. Only after three failed attempts to persuade the protesters to end their rally, 

and with the rally continuing for over seven hours, did the police use tear gas and 

pepper spray to disperse the crowd at 23.00. They carried only riot shields and batons 

that they had been strictly instructed to use only in self-defense. The rally came to an 

end without the police using force against the people. 

1844. The letter further stated that requests for arrest warrants had been made to the 

court for key leaders of the protest for inflicting bodily harm against police officers 

carrying out their duty and that due process would be followed to ensure justice for 

both officers and protestors. 

Observations 

1845. The Special Representative thanks the Thai Government for its response to the 

communication of 21 August and call on the Government to address the concerns 

raised in the other three communications sent in the time-period covered by this 

report. With regard to the response of 29 November 2007, the Special Representative 

calls on the Government to ensure that the right to freedom of assembly is observed 

and that excessive use of force on the part of law enforcement agencies does not 

occur. 

1846. The Special Representative wishes to reiterate her concern regarding the 

enforced disappearance of Mr Thares Sordsri and Mr Somchai Neelaphaijit and urges 

the Government to conduct a thorough investigation into the circumstances of their 

disappearance and provide her with information in relation to the cases at its earliest 

convenience. The Special Representative trusts that the Government acknowledges 

the seriousness of enforced disappearance and that such cases will be dealt with. She 

views as serious cause for concern the intimidation of Mr Neelaphaijit’s wife, Ms 

Angkhana Neelaphaijit, as a result of the latter’s attempts to investigate her husband’s 

disappearance and hopes that the Government will take steps to ensure that such 

threatening behaviour is not a common occurrence. 

Urgent appeal 

Tonga 




dozens of persons affected by the violent events surrounding a pro-democracy march, 

in Nuku’alofa.


Page 365 

1848. According to the information received, on 16 November 2006, what began as 

a peaceful pro-democracy march through central Nuku’alofa turned violent, when 

other persons engaged in extensive looting and arson, and property damage. The city 

was cordoned off by the Tonga Defence Service personnel and Police Officers from 

the Ministry of Police. Under the Emergency Powers (Maintenance of Public Order) 

Regulations 2006, they were granted wide ranging powers, including the ability to 

arrest and detain any person for a period not exceeding 48 hours. Security forces 

arrested scores of persons especially targeting pro-democracy leaders who had 

organised and participated in the march or had given speeches at Pangai si’i, even 

though they were not involved in the riots or the looting of shops. Prisoners reported 

that the majority of their injuries were sustained during arrest and in transit to the 

Nuku’alofa Police Station, primarily at the hands of the Tonga Defence Services. 

Injuries included facial cuts, swelling and bruising; ripped ears; broken and missing 

teeth; split lips and heavily bruised ribs. The principal weapons used by security 

forces were reported to be rifle butts. The Emergency Ward of Vaiola Hospital 

reported receiving a number of patients with serious injuries. 

1849. At the Nuku’alofa Police Station prisoners were subject to verbal abuse from 

police officers while waiting to be processed inside the Station. Male prisoners were 

then strip searched, sometimes in front of female officers. The prisoners were not 

offered access to lawyers, amd any such requests were ignored. Many families were 

unaware that their relatives had been detained until they were released several days 

later. Interrogations were held on the third floor of the Nuku’alofa Police Station and 

were reported to be frequently violent, including some detainees being beaten with 

furniture, slapped and punched in the face, forced to sign confessions, and subjected 

to threats of physical and sexual violence, with officers holding a large broom stick. 

Some prisoners were handcuffed continuously for up to four days. The worst 

conditions were reported to be in prison cells numbered 5 to 7, which contained the 

majority of persons who had been physically assaulted. Prisoners reported 

overcrowded conditions, particularly in the days immediately after the march. In cell 

7, up to 64 prisoners were held in a cell with a capacity for 16. Prisoners were forced 

to sleep on the floor, or on the wooden or wire slats of the bunks, without bedding 

materials. Toilet visits were restricted, and eventually led to filthy conditions amidst 

the stench of urine and faeces. Prisoners were required to wash in a bathroom sink 

without soap. The average daily diet was reported to consist of half a loaf of bread 

each, a can of tinned fish between the prisoners in the cell and a glass of water. 

1850. Up to 50 children, as young as 13 years, were reportedly detained at one point. 

This included approximately 30 children being held in prison cell number 7 together 

with 30 other adults. By 30 November, eight persons were reported to have been 

killed in the ensuing violence. Approximately 120 to 140 persons were taken into 

custody, and by 29 November, 109 suspects were still detained. Fifteen children were 

still in custody on 1 December. Around 355 suspects have been charged by the 

Ministry of Police with various offences, including arson and theft. Persons involved 

in the pro-democracy march or who gave speeches at Pangai si’i on the day of the 

riots were told that they should expect to be held until 20 December 2006. 

Observations


Page 366 


from the Government of Tonga but hopes that, given the serious nature of this case 

and the number of people involved, information regarding the above communication 

and the concerns raised in it is provided by the Government in the near future. 


Tunisia 

1852. Le 19 décembre 2006, la Représentante spéciale a envoyé une lettre 

d’allégations sur l’interdiction de libre accès aux bureaux de la Ligue Tunisienne 

des Droits de l’Homme (LTDH) et du Conseil National pour les Libertés en Tunisie 

(CNLT) par leurs membres respectifs. La LTDH et le CNLT sont deux organisations 

non-gouvernementales qui œuvrent pour la protection et promotion des droits de 

l’homme en Tunisie. Des appels urgents sur ce sujet ont déjà été envoyés par la 


des droits de l'homme le 7 mai 2004 et le 22 mars 2005 et conjointement avec le 

Rapporteur Spécial sur la liberté d’expression le 6, 7,23 septembre 2005 et 20 avril et 

26 juillet 2006. Selon les dernières informations reçues : 

1853. Le 3 décembre 2006, le siège de la LTDH aurait été encerclé par un imposant 

cordon policier, bloquant tous les accès du local et empêchant de ce fait la tenue d’une 

réunion d’un comité de soutien à la LTDH composé d’anciens dirigeants de celle-ci. 

Cet épisode ne serait pas un cas isolé : depuis le 24 avril 2006, les forces de l’ordre 

empêcheraient toute personne d’entrer dans les locaux de la LTDH à Tunis - exception 

faite de ses membres directeurs - par le barrage des rues environnantes, et le 

placement d’officiers en faction devant les portes de la ligue. 

1854. Les 31 octobre, 1er et 2 novembre 2006, l’entrée du local central du CNLT 

aurait été bloquée par plusieurs policiers en civil et une soixantaine de policiers 

auraient été déployés autour du quartier, empêchant l’accès au bâtiment du CNLT à de 

nombreuses victimes et familles de prisonniers. Il est allégué que ces dernière 

semaines, plusieurs victimes et familles de prisonniers auraient été empêchées par la 

police d’accéder aux bureaux du CNLT, et d’autres auraient été harcelées lorsqu’elles 

sortaient de ceux-ci. Ainsi, le 30 octobre 2006, Mme Zeineb Chebli, mère du 

prisonnier Khaled Arfaoui, aurait été conduite au commissariat de police de la 

République puis harcelée sur le chemin de son retour par des policiers. Le même jour, 

M. Ahmed Ghazouani, père du prisonnier Ghaith Ghazouani, aurait été interrogé 

dans la rue devant les locaux du CNLT. Le 2 octobre 2006, Mme Sarra Lazghad, 

épouse du prisonnier Khaled Layouni, et Mme Manal Mekki, sœur du prisonnier 

Ghaith Mekki, auraient été conduites au poste de police de la rue de Cologne à leur 

sortie des bureaux du CNLT et obligées de signer un engagement à ne plus se rendre 

dans ces bureaux. En outre, M. Hassine Jelassi, ancien prisonnier politique, aurait été 

interpellé le 2 octobre 2006 à sa sortie des bureaux du CNLT et « invité à ne plus y 

remettre les pieds ». De même, M. Houcine Ben Amor aurait été empêché d’accéder à 

ces mêmes bureaux le 1er novembre 2006 et M. Sami Nasr, chercheur permanent au 

CNLT, aurait été empêché à plusieurs reprises d’accéder à son propre bureau. Enfin, il 

est allégué que le CNLT n’aurait toujours pas réussi à tenir son assemblée générale 

depuis décembre 2004.


Page 367 

1855. Des craintes ont été exprimées que l’interdiction de libre accès aux bureaux de 

la LTDH et du CNLT et les actes allégués de harcèlement par les forces de l’ordre à 

l’encontre des membres de ces organisations seraient en représailles à leurs activités 

légitimes de défense des droits de l’homme en Tunisie, et s’inscriveraient dans un 

contexte d’intimidation et de répression systématique à leur encontre. 


1856. Le 1 er février 2008, le Gouvernement a répondu à la lettre d’allégation 

envoyée le 19 décembre 2006. Le Gouvernement informe que s’agissant de 

l’empêchement allégué le 3 décembre 2006 d’une réunion du Comité de soutien à la 

LTDH, il y a lieu de préciser que la ligue comptait organiser à cette date un séminaire 

sur « les orientations futures de la Ligue et les droits de l’homme ». C’est à la 

demande d’un huissier de justice mandaté par les plaignants que le Procureur de la 

République territorialement compétent a autorisé l’assistance de la force publique 

pour l’exécution du jugement en référé décidant, le 18 avril 2006, la suspension du 

congrès de la Ligue et l’arrêt de tous les actes préliminaires ou préparatoires du 

congrès projeté, en attendant de trancher le litige quant au fond. C’est ainsi que 

l’intervention autorisée de la police, pour en assurer l’exécution, s’est déroulée selon 

les procédures usuelles et dans le cadre de la loi. 

1857. Pour ce qui est des empêchements allégués d’accès au local du CNLT et 

harcèlement de certaines familles de prisonniers lorsqu’elles sortaient des bureaux du 

CNLT, il importe de souligner, en premier lieu, que le CNLT est une formation 

n’ayant pas d’existence légale en Tunisie, dans la mesure où un arrêté du Ministre de 

l’Intérieur avait fait opposition à sa construction, en raison du non-respect par ses 

fondateurs des conditions légales requises pour sa création. Un recours en annulation 

dudit arrêté a été introduit devant le Tribunal administratif et l’affaire suit son cours. 

A la date indiquée dans la communication de la Représentante spéciale (31 octobre 

2006), certaines personnes se sont attroupées devant le siège de la formation en 

question pour tenir une réunion non autorisée. Les agents de l’ordre ont alors 

intervenu pour disperser cet attroupement d’une manière pacifique et dans le cadre de 

la légalité. A cet égard, il y a lieu de rappeler que la liberté de réunion, garantie par la 

Constitution s’exerce dans les conditions définies par la loi du 24 janvier 1969 relative 

à la règlementation des réunions publiques, cortèges, défilés, manifestations et 

attroupements. 


1858. Le 22 décembre 2006, la Représentante spéciale, conjointement avec le 


d’expression et le Rapporteur spécial sur l’indépendance des juges et des avocats, 

envoyé une lettre d’allégations sur la situation de Me Néjib Hosni, avocat spécialisé 

dans les droits de l’Homme et membre fondateur du Conseil national des libertés en 

Tunisie (CNLT), Me Abderraouf Ayadi, ancien membre du Conseil de l’Ordre et 

ancien secrétaire général du CNLT, Me Abdelwahab Maatar, avocat à Tunis et 

membre du Congrès pour la République (CPR, parti politique non autorisé), M. 

Tahar Laabidi, journaliste, M. Ali Ben Salem, président de la section de Bizerte de 

la LTDH et vice-président de l’Association de lutte contre la torture en Tunisie 

(ALTT), M. Moncef Marzouki, ancien président de la LTDH, ancien porte-parole du


Page 368 

CNLT et dirigeant du CPR, Mme Samia Abbou, épouse de l'avocat et défenseur des 

droits de l'homme Mohammed Abbou, ainsi que l'opposant politique Moncef 

Marzouki, le journaliste Slim Boukhdir et l'avocat Samir Ben Amar. 

1859. Concernant les personnes susmentionnées, de précédentes communications ont 

été envoyées à votre attention: - un appel urgent envoyé par le Rapporteur Spécial sur 

la liberté d’expression le 02/03/2006 (M. Hosni) ; - un appel urgent conjoint envoyé 

par le Rapporteur Spécial sur la liberté d’expression et la Représentante spéciale du 

Secrétaire Général concernant la situation des défenseurs des droits de l'homme le 

26/07/2006 (Ms Rejiba) ; - an appel urgent envoyé par la Représentante spéciale du 

Secrétaire Général concernant la situation des défenseurs des droits de l'homme le 

31/12/2003 (Ms Rejiba) ; - un appel urgent conjoint envoyé par le Rapporteur Spécial 

sur la liberté d’expression, la Représentante spéciale du Secrétaire Général concernant 

la situation des défenseurs des droits de l'homme et le Rapporteur Spécial sur la 

Torture le 31/05/2006 (Ms Belhassen); - un appel urgent conjoint envoyé par le 

Rapporteur Spécial sur la liberté d’expression et la Représentante spéciale du 

Secrétaire général concernant la situation des défenseurs des droits de l'homme le 

20/04/2006 (Ms Belhassen); - un appel urgent conjoint envoyé par le Rapporteur 

Spécial sur la liberté d’expression et la Représentante spéciale du Secrétaire Général 

concernant la situation des défenseurs des droits de l'homme le 11/07/2006 (M. Ben 

Salem) ; - un appel urgent conjoint envoyé par le Rapporteur Spécial sur la liberté 

d’expression et la Représentante spéciale du Secrétaire Général concernant la 

situation des défenseurs des droits de l'homme le 19/06/2006 (M. Ben Salem) ; - un 

appel urgent conjoint envoyé par le Rapporteur Spécial sur la liberté d’expression, la 

Représentante spéciale du Secrétaire Général concernant la situation des défenseurs 

des droits de l'homme et le Rapporteur Spécial sur la Torture le 11/06/2004 (M. Ben 

Salem) ; - un appel urgent conjoint envoyé par le Rapporteur Spécial sur la liberté 

d’expression, la Représentante spéciale du Secrétaire Général concernant la situation 

des défenseurs des droits de l'homme et le Rapporteur spécial sur l’indépendance des 

juges et des avocats le 3/04/2006 (M. Abbou) ; - un appel urgent envoyé par la 

Présidente-Rapporteur du Groupe de Travail sur la détention arbitraire le 6/04/2006 

(M. Abbou) ; - un appel urgent envoyé par la Présidente-Rapporteur du Groupe de 

Travail sur la détention arbitraire, le Rapporteur Spécial sur la liberté d’expression, la 

Représentante spéciale du Secrétaire Général concernant la situation des défenseurs 

des droits de l'homme et le Rapporteur spécial sur l’indépendance des juges et des 

avocats le 9/03/2005 (M. Abbou) ; - un appel urgent envoyé par le Rapporteur Spécial 

sur la liberté d’expression le 17/3/2005 (M. Abbou) ; - un appel urgent conjoint 

envoyé par le Rapporteur Spécial sur la liberté d’expression, la Représentante spéciale 

du Secrétaire Général concernant la situation des défenseurs des droits de l'homme et 

le Rapporteur spécial sur l’indépendance des juges et des avocats le 12/5/2005 (M. 

Abbou) ; - un appel urgent conjoint envoyé par le Rapporteur Spécial sur la liberté 

d’expression, la Représentante spéciale du Secrétaire Général concernant la situation 

des défenseurs des droits de l'homme et le Rapporteur spécial sur l’indépendance des 

juges et des avocats le 16/6/2005 (M. Abbou) ; - un appel urgent conjoint envoyé par 

le Rapporteur Spécial sur la liberté d’expression, la Représentante spéciale du 

Secrétaire Général concernant la situation des défenseurs des droits de l'homme et le 

Rapporteur Spécial sur la Torture le 11/11/2005 (M. Abbou). Selon les nouvelles 

informations reçues :


Page 369 

1860. Le 3 décembre 2006, plusieurs personnes, dont Me Néjib Hosni, Me 

Abderraouf Ayadi, Me Abdelwahab Maatar, M. Tahar Laabidi et M. Ali Ben Salem, 

aurait été insultées, menacées, et parfois même malmenées par les forces de l’ordre 

devant le domicile de M. Moncef Marzouki à qui elles souhaitaient rendre visite, à 

Tousse. Ce dernier serait inculpé d’« incitation à la désobéissance civile» pour avoir 

appelé le peuple tunisien, lors d’une interview diffusée par la chaîne Al-Jazira le 14 

octobre 2006, à protester pacifiquement contre les restrictions imposées à leurs droits 

fondamentaux. M. Marzouki serait passible de trois ans de prison. Le groupe de 

personnes aurait également été soumis à de nombreux contrôles d’identité lors de leur 

trajet entre Tunis et Tousse. Certains de ces contrôles auraient duré plusieurs heures. 

Enfin, M. Marzouki aurait été empêché de rejoindre ses amis en partance pour Tunis. 

Le chef de la police lui aurait clairement signifié qu’il avait reçu des instructions en ce 

sens. 

1861. Le 7 décembre 2006, Mme Abbou, M. Marzouki, M. Boukhdir et Me Ben 

Amar auraient été stoppés à trois reprises par des barrages routiers tenus par les forces 

de l’ordre alors qu'ils se rendaient à la prison du Kef (à 170 km de Tunis) où est 

actuellement emprisonné Mohammed Abbou. Au troisième barrage, une quarantaine 

de policiers les auraient bloqués, leur interdisant de reprendre la route que ce soit dans 

un sens ou dans un autre. Leurs papiers auraient été confisqués. Le groupe de 

personnes aurait ensuite été autorisé à continuer sa route, mais ce serait fait agresser 

tout d'abord à la sortie d'un restaurant où ils auraient été pris à partie par un groupe de 

jeunes qui les auraient insultés et bousculés ; puis devant la prison de Kef où une 

trentaine de personnes les auraient attendus et s’en seraient pris physiquement à Mme 

Abbou, M. Marzouki, M. Boukhdir et Me Ben Amar et auraient détérioré leur 

véhicule. Il est allégué que des policiers auraient assisté à la seconde scène et 

l’auraient même filmée, mais se seraient abstenus d’intervenir. Mme Abbou, M. 

Marzouki, M. Boukhdir et Me Ben Amar se seraient finalement résignés à rentrer à 

Tunis, sans avoir pu rendre visite à Mohammed Abbou, et très choqués par ces 

événements successifs. 

1862. Des craintes ont été exprimées que les actes de harcèlement dont les personnes 

susmentionnées auraient été victimes seraient liés à leurs activités de défense des 

droits de l’homme en Tunisie et s’inscriveraient dans un contexte d’intimidation et de 

répression systématique à leur encontre. 


1863. Le 7 septembre 2007, le Gouvernement a répondu à la lettre d’allégation 

envoyée le 22 décembre 2006. Le Gouvernement informe que s’agissant des 

prétendus actes de harcèlement et d’agression que MM. Hosni, Ayadi, Maatar, 

Laabidi et Ben Salem auraient subi alors qu’ils rendait visite à M. Marzouki le 3 

décembre 2006 à Sousse, il y a lieu d’indiquer que ces allégations sont dénuées de 

tout fondement et que par ailleurs les intéressés n’ont introduit aucune plainte à ce 

sujet. Le Gouvernement précise que M. Marzouki bénéficie de tous ses droits et n’est 

soumis à aucune restriction. Il est libre de communiquer et de se déplacer librement à 

l’intérieur du pays comme à l’étranger. Il n’a introduit aucune plainte au sujet de 

quelconque acte de harcèlement. Pour ce qui est des prétendus actes de harcèlement et 

d’agression que MM. Marzouki, Boukhdir, Ben Amor, Labidi et Mme Abbou auraient 

subi alors qu’ils se rendaient à la prison du Kef où était emprisonné M. Mohammed


Page 370 

Abbou, le Gouvernement précise qu’aucune violence, ni agression physique 

quelconque n’ont été enregistrées à l’encontre de quiconque, et ce, en dépit des 

provocations et autres violences verbales de ces personnes qui n’ont même pas pris la 

peine, dans un acte flagrant de provocation et de manipulation de l’opinion, de 

requérir les autorisations administratives nécessaires pour visiter le détenu en 

question. Le 12 décembre 2007, les intéressés ont saisi le procureur de la République 

auprès du Tribunal de première instance du Kef d’une plainte qui a été enrôlée sous le 

No 06/29015 et confiée au procureur de la République auprès du Tribunal de première 

instance de Tunis pour audition des plaignants (qui résident à Tunis). L’instruction 

suit son cours. 

Appel urgent 

1864. Le 27 décembre 2006, la Représentante spéciale, conjointement avec le 


d’expression, a envoyé un appel urgent concernant l’arrestation de M. Lotfi Hajji, 

président du syndicat des journalistes tunisiens, vice-président de la section de 

Bizerte de la Ligue tunisienne des droits de l’Homme et membre actif du Collectif 18 

octobre pour les droits et les libertés. Selon les informations reçues : 

1865. M. Lotfi Hajji aurait été arrête, par un groupe de policiers, l’après-midi du 18 

décembre 2006 à son domicile dans la ville de Bizerte, et emmené vers une 

destination inconnue. M. Lotfi Hajji aurait participé à une réunion organisée par le 

Groupe Parlementaire Socialiste Européen à Strasbourg en septembre 2006, et aurait 

récemment publié un document de suivi de cette réunion. 

1866. Précédemment M. Lotfi Hajji a été l’objet de cinq communications, signées par 

le Rapporteur spécial sur la liberté d’opinion et d’expression en date 19 mai 2005, 2 

septembre 2005 et 21 octobre 2005 avec la Représentante spéciale du Secrétaire- 

Général sur la situation des défenseurs des droits de l’homme, en date 11 novembre 

2005 avec la Représentante spéciale du Secrétaire-Général sur la situation des 

défenseurs des droits de l’homme et le Rapporteur spécial chargé d'examiner les 

questions se rapportant à la torture, en date 31 janvier 2006 avec la Représentante 

spéciale du Secrétaire-Général sur la situation des défenseurs des droits de l’homme et 

la Rapporteuse spéciale chargée de la question de la violence contre les femmes. Le 

Gouvernement de votre Excellence a répondu à la première, troisième et quatrième 

communication, respectivement en date 20 février, 10 mars et 5 octobre 2006. 


1867. Le 7 septembre 2007, le Gouvernement a répondu à l’appel urgent envoyé le 

27 décembre 2006. Le Gouvernement informe que nonobstant le fait qu’il n’est pas en 

possession d’une carte l’accréditant en tant que correspondant de la chaîne « Al 

Jazeera », M. Hajji n’a cessé de communiquer à la chaîne en question des 

informations erronées et calomnieuses sur la situation des droits de l’homme en 

Tunisie. Convoqué par la police judiciaire de « Bab B’har » pour être interrogé sur les 

faits qui lui sont reprochés, l’intéressé a refusé de signer la convocation. Il a été 

présenté le 18 décembre 2006 à la police judiciaire qui a procédé à son interrogatoire 

dans le cadre du respect des procédures en vigueur. De ce fait, les prétentions répétées


Page 371 

de l’intéressé à son sujet relèvent de ses manœuvres tendant à attirer l’attention sur 

son cas. 


1868. Le 4 mai 2007, la Représentante spéciale, conjointement avec le Rapporteur 

spécial sur l’indépendance des juges et des avocats, a envoyé une lettre d’allégations 

sur le cas concernant Me Abderraouf Ayadi, avocat, ancien membre du Conseil de 

l’Ordre des avocats et ancien secrétaire général du Conseil National pour les Libertés 

en Tunisie, au sein du Palais de justice à Tunis. Des appels concernant M. Ayadi ont 

été envoyés le 25 janvier et 12 mai 2005 par le Rapporteur spécial sur l’indépendance 

des juges et des avocats, le Représentante spéciale du Secrétaire général concernant la 

situation des défenseurs des droits de l'homme et le Rapporteur spécial sur la liberté 

d’expression, le 21 octobre 2005 par le Rapporteur spécial sur la liberté d’expression 

et le Représentante spéciale du Secrétaire général concernant la situation des 

défenseurs des droits de l'homme et le 11 novembre 2005 par liberté d’expression et le 


des droits de l'homme et le Rapporteur spécial sur la torture. Selon les informations 

reçues: 

1869. Le 14 avril 2007, Me Ayadi aurait été victime d’une agression physique par un 

agent de la police politique devant la salle d’audience du tribunal de première instance 

à Tunis. Me Ayadi s’apprêtait à plaider dans une affaire où comparaissaient des 

prévenus dans le cadre de la loi anti-terroriste. Me Ayadi aurait été frappé à coups de 

pieds tandis que d’autres agents auraient formé un barrage devant la porte pour 

l’empêcher de pénétrer dans la salle d’audience. 

1870. Des préoccupations ont été exprimées que l’interdiction à l’encontre de Me 

Ayadi d’exercer sa fonction d’avocat ainsi que l’usage de la force à son encontre 

seraient liés à ses activités de défense des droits de l’homme et s’inscriveraient dans 

un contexte d’intimidation et de répression systématique à l’encontre des avocats 

engagés dans cette défense. 


1871. Le 27 juillet 2007, la Représentante spéciale, conjointement avec le Rapporteur 

spécial sur l’indépendance des juges et des avocats, a envoyé une lettre d’allégations 

sur le cas de Me Abderraouf Ayadi, avocat, ancien membre du Conseil de l’Ordre 

des avocats et ancien secrétaire général du Conseil National pour les Libertés en 

Tunisie. Selon les informations reçues: 

1872. Une information judiciaire pour agression sur la personne du chef de poste de 

Bab Bnet, dont dépend le Palais de justice, aurait été ouverte contre Me Ayadi. Ceci 

se serait produit peu après une audition, le 12 juillet 2007, de Me Abdelfattah 

Mourou, collègue de Me Ayadi, qui était entendu par le procureur de la République 

comme témoin d’une agression dont avait été victime Me Ayadi au mois d’avril. En 

effet, le 14 avril 2007, Me Ayadi avait été violemment agressé par un officier de la 

police politique devant la salle d’audience du tribunal de première instance à Tunis, 

alors qu’il s’apprêtait à plaider dans une affaire où comparaissaient des prévenus dans 

le cadre de la loi anti-terroriste.


Page 372 

1873. En même temps, Me Ayadi continuerait de faire l’objet d’actes de harcèlement 

de la part d’agents du ministère de l’Intérieur. Ainsi, le 7 juillet 2007, Me Ayadi aurait 

aperçu un homme en train de déposer une enveloppe sur sa boîte aux lettres et puis 

s’enfuir. Ayant reçu une enveloppe similaire une semaine auparavant, contenant un 

photomontage mettant en scène son épouse, il se serait rendu dans un poste de police, 

où il aurait demandé à un agent de procéder à l’ouverture de l’enveloppe, qui 

contenait un DVD. Alors que Me Ayadi aurait demandé à ce que cet acte soit 

consigné dans un procès-verbal afin d’engager une plainte, l’agent aurait refusé de le 

faire, en indiquant qu’il s’agissait d’un ordre de sa hiérarchie. Son chef aurait indiqué 

avoir reçu des consignes à cet effet. Me Ayadi aurait protesté contre l'illégalité de ce 

refus, et serait parti en laissant l’enveloppe avec son contenu sur le bureau de l’agent. 

Un peu plus tard dans la journée, la secrétaire de Me Ayadi aurait retrouvé la même 

enveloppe dans la boîte aux lettres. 

1874. Des préoccupations ont été exprimées que l'information judiciaire ouverte 

contre Me Ayadi ainsi que les actes de harcèlement par les agents du ministère de 

l'Intérieur dont il serait l'objet ne seraient liés à ses activités de défense des droits de 

l’homme et s’inscriveraient dans un contexte d’intimidation et de répression 

systématique à l’encontre des avocats engagés dans cette défense. 


1875. Le 1er février 2008, le Gouvernement a répondu à la lettre d’allégations 

envoyée le 27 juillet 2007. Le Gouvernement informe qu’après vérifications, il s’est 

avéré que Me Ayadi n’a présenté aucune plainte au sujet de l’agression dont il aurait 

été victime le 14 avril 2007 par un officier de police. Toutefois, l’officier de police 

chargé de la sécurité dans l’enceinte du tribunal a déclaré avoir été victime 

d’agression physique et verbale de la part de Me Ayadi et a porté plainte contre lui. 

Les témoins auditionnés dans le cadre de cette affaire par le Ministère public, y 

compris deux avocats qui étaient sur les lieux de l’agression, ont tous affirmé que Me 

Ayadi avait offusqué et bousculé l’agent en question à l’occasion de l’exercice de ses 

fonctions. L’instruction suit son cours. Enfin, quant au photomontage allégué mettant 

en scène l’épouse de M. Ayadi, celui-ci a déposé en septembre 2007 une plainte à ce 

sujet devant le Procureur de la République auprès du Tribunal de première instance de 

Tunis. L’enquête a été confiée au Ministère public et suit son cours. 


1876. Le 5 septembre 2007, la Représentante spéciale, conjointement avec le 

Rapporteur spécial sur l’indépendance des juges et des avocats, a envoyé une lettre 

d’allégations sur la situation de Me Ayachi Hammami, défenseur des droits humains 

en Tunisie, et membre du Collectif 18 octobre pour les droits et libertés, et secrétaire 

général de la section de Tunis de la ligue tunisienne pour la défense des droits de 

l’homme. Son cas a fait l’objet de plusieurs communications en 2005 et 2006 de la 

part du Rapporteur spécial sur l’indépendance des juges et des avocats, de la 


des droits de l'homme, du Rapporteur spécial sur la promotion et la protection du droit 

à la liberté d’opinion et d’expression et du Rapporteur spécial sur la torture. Selon les 



Page 373 

1877. Le 31 août 2007, Me Ayachi Hammami aurait été victime d’un incendie qui 

aurait ravagé son cabinet et dont l’origine serait vraisemblablement criminelle. 

Lorsque Me Ayachi Hammami serait arrivé à son bureau, il aurait constaté que la 

porte d’entrée était ouverte, alors qu’il se souvenait l’avoir fermée la veille en partant. 

En revanche, la porte de son bureau personnel serait restée fermée, sans doute dans le 

but de détruire un maximum de documents avant que les pompiers ne puissent entrer 

et éteindre le feu. Le cache de l’ordinateur professionnel de Me Ayachi Hammami 

aurait été ôté et des journaux auraient été introduits dans le lecteur. Cela semblerait 

indiquer la volonté de s’assurer de la destruction de toutes les données qu’il contenait. 

Le fait que le cabinet de Me Ayachi Hammami aurait été soumis à une surveillance 

policière permanente semblerait indiquer que les personnes qui mirent le feu 

l’auraient fait grâce à l’aide de complices travaillant au sein des autorités de 

surveillance. 

1878. Des craintes ont été exprimées que cet acte serait une tentative d’intimider Me 

Ayachi Hammami et de l’empêcher de poursuivre son travail d’avocat et de défenseur 

des droits de l’homme. 


1879. Le 1er février 2008, le Gouvernement a répondu à la lettre d’allégations 

envoyée le 5 septembre 2007. Le Gouvernement informe que dans le cadre de 

l’enquête judiciaire en cours au sujet de l’incendie qui s’est déclaré le 31 août 2007 à 

l’étude de Me Hammami, le juge d’instruction en charge de l’enquête s’est rendu sur 

les lieux dès sa saisine et à procédé aux constats in situ qui ont établi l’absence de 

traces d’effraction au niveau des accès de l’étude. De son côté, Me Hammami a 

déclaré à l’enquêteur qu’il a regagné son étude à 7h50 et qu’il a découvert l’incendie 

dès qu’il a ouvert la porte principale. Le juge d’instruction a procédé à l’audition de 

l’intéressé qui s’est constitué partie civile ainsi que des témoins. L’enquête se poursuit 

en vue de cerner toutes les circonstances ayant entouré le déclenchement du sinistre. 



Rapporteur spécial sur l’indépendance des juges et des avocats et le Rapporteur 


a envoyé une lettre d’allégations concernant Me Mohamed Abbou, avocat, membre 

du Conseil national pour les libertés en Tunisie et de l’Association internationale de 

soutien aux prisonniers politiques. Me Abbou a été libéré le 25 juillet 2007 après 30 

mois d’emprisonnement. Il a été l’objet de plusieurs communications envoyées par le 

Rapporteur spécial sur l’indépendance des juges et des avocats, le Rapporteur spécial 

sur la promotion et la protection du droit à la liberté d’opinion et d’expression et la 


des droits de l'homme les 17 mars et 3 avril 2005, 12 mai et 16 juin 2006, et par le 

Rapporteur sur la torture et le Présidente-Rapporteur du Groupe de Travail sur la 

détention arbitraire les 11 novembre et 9 mars 2005 et 6 avril 2006. Selon les 



Page 374 

1881. Le 23 octobre 2007, la police de l’air et des frontières aurait interdit à Me 

Abbou de voyager vers le Caire où il devait se rendre afin de suivre le procès de M. 

Ibrahim Essa, éditeur-en-chef du journal indépendant Aldostur, qui devait se tenir le 

24 octobre. La police aurait prétexté que Me Abbou étant en liberté conditionnelle, ne 

pourrait circuler librement. 

1882. Le 24 août 2007, Me Abbou aurait une fois de plus été empêché de voyager 

vers Londres où il devait participer à une émission sur la démocratie et les droits de 

l’homme dans les studios de la chaîne Al-Jazeera. 

1883. En vertu de l’article 357 du Code de procédure pénale tunisien, la liberté de 

mouvement d’une personne en liberté conditionnelle ne peut être restreinte qu’au 

moment de sa libération, soit en l’assignant à résidence (art. 357(a)), soit en la plaçant 

d’office dans un service public ou une entreprise privée (art. 357(b)). Or, à aucun 

moment Me Abbou ne se serait vu signifier l’une ou l’autre de ces restrictions. 

1884. Des craintes ont été exprimées que ces atteintes à la liberté de mouvement de 

Me Abbou seraient liées à ses activités non-violentes de défense des droits de 

l’homme. 



d’allégations concernant la situation de Me Abderraouf Ayadi, avocat, ancien 

membre du Conseil de l’Ordre des avocats et ancien secrétaire général du Conseil 

National pour les Libertés en Tunisie. M. Ayadi a été l’objet de plusieurs 

communications envoyées par la Représentante spéciale du Secrétaire général 

concernant la situation des défenseurs des droits de l'homme, le Rapporteur spécial 

sur l’indépendance des juges et des avocats, le Rapporteur spécial sur la promotion et 

la protection du droit à la liberté d’opinion et d’expression et le Rapporteur spécial sur 

la torture le 27 juillet et le 4 mai 2007, le 12 mai 2006 et 25 janvier 2005. Selon les 

nouvelles informations reçues : 

1886. Le 1er novembre 2007, Me Abderraouf Ayadi aurait été empêché de rendre 

visite à Me Mohamed Ennouri, actuellement en grève de la faim, par des membres des 

forces de police qui l’aurait repoussé violemment et fait tomber à terre. Ces derniers 

l’auraient également insulté et traité de voleur devant la foule qui s’était alors 

amassée. 

1887. Des craintes ont été exprimées quant au fait que les actes de harcèlement 

répétés contre M. Ayadi seraient liés à ses activités non-violentes de promotion et 


Réponses du Gouvernement aux communications envoyées avant le 2 décembre 

2006 

1888. Le 16 février 2007, le Gouvernement a répondu à l’appel urgent envoyé le 3 

octobre 2006 par la Représentante spéciale, conjointement avec le Rapporteur spécial 

sur l’indépendance des juges et des avocats, de Rapporteur spécial sur la promotion et 

la protection du droit à la liberté d’opinion et d’expression, au sujet de la situation de


Page 375 

Mme Wassila Kaabi. Le Gouvernement informe que l’Article 39 de la loi No. 67-29 

du 14 juillet 1967 relative à l’organisation judiciaire, au Conseil Supérieur de la 

Magistrature et au Statut de la Magistrature exige des magistrats en activité 

l’obtention d’une autorisation préalable des services concernés du Ministère de la 

Justice avant de quitter le territoire de la République. Mme Wassila Kaabi se devait, 

en application de ladite loi, de présenter une demande d’autorisation de sortie, de 

récupérer cette autorisation auprès du Ministère et de la présenter à sa sortie aux 

autorités frontalières. N’ayant pas pris la peine de récupérer l’autorisation de sortie 

pour la présenter aux autorités compétentes, il lui a été signifié que selon la 

règlementation en vigueur, elle ne pouvait pas quitter dans ces conditions le territoire 

national. La bonne foi des autorités est prouvée puisque l’autorisation a été mise à la 

disposition de la magistrate bien que cette dernière ne s’était pas présentée pour en 

prendre possession. 


juillet 2006 par la Représentante spéciale, conjointement avec le Rapporteur spécial 

sur la promotion et la protection du droit à la liberté d’opinion et d’expression, au 

sujet de la situation de M. Ali Ben Salem. Le Gouvernement informe qu’après 

vérifications, il s’est révélé que la réunion en question s’est tenue normalement le 4 

juillet 2006 en présence de plusieurs activistes et sous la direction de Madame Chloé 

Ponchelet Goldzman, représentante de l’ONG « The Fund for Global Human 

Rights ». A l’issue de cette réunion, M. Ali Ben Salem a même rendu public un 

communiqué de presse au sujet de cette réunion sans qu’il ne soit inquiété. Quant au 

cas de M. Ali Ben Salem, le Gouvernement précise que l’intéressé n’a cessé de 

propager des allégations dénuées de tout fondement ayant pour objectif de porter 

atteinte à l’image de la Tunisie, comme celles faisant état de « mauvais traitement de 

détenus » et « d’atteinte au Saint Coran » à la prison civile de Borj Erroumi (Bizerte) 

et véhiculées dans un communiqué diffusé par l’intéressé le 2 juin 2006. S’agissant 

des autres allégations dont M. Ali Ben Salem est l’auteur et suivant lesquelles il aurait 

été bousculé et son domicile encerclé par les policiers, elles relèvent de la même 

démarche. 

1890. Le 1 er février 2008, le Gouvernement a répondu à l’appel urgent envoyé le 12 

mai 2006 par la Représentante spéciale, conjointement avec le Rapporteur spécial sur 

l’indépendance des juges et des avocats, le Rapporteur spécial sur la promotion et la 

protection du droit à la liberté d’opinion et d’expression et le Rapporteur spécial sur la 

torture, au sujet de la situation de Me Ayachi Hammami, Me Raouf Ayadi et Me 

Abderrazak Kilani. Le Gouvernement informe que le 11 mai 2006 devant la Maison 

du Barreau à Tunis, Me Ayadi et Me Kilani ont tenté de s’attrouper, sur la voie 

publique en y bloquant la circulation. L’intervention des agents de l’ordre pour les 

disperser d’une manière pacifique et dans le cadre de la légalité s’est confrontée à un 

refus d’obtempérer de la part de certains avocats. Pour ce qui est de la création de 

l’Institut supérieur de la profession d’avocat, il y a lieu de souligner que la loi No. 

2006-30 du 15 mai 2006 modifiant la loi No. 89-87 du 7 septembre 1989, portant 

organisation de la profession d’avocat, et relative à la création de l’institut supérieur 

de la profession d’avocat, constitue une réforme répondant à l’une des principales 

revendications des avocats. Elle s’inscrit dans le cadre des réformes entamées depuis 

quelques années en vue de promouvoir le système judiciaire et renforcer davantage les 

droits des justiciables. La création de cet institut vise trois objectifs, à savoir : - la 

réorganisation de l’accès à la profession d’avocat et de l’inscription au barreau ; -


Page 376 

l’amélioration de la formation des avocats pour faire face à une nouvelle conjoncture 

marquée par des mutations profondes et accélérées dans tous les domaines ; - la 

réhabilitation de l’éthique de la profession d’avocat. Cette nouvelle loi est 

l’aboutissement d’un long dialogue entre toutes les parties concernées. Enfin, cette 

nouvelle loi n’a pas mis en cause l’indépendance de la profession d’avocat. En effet, 

l’article premier de la loi du 7 septembre 1989 qui dispose que « la profession 

d’avocat est une profession libérale et indépendante ayant pour but d’aider à 

l’instauration de la justice » n’a subi aucun changement. Enfin, les dispositions de 

cette nouvelle législation ne diminuent en rien les prérogatives de l’ordre des avocats, 

étant donné que celui-ci maintiendra son droit de regard sur les stages et l’inscription 

au barreau. 

1891. Le 1 er février 2008, le Gouvernement a répondu à la lettre d’allégation 

envoyée le 10 novembre 2006 par la Représentante spéciale au sujet de la situation de 

M. Khémais Chammari. Le Gouvernement informe qu’à son retour en Tunisie, M. 

Chammari a fait l’objet, comme tout autre passager et conformément aux règles et 

procédures douanières en vigueur, d’un contrôle ordinaire de bagages. A l’issue de ce 

contrôle, un livre a été retiré provisoirement moyennant un récépissé et ce, en 

application des règlements qui étaient en vigueur et qui permettaient un contrôle 

administratif sur les publications. Cependant, il sied de souligner qu’il a été décidé, le 

7 novembre 2007, de supprimer le contrôle administratif sur les livres, les 

publications et les œuvres artistiques. Un projet de loi consacrant cette décision sera 

présenté prochainement au parlement pour approbation. 

Observations 

1892. La Représentante spéciale remercie le Gouvernement de ses réponses mais 

regrette, au moment de la finalisation du présent rapport, l’absence de réponse aux 

communications en date du 26 juillet 2006, 24 novembre 2006, 4 mai 2007, 2 

novembre 2007 et 13 novembre 2007 et demande au Gouvernement de répondre aux 

craintes exprimées dans celles-ci. La Représentante spéciale reste notamment 

préoccupée par les restrictions imposées aux libertés de réunion et d’association et 

rappelle au Gouvernement que l’article 5 dispose qu’ « afin de promouvoir et protéger 

les droits de l'homme et les libertés fondamentales, chacun a le droit, individuellement 

ou en association avec d’autres, aux niveaux national et international : a) De se réunir 

et de se rassembler pacifiquement ; b) De former des organisations, associations ou 

groupes non-gouvernementaux, de s’y affilier et d’y participer ; c) De communiquer 

avec des organisations non-gouvernementales ou intergouvernementales ». 

1893. La Représentante spéciale reste également préoccupée par le cas de Me 

Abderraouf Ayadi qui a fait l’objet de trois communications en 2007 et presse le 

Gouvernement de mettre un terme aux actes de harcèlement à son encontre. 


Turkey 



expression, sent a letter of allegations to the Government concerning Mr Ethem


Page 377 

Acikalin, President of the Human Rights Association (Insan Haklari Dernegi - IHD), 

Mr Mustafa Bagcicek, Secretary General, and Mr Hüseyin Beyaz, Financial 

Secretary. 

1895. According to the information received, on 7 June 2007, Mr Ethem Acikalin, 

Mr Mustafa Bagcicek, and Mr Hüseyin Beyaz were sentenced by the Adana Criminal 

Court n°1 to two years and eight months’ imprisonment for “inciting hatred and 

hostility” and “praising crime and criminals” (Article 215 of the Criminal Code). Mr 

Ethem Acikalin, Mr Mustafa Bagcicek, and Mr Hüseyin Beyaz organized a 

demonstration in 2005 criticizing the “Return to Life” military operations of 

December 2000 and calling for the prosecution of those responsible for the alleged 

violations connected to the operations. They also issued a press release on the 

occasion of the demonstration, criticizing the conditions of detention of Kurdish 

leader Abdullah Öcalan, who was reportedly being kept in solitary confinement. On 

the same day, the three men appealed their sentence before the Appeal Court in 

Ankara (Yargitay). They were reportedly due to remain free until the decision of the 

court, expected to be taken during the first semester of 2008. 

1896. Concern was expressed that the sentencing of Mr Ethem Acikalin, Mr Mustafa 

Bagcicek, and Mr Hüseyin Beyaz may be linked to their peaceful activities in defence 

of human rights. 


1897. In a letter dated 8 January 2008, the Government of Turkey responded to the 

above communication. The letter stated that the subjects of the communication had 

been convicted of offenses against article 215 (praising a crime or criminal) and 216/1 

(incitement to hatred and enmity) of the Turkish Penal Code. The Government letter 

stated that a declaration distributed at the gathering on 18 December 2005 praised the 

ringleader of the terrorist organization PKK/KONGRA-GEL, Abdullah Öcalan, 

incited citizens of Kurdish origin to breed enmity against others and called on the to 

resort to violence in the context of the ‘Return to Life’ operation. Following their 

conviction on these charges, the aforementioned lodged an appeal with the Court of 

Cassation against the verdict of the First Court of Adana, and the appeal case was 

underway at time of writing. 


1898. In a letter dated 25 May 2007, the Government of Turkey further responded 

(following an initial response on 30 May 2006) to an urgent appeal sent by the Special 

Representative on 5 April 2006 concerning remarks made by Ms. Eren Keskin, a 

member of the Human Rights Association (Insan Haklari Dernegi, IHD), alleging 

incidents of sexual violence against women perpetrated by members of the Turkish 

Armed Forces. The letter stated that the Court considered if Me Keskin’s comments 

fell within the limits of criticism as safeguarded in article 301(4) of the Turkish Penal 

Code. However, Ms Keskin’s comments were found to be motivated by a desire to 

publicly denigrate the institution of the armed forces, her allegations were found to be 

baseless and she was accordingly fined 6000 Turkish Lira 



Page 378 

1899. The same letter of 25 May 2007 also responded to a letter of allegations, sent 

by the Special Representative on 17 August 2006, concerning the confiscation by 

police, on 8 August 2006 of the magazine published by Kaos GL, a Gay Lesbian 

Cultural Research and Solidarity Organisation. The letter stated that Mr Umut Güner, 

owner and publisher of the magazine, was acquitted of the charge of publishing 

obscene materials, by the decision of the 2 nd Court of First Instance of Ankara, dated 

28 February 2007. The Court also decided that the confiscated editions of the 

magazine be returned to Mr Güner once the decision had been finalized. 

Observations 

1900. The Special Representative thanks the Government of Turkey for its responses 

to communications of 5 April, 17 August 2006, and 9 November 2007. 

1901. With regard to all three cases, particularly the communication of 9 November 

2007 and the response to the same, she reminds the Government of the importance of 

preserving the right to freedom of expression and requests that the Government 

inform her of the outcome of the appeal case of the members of the Human Rights 

Association. 

United Arab Emirates 


1902. In a letter dated 17 May 2007, the Permanent Mission of the State of the 

United Arab Emirates to the United Nations and other international organizations in 

Geneva Government of Turkey responded to an urgent appeal sent by the Special 

Representative on 8 September 2006, together with the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the 

Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Special Rapporteur on the independence 

of judges and lawyers, the Special Rapporteur on the protection and promotion of the 

right to freedom of opinion and expression, concerning a report about Mr. 

Mohammed Abdullah al-Rukn, a lawyer. 

1903. The Permanent Mission informed the Officeof the High Commissioner that 

the aforementioned man was brought in for questioning in connection with the 

commission of an act that constitutes a criminal offence under the Federal Criminal 

Code. He was presented to the public prosecution office in accordance with the 

prescribed legal procedures. His case was currently before the courts, pending the 

delivery of a verdict, and in the view of the Government, he had been afforded all the 

legal guarantees required for the presentation of his defence. 


1904. In a letter dated 23 April 2007, the Permanent Mission of the State of the 

United Arab Emirates to the United Nations and other international organizations in 

Geneva responded to a letter of allegations sent by the Special Representative on 18 

October 2006, together with the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its 

causes and consequences, the Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child 

prostitution and child pornography and the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in


Page 379 

persons, especially women and children, concerning criminal charges of assault 

brought against Ms Sharla Musabih, which it was feared had been brought due to her 

work in defence of human rights. 

1905. The Government response stated that, on 7 August 2006, the victim notified 

the police that she had been assaulted by the accused, who had pushed her and pulled 

her by the hand, at the Hope Centre for the Welfare of the Needy. On 23 August 2006, 

the Public Prosecutions Office began an investigation into the case and took testimony 

from the victim and witnesses for the prosecution and the defence. On 14 September 

2006, the Public Prosecutions Office referred the accused, Sharla George, and the case 

to the criminal court, on a charge of physical assault of the victim, Kulthum Abdallah 

Abd al-Karim Kardus. The Government letter further stated that on 13 December 

2006, the court had issued a verdict, in the presence of the parties, acquitting Sharla 

George Okley due to lack of evidence. The Government further sought to clarify that 

the penalty prescribed by law, should Ms Musaibh have been convicted, would have 

been imprisonment and a fine, rather than closure of the premises. 

Observations 

1906. The Special Representative thanks the Government of the United Arab 

Emirates for its reponses but requests that she be provided with further information 

regarding the case of Mr. Mohammed Abdullah al-Rukn, the specific details of the 

charges brought against him and the judicial proceedings initiated. 


Uganda 

1907. On 30 November 2007, the Special Representative sent a letter of allegations 

to the Government concerning Ugandan and Kenyan defenders of Lesbian, Gay, 

Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) rights, including Ms Victor Juliet Mukasa, and 

members of Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG) as well as Amakula, a renowned non- 

LGBT film organisation based in Kampala which promotes African talent and human 

diversity. According to the information received, on 23 November 2007, Ugandan and 

Kenyan defenders of LGBT rights, including Ms Victor Juliet Mukasa and members 

of SMUG, were prevented from delivering their speeches at the Commonwealth 

Heads of Governments Meeting (CHOGM) Speaker’s Corner in Kampala during the 

People’s Space. They were reportedly forcibly removed from the building by police 

officers and were threatened with sticks not to enter the premises again. 

1908. The LGBT defenders waited outside quietly for seven hours to be allowed 

back in the building, in vain. On 22 November 2007, Amakula showed at CHOGM a 

film that addressed homosexuality. The following day, two members of Amakula 

were expelled from the People’s Space. The People’s Space was established “to 

provide opportunities to share in the diversity and richness of the Commonwealth 

people”, and was designed to give people “renewed energy to facilitate social change 

with a clear sense of building the future together”. Concern was expressed that the 

expulsion of the aforementioned individuals from the People’s Space may be related 

to their peaceful activities in defence of LGBT rights.


Page 380 

Observations 


from the Ugandan Government, but hopes that further information regarding the 

above communication and the concerns raised in it, regarding the treatment of 

members of SMUG and Amakula, is provided in the near future. 

Urgent Appeal 

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 

1910. On 24 April 2007, the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal to the 

Government concerning Mr Mehran Baluch, resident and national of the United 

Kingdom where he has been living for twenty-three years. Mr Baluch is a member of 

the non-Governmental organization Interfaith International, and an advocate of the 

rights of the Baluchi people in Pakistan. Mr Baluch has highlighted the plight of 

Baluchi people notably before the Commission on Human Rights, the Human Rights 

Council, the Sub-Commission for the promotion and protection of human rights as 

well as the Working Group on Minorities. 

1911. According to the information received, Mr Baluch was reportedly listed as one 

of the eight individuals who the Pakistani security services requested in return for the 

hand-over to the United Kingdom of Mr Rashid Rauf, a terrorist suspect in London 

and Islamabad who was being detained in a high-security jail in Rawalpindi. 

According to reports, Mr Baluch had no legal cases pending against him, and he was 

not suspected to be involved in terrorism. Serious concern was expressed that the 

demand of exchange of Mr Baluch from the Pakistani security services may be related 

to his legitimate and peaceful activities in defense of human rights of the Baluchi 

people. 


1912. In a letter dated 21 June 2007, the Government of the United Kingdom 

responded to the above communication. The Government thanked the Special 

Representative for her letter and proceeded to note that the only circumstances in 

which the UK Government would hand over a person in response to a request from 

the authorities of another Government would be in pursuance of an extradition order. 

It was indicated that the letter had therefore been referred to the Home Office as it is 

responsible for the law relating to extradition. The Government noted that any 

individual request for the extradition of an individual who is present within the UK is 

considered in accordance with UK law including the independent judiciary. 

1913. It was further noted that the Home Office cannot confirm or deny the 

existence of extradition requests for any individual unless the person concerned has 

been arrested and brought before the courts under relevant UK legislation, the 

Extradition Act 2003. Confirmation was provided that considerable protection is 

offered for defendants under the 2003 Extradition Act. The Government concluded 

that the UK would not hand over any person upon the request of the authorities of 

another state unless in accordance with due process of law.


Page 381 

Urgent Appeal 


Government concerning Mr Mark Thompson, Director of Relatives for Justice 

(RFJ), a non-Governmental organization which works across communities to defend 

the rights of relatives of people bereaved and injured by the conflict in Northern 

Ireland. According to information received, on 14 April 2007, Mr Thompson was 

visited at his home in Belfast by two officers from the Police Service of Northern 

Ireland (PSNI), who informed him that personal details and information concerning 

him had been uncovered after a search of unidentified premises on 11 April 2007. The 

information revealed serious threats against him by a well known paramilitary group, 

the Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF). The police did not provide details as to where 

the information had been obtained and the extent of information held. However Mr 

Thompson’s solicitor had written to the police requesting further details. 

1915. Mr Thompson had previously been made aware of LVF threats against him as 

well as threats from the loyalist paramilitary group, the Ulster Volunteer Force 

(UVF). During the last year, members of the LVF have been seen on various 

occasions outside the office premises of RFJ. Relatives for Justice, was involved in a 

report published by the Police Ombudsman in January 2007, which highlights loyalist 

paramilitary agents who work for both the Special Branch and Military Intelligence in 

Northern Ireland. RFJ had also been working closely with families affected by alleged 

collusion between paramilitaries and state authorities. Concern was expressed that the 

aforementioned events are directly related to Mr Thompson’s work in defence of 

human rights in Northern Ireland. Grave concern was expressed for the safety of Mr 

Thompson, his family and members of the RFJ. 

Observations 

1916. The Special Representative thanks the Government of the United Kingdom for 

its response to the communication of 24 April 2007 and requests that she be informed 

of any developments in relation to the status of Mr Mehran Baluch. She also asks the 

Government to provide her with any information in its possession regarding the case 

of Mr Mark Thompson. 


Uzbekistan 


the Government concerning alleged harassment of human rights defender Mr Salijon 

Abdurahmanov, Chairman of the Karakalpak branch of the Committee for Protection 

of Individual's Rights, a registered organisation in Uzbekistan, and journalist with the 

Institute for War and Peace Reporting in Tashkent. Mr. Abdurahmanov previously 

worked as a journalist with Radio Liberty from 2001 until 2003, and with Voice of 

America from 2003 until 2006. 

1918. According to information received, on 6 January 2007, Mr Salijon 

Abdurahmanov was summonsed to appear at Nukus town police department, where


Page 382 

he was reportedly questioned by the Deputy Chief about the Committee for Protection 

of Individual’s Rights. Mr Abdurahmanov was required to provide information as to 

who the organization defends, where organizational funds are sourced; how 

information related to human rights abuses on Uzbekistan is distributed and obtained. 

Mr Abdurahmanov was also questioned over how many members there are in the 

Karakalpak branch. Later in the day, two police officers who introduced themselves 

as a crime prevention inspector and a detective, called to Mr Abdurahmanov's home 

in Nukus's 22nd residential area. The two officers reportedly stated that the purpose of 

their visit was to check passports; however they proceeded to examine the entire flat 

including the gas supply. Concern was expressed that the harassment and questioning 

of Salijon Abdurahmanov and the subsequent search of his home constituted an 

attempt to deter and prevent him from carrying out his legitimate work in the defence 



1919. In a letter dated 6 February 2007, the Government of Uzbekistan responded to 

the above communication. The letter asserted that statements that S. Abdurahmanov 

was chair of the Qaraqalpogstan branch of the Committee for the Protection of the 

Rights of the Individual, a journalist with the Institute for War and Peace Reporting 

and that he had also previously worked as a journalist with Radio Liberty from 2001 

to 2003 and the Voice of America from 2003 to 2006 were not true. The Government 

response further stated that S. Abdurahmanov was never accredited in Uzbekistan as a 

journalist with Radio Liberty or the Voice of America. Accordingly, such allegations 

could be dismissed as an attempt by S. Abdurahmanov to mislead the United Nations 

special rapporteurs and the international community as a whole by passing himself off 

as a victim of harassment resulting from his human rights work. 

1920. Furthermore, according to information from the judicial bodies of Uzbekistan, 

there was no branch of the Committee for the Protection of the Rights of the 

Individual in Qaraqalpogstan and, consequently, S. Abdurahmanov could not be the 

chair of an organization which does not exist. According to its charter, the Institute for 

War and Peace Reporting is not a media organization. Its principal activity is the 

provision of humanitarian aid. Furthermore, the Institute had not been accredited as a 

media organization in Uzbekistan and was not permitted to have its own journalists in 

the country. 

1921. The letter proceeded to refute the allegation that, on 6 January 2007, S. 

Abdurahmanov was summoned to the Central Internal Affairs Department of the city 

of Nukus and questioned by its deputy chief. What actually happened was that, on 5 

January 2007 in housing estate No. 22 in Nukus, a routine inspection was conducted 

to check whether residents of the estate had complied with identity card regulations. 

During that exercise, internal affairs officials called, among others, at the building in 

which S. Abdurahmanov resides. The next day, S. Abdurahmanov went to the Nukus 

Central Internal Affairs Department of his own free will for an explanation of the 

reasons for the above mentioned inspection. The deputy chief of the Department 

provided S. Abdurahmanov with exhaustive information on the reasons for and aims 

of the inspection to check compliance with identity card regulations. 



Page 383 



concerning Mr Ihtiyor Hamroev, member of the Human Rights Society of 

Uzbekistan (HRSU). According to the information received, on 26 December 2006, 

Mr Ihtiyor Hamroev, while in detention at Prison 64/78, Chikurgan village, Zafarabad 

district, Djizak region, complained of stomach pains related to an ulcer and asked the 

prison guard on duty to call a doctor. The head of the prison was made aware of his 

condition. The following day, on 27 December 2006, Mr Ihtiyor Hamroev was 

handcuffed and severely beaten by prison guards. He was also repeatedly kicked in 

the stomach, and subsequently dragged across the floor by the hair. He was then 

transferred to an isolation unit for 24 hours. Mr Ihtiyor Hamroev's health deteriorated 

considerably after the incident and he was transferred to Zafarabad district hospital. 

1923. Mr Ihtiyor Hamroev had been arrested on 25 September 2006, and sentenced 

to three years in prison on charges of “hooliganism”. Since his arrest, prison guards at 

Prison 64/78 had attempted to provoke Mr Ihtiyor Hamroev into violating disciplinary 

regulations, in order to prevent him from being released under the amnesty declared 

by the Senate on 30 November 2006. Concern was expressed that the arrest, 

detention, beating and ill treatment of Mr Ihtiyor Hamroev may be directly related to 

his legitimate work in the defence of human rights in Uzbekistan. 



the above communication. The letter asserted that claims that, on 26 December 2006 

the prisoner I. Hamroev reported to a camp guard that he had pains in the area of his 

stomach, and that the camp personnel failed to provide him with the necessary 

medical attention, but beat him and the following day placed him in a punishment cell 

for 24 hours, were unfounded. 

1925. In order to check these claims, personnel of the relevant law enforcement 

agencies of Uzbekistan had visited the camp where Ihtiyor Hamroev was being held 

on 5 January 2007, and talked to persons serving sentences in the camp. It emerged 

from the conversations that the prisoners being held in the camp have been provided 

with all necessary facilities for work, housing and medical treatment. 

1926. In the view of the Government, camp personnel deal with the prisoners in 

accordance with the legislation in force, and do not exceed their authority. The 

prisoners categorically denied that camp personnel beat them or exerted any pressure 

on them. An interview was also held with the prisoner Ihtiyor Hamroev, during which 

it was established that he did indeed suffer acute gastritis in 2006, because of which 

he underwent treatment on several occasions at the Zafarabad district hospital in 

Djizak oblast. After Ihtiyor Hamroev’s condition worsened, he was sent for treatment 

to the above-mentioned hospital on the orders of the head of the camp. In addition, he 

was taken to the central oblast hospital, where he underwent some tests. He was then 

prescribed the necessary medicines, which he received. 

1927. On 5 January 2007 a full medical examination of Ihtiyor Hamroev was carried 

out in the surgery department of the Djizak section of the Scientific Centre for 

Emergency First Aid. As a result it was established that I. Khamraev was suffering


Page 384 

from “Catarrhal/erosive gastritis of the gastric antrum”, and he was given the 

necessary medical treatment. No indications were found of other disorders, or traces 

of any bodily injuries. When the findings of the medical examination of Ihtiyor 

Hamroev were examined, no mention was found of any bodily harm. However, there 

were references to signs of stomach and intestinal disorders. Ihtiyor Hamroev was 

undergoing a course of treatment in the camp’s medical unit. In addition, according to 

the Government, he himself stated that he was in good condition, and had no 

grievances against the camp personnel. The prisoner Zhuraboi Beknazarov, who is 

being held together with Ihtiyor Hamroev in the same cell, stated that when I. 

Khamraev felt unwell one night, a doctor was called, who placed him in the medical 

unit. He added that other prisoners had not heard of a single incident of beating of 

prisoners by the camp personnel. As a result of the checks, in the Government’s view, 

it was clear that the claims set out in the complaint were unfounded and bore no 

relation to reality. 



the Government concerning the alleged beating of human rights defenders Ms Elena 

Urlaeva and Ms Umida Niyazova. Ms Elena Urlaeva is Chairwoman of the Human 

Rights Alliance of Uzbekistan. Ms Umida Niyazova previously worked with 

Internews Network, Freedom House and as an interpreter for Human Rights Watch. 

Ms Urlaeva was the subject of an urgent appeal sent by several mandate-holders on 4 

April 2006 and again on 6 September 2005. According to information received, at 

approximately 16:00 on 4 January 2007, as she was nearing the Tashkent Mirzo- 

Ulugbek District Court for civil cases, Ms Elena Urlaeva was approached by four 

women who asked her if she was Elena Urlaeva. Upon confirming that she was, the 

women proceeded to attack her, knocking her to the ground and severely beating her. 

She sustained extensive injuries including to her face and head. The women 

reportedly took her bag which contained important documents concerning the human 

rights situation in Uzbekistan as well as some money. 

1929. The attack occurred one day before an organised protest against the detention 

of human rights defender Ms Umida Niyazova, who was detained during customs 

clearance at Tashkent airport on 21 December 2006. Following nine hours of 

detention, Ms Umida Niyazova was allowed to leave but her passport, laptop and 

flash disk were confiscated. On 2 January 2007, the Human Rights Alliance of 

Uzbekistan held a protest near the Prosecutor-General's office in Tashkent to demand 

the release of all political prisoners. 

1930. Reports claimed that Ms Elena Urlaeva had been subjected to ongoing threats 

and harassment. In April 2001, she was imprisoned for two months after leading 

protests against individuals who were forcibly evicted from their homes against a 

road-building project. In August 2002 she was held for three months after she 

attended a protest outside the Ministry of Justice. On both occasions she was injected 

against her will with psychiatric drugs, including Thorazine and Cyclodol. In 2003 

she was examined by an independent psychiatric commission and declared sane. 

1931. On 27 August 2005, Ms Elena Urlaeva was placed in psychiatric detention and 

later forced to take the psychiatric drug Rispoplet. Concern was expressed that the


Page 385 

targeted physical attack and robbery of Ms Elena Urlaeva was planned and part of a 

sustained attack of harassment towards her because of her legitimate activities in 

defence of human rights in Uzbekistan. Further concern was expressed that the 

detention of Ms Umida Niyazova was due to her human rights work, and that her 

passport, laptop and flash disk, necessary to her work, were confiscated. 


1932. In letters dated 6 and 13 February 2007, the Government of Uzbekistan 

responded to the above communication. The letters stated that on 4 January 2007, at 

around 4 p.m. near the Mirzo-Ulugbek district civil courthouse in Tashkent, four 

unidentified women attacked Elena Urlaeva, beat her and, having stolen by force a 

bag containing 60,000 sum and various documents, fled the scene of the crime. That 

same day, the investigative unit of the Mirzo-Ulugbek District Internal Affairs 

Authority in Tashkent initiated criminal proceedings in relation to the robbery, a plan 

of action was drawn up and an investigative unit established. On the basis of the 

victim’s description, photofit pictures were constructed of the women who had 

attacked Elena Urlaeva, all points bulletins were sent out, fingerprint studies and 

forensic reports were commissioned and eye-witnesses were questioned. At present, 

the investigation is continuing and all the necessary measures are being taken to 

identify and apprehend the attackers. 

1933. In that context, the Government letters asserted that the allegations that E. 

Urlaeva was being constantly threatened and persecuted because of her lawful human 

rights work in Uzbekistan were without foundation; allegations that were based on 

hearsay and unsubstantiated by actual evidence. It should be pointed out that, on 27 

August 2005, the Tashkent city procurator’s office initiated criminal proceedings 

under article 215 of the Criminal Code of Uzbekistan (Defamation of the State 

symbols of the Republic of Uzbekistan), in which E. Urlaeva has been called as a 

suspect. Given that E. Urlaeva had previously suffered from mental illness, a forensic 

psychiatric examination to determine her sanity was conducted on the basis of articles 

567 and 568 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This forensic psychiatric 

examination, conducted on 28 August 2005, found E. Urlaeva unfit to plead. On the 

basis of the findings of the forensic psychiatric examination and articles 265 and 266 

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it was decided to place E. Urlaeva in a psychiatric 

institution. By the court’s decision of 27 October 2005 E. Urlaeva was relieved of 

criminal responsibility in the light of the diagnosis that had been made. The court 

nevertheless obliged E. Urlaeva to undergo a course of outpatient treatment in a 

psychiatric hospital. After she had completed the course of treatment she was 

discharged from hospital. 

1934. The letters stated that in Uzbekistan, as in every other democratic country, 

everyone has the right of freedom and personal inviolability, which is enshrined in 

domestic legislation. No one may be detained or held in custody save as provided for 

by law. The letter further stated that at the same time, there is a certain category of 

persons, among whom we find individuals with psychological defects, who, 

exploiting their human rights and falsely assuming the imposing title of “human rights 

defender”, pursue their own selfish motives and deliberately distort the true situation 

in the country. The Government affirmed that such individuals are not only indifferent


Page 386 

to people’s needs, but also bring into disrepute the very concept of human rights 

defenders and hide behind that distinguished title. 

Urgent Appeal 

1935. On 1 February 2007 the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal to the 

Government concerning Ms Umida Niyazova, a member of Veritas, an unregistered 

non-Governmental organization which works for the protection of human rights in 

Uzbekistan. Ms Niyazova also works as a translator for Human Rights Watch in 

Tashkent. Ms Niyazova was included in an allegation letter sent by the Special 

Representative of the Secretary General on the situation of human rights defenders on 

25 January 2007. According to information received, on 22 January 2007, Ms 

Niyazova was arrested near the Uzbek-Kyrgyz border. She was reportedly detained in 

Andijan, before being transported to Tashkent four days later. Ms Niyazova was 

denied access to her lawyer during this period. 

1936. According to reports, Ms Niyazova had previously been detained by Uzbek 

authorities at Tashkent airport on 21 December 2006. She was questioned at length by 

authorities, who threatened to arrest her on charges of possession of anti-state 

materials. Ms Niyazova’s passport and laptop were confiscated and her laptop was 

examined to determine whether it contained subversive material. Ms Niyazova was 

released later that day, however authorities continued to investigate her on suspicion 

of criminal and administrative charges. In mid-January 2007, Ms Niyazova was 

reportedly informed by her lawyer that the investigation carried out by Uzbek 

authorities had failed to produce sufficient evidence in order to charge her and that 

she could collect her laptop and passport from the customs agency. Ms Niyazova had 

arranged to meet her lawyer on 22 January 2007 in order to retrieve her belongings 

however she missed this meeting and all contact with her was lost until 26 January 

2007. 

1937. Ms Niazova was being held at Tash Turma, pre-trial facility prison in 

Tashkent. She was facing criminal charges for smuggling “extremist” literature across 

the border (article 246 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan, which is 

punishable with five to 10 years of imprisonment) and for illegal border crossing 

(article 223, which is punishable with a fine or up to five to 10 years). These articles 

are categorized as severe crime in the Criminal Code. It was not clear whether Ms 

Niazova’s actions as alleged formed the basis of these charges. Concern was 

expressed that the arrest and detention of Ms Umida Niyazova formed part of an 

ongoing campaign against human rights defenders in Uzbekistan. Further concern was 

expressed that the serious charges against her may be the latest attempt to prevent, 

deter and discredit human rights defenders from carrying out their legitimate work in 

the defence of human rights. 



the above communication. The letter stated that, on 6 January 2007 the Office of the 

Transport Procurator of Uzbekistan instituted criminal proceedings against Umida 

Niyazova under article 246, part 1, of the Criminal Code (Smuggling). During the 

preliminary investigation it was established that on 21 December 2006, at around 10


Page 387 

a.m., U. Niyazova, who had arrived at Tashkent International Airport from Bishkek 

on flight number 782, failed to indicate on customs declaration T-6 an HP Notebook 

computer with a flash card, which were found by staff of customs post No. 1 in the 

“Tashkent-Aero” specialist customs complex when examining U. Niyazova’s luggage 

and hand luggage, which she had concealed from customs inspection. 

1939. In addition, on 8 January 2007 U. Niyazova illegally crossed the border of 

Uzbekistan and travelled to the city of Osh in Kyrgyzstan. On the return journey on 

22 January 2007, when again crossing the border illegally, she was arrested by 

personnel of the Khanabad border service in Andijan oblast. On 26 January 2007 U. 

Niyazova was charged under articles 246, part 1, and 223, part 1, of the Criminal 

Code (Illegally leaving or entering Uzbekistan), and remanded in custody as a 

preventive measure. The letter further stated that the preliminary investigation into 

this case was continuing, and its findings would serve as the basis for a decision in 

accordance with the law. 

Urgent appeal 


Rapporteur on the question of torture and the Special Rapporteur on violence against 

women, sent an urgent appeal to the Government concerning Ms. Mutabar 

Tadjibayeva, her brother Mr. Rasul Tadjibaev and her daughter Ms. Mahliyo 

Akramova. Ms. Tadjibaeva is Chairwoman of the human rights organization 

Plammenoe Serdtse, Ardent Hearts Club, based in Ferghana City. She is also one of 

the founders of the national movement Civil Society and a 2005 Nobel Peace Prize 

nominee. Ms. Tadjibayeva was previously the subject of communications sent by the 

Special Representative and other mandate-holders on 21 July 2006, on 6 February 

2006, on 18 July 2005 and on 27 October 2005. 

1941. According to information received, on 6 March 2006, Ms. Tadjibaeva was 

sentenced to 8 years in prison. At time of writing, she was being detained at Tashkent 

Prison. Ms. Tadjibaeva reportedly spent seven months in solitary confinement and 

was held in a psychiatric unit for mentally ill and drug-addicted persons, located in a 

women's detention centre in the Mirabad district of Tashkent. Ms. Tadjibaeva’s health 

was deteriorating as a result of the conditions in which she was being held and was in 

need of urgent medical attention. It was reported that she had lost approximately 20 

kilograms in weight and was suffering from a kidney-related illness caused by cold 

and low blood pressure. Ms. Tadjibaeva was last seen by her family on 9 January 

2007 despite numerous attempts by relatives to visit her at the detention centre in 

order to bring her medication and food. 

1942. According to reports, members of Ms. Tadjibaeva’s family, including her 

brother Mr. Rasul Tadjibaev and her daughter Ms. Mahliyo Akramova, had been 

subjected to harassment and intimidation. On 22 December 2006 Mr. Tadjibaev was 

evicted from his apartment and was under constant surveillance by the authorities. He 

had also received a warning that if he continued to object to the detention of his sister 

it would be difficult for him to continue to work and he would be forced to leave 

Tashkent. Ms Tadjibaeva’s daughter was also warned that if she traveled to Tashkent 

again (to see her mother) she would be killed. Ms. Akramova had been followed by 

individuals believed to be law enforcement agents. Concern was expressed that the


Page 388 

above-mentioned events form part of an ongoing campaign to silence human rights 

defenders in Uzbekistan. Grave concern was also expressed at the reported illtreatment 

of Ms. Tadjibaeva and consequent deterioration of her health. 


1943. In a letter dated 26 April 2007, the Government of Uzbekistan responded to 

the above communication. The letter stated that, within Uzbekistan, judicial and nonjudicial 

institutions for the protection of human rights and freedoms had been 

established and functioned successfully, which facilitated timely reaction to citizens’ 

applications and adoption of fair decisions upon issues raised. Despite this, in the 

view of the Government, some citizens of Uzbekistan, pretending to be victims of 

alleged violations at the hands of state bodies, premeditatedly refused to submit 

applications to such institutions and instead targeted the attraction of attention of 

international human rights organisations. Thus, they pursued a political purpose to 

cause criticism against Uzbekistan. 

1944. In this regard the Government advised the mandate-holders to inform their 

sources of allegations on violations – in this case Ms Tadjibayeva - of these 

mechanisms to appeal to competent bodies in Uzbekistan to restore their human rights 

provided that a violation has taken place. 

Urgent appeal 

1945. On 13 April 2007 the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal to the 

Government concerning Mr Surat Ikramov, head of the Initiative Group of 

Independent Human Rights Defenders. Mr Ikramov is also a specialist in trial 

monitoring and provides regular reports on cases of arbitrary detention, torture, 

political and religion-related arrests in Uzbekistan. 

1946. According to the information received, in the evening of 4 April 2007, Mr 

Ikramov was visited at his home in Surat by 8 unidentified individuals who claimed to 

be from Kokand. They demanded that he open the door so that they could question 

him about a particular incident. Mr Ikramov refused to comply with their demands 

and did not open his door, which had been fortified in anticipation of attacks. The men 

did not use force. It is reported that the registration plates on the car used by the 

individuals indicated that they were from Tashkent and not Kokand, and that they 

may have been either plainclothes policemen or security personnel. Mr Ikramov 

submitted an official complaint to the German and US embassies in Uzbekistan on the 

5 April 2007. 

1947. On 11 April 2007, at approximately 9 pm, Mr Ikramov was again visited at his 

home by five unidentified individuals who urged him to let them in. Mr Ikramov 

asked the individuals to identify themselves however they did not reply and he refused 

to open the door. Mr Ikramov subsequently phoned the police who arrived at the 

scene 35 minutes later by which time the perpetrators had left. According to reports, 

in 2003 Mr Ikramov was the subject of ongoing harassment and intimidation and was 

attacked and beaten by unidentified individuals. Following the attack Mr Ikramov was 

granted asylum abroad but chose to remain in Uzbekistan to continue with his work in 

the defence of human rights. Concern was expressed that the aforementioned events


Page 389 

form part of an ongoing campaign to silence human rights defenders in Uzbekistan. 

Concern was also expressed for the safety of Mr Ikramov given the alleged attacks he 

suffered in 2003 and the deteriorating situation for human rights defenders in the 

country. 


1948. In a letter dated 26 April 2007, the Government of Uzbekistan responded to 

the above communication. As in the case of the preceding communication relating to 

Ms Tadjibaeva, the letter stated that, within Uzbekistan, judicial and non-judicial 

institutions for the protection of human rights and freedoms had been established and 

functioned successfully, which facilitated timely reaction to citizens’ applications and 

adoption of fair decisions upon issues raised. Despite this, in the view of the 

Government, some citizens of Uzbekistan, pretending to be victims of alleged 

violations at the hands of state bodies, premeditatedly refused to submit applications 

to such institutions and instead targeted the attraction of attention of international 

human rights organisations. Thus, they pursued a political purpose to cause criticism 

against Uzbekistan. 

1949. In this regard the Government advised the mandate-holders to inform their 

sources of allegations on violations – in this case Mr Ikramov - of these mechanisms 

to appeal to competent bodies in Uzbekistan to restore their human rights provided 

that a violation has taken place. 

Urgent appeal 




sent an urgent appeal to the Government concerning Ms Umida Niyazova, a member 

of Veritas, an unregistered non-Governmental organization which works for the 

protection of human rights in Uzbekistan. Ms Niyazova also works as a journalist for 

the Central Asia website Oasis, a project of the Moscow-based media watchdog 

Centre for Journalism in Extreme Situations and as a translator for Human Rights 

Watch in Tashkent. Ms Niyazova was included in a communication sent by the 

Special Representative on 25 January and 1 February 2007. 

1951. According to new information received, on 22 January 2007, Ms Niyazova 

was arrested in Uzbekistan whilst crossing the Uzbek-Kyrgyz border. She was 

reportedly detained in Andijan, before being transported to Tashkent four days later. 

Ms Niyazova was denied access to her lawyer during this period. According to 

reports, Ms Niyazova remained in detention at Tashkent prison where she was 

awaiting trial on charges of ‘illegal border crossing’ and ‘smuggling subversive 

literature’. If charged, Ms Niyazova could face up to ten years in prison. On Friday 13 

April 2007, prosecutors issued a further charge for alleged ‘distribution of materials 

and threatening national security by using foreign financial aid’. This latest charge 

carried up to15 years in prison along with the confiscation of property. 

1952. Ms Niyazova had reportedly being subjected to daily interrogations of up to 

15 hours whilst in detention and slept three to four hours a night. Family who had


Page 390 

visited Ms Niyazova claimed that she had lost considerable weight and that loud 

music was constantly played while she was in her cell. Concern was expressed that 

the arrest and continued detention of Ms Umida Niyazova formed part of an ongoing 

campaign against human rights defenders in Uzbekistan and that the aforementioned 

events may be an attempt to prevent her from carrying out her legitimate work in 

defense of human rights. Concern was also expressed at reports that she was being 

detained in poor conditions and that her health was deteriorating as a result. 


1953. In a letter dated 4 May 2007, the Government of Uzbekistan responded to the 

above communication, enclosing a press release concerning the case of Ms Niyazova. 

The press release stated that, on 1 May 2007, Ms Niyazova had been convicted on 

three charges of smuggling, illegal border crossing and production and dissemination 

of materials containing threat to public security and public order. The release further 

stated that the court hearings had been open and attended by members of Human 

Rights Watch and other non-Governmental organizations. Ms Niyazova was 

sentenced to seven years imprisonment. 

1954. The statement added that in the course of the investigation of the case, it had 

emerged that Ms Niyazova had been engaged in financing various unregistered non- 

Governmental organizations operating in Uzbekistan and that she had received this 

funding from various foreign diplomatic missions accredited in the country. The press 

release stated that this constituted financing of illegal organizations and that according 

to international law, this should be considered as an attempt to interfere in the internal 

affairs of a sovereign state. This issue was further addressed by the Uzbek 

Government in a letter dated 28 June 2007. This letter detailed the amounts and origin 

of funding given to non-Governmental organizations, which in the view of the 

Government was intended to finance and unite the various ‘so-called human rights’ 

organizations and associations illegally operating in Uzbekistan. 

Urgent appeal 




sent an urgent appeal to the Government concerning Ms Gulbahor Turayeva, human 

rights defender and pathologist from Andijan. According to information received, on 

25 April 2007, Ms Turayeva was sentenced to six years in prison by the Andijan 

Regional Court on charges of alleged slander and the production and distribution of 

literature deemed threatening to public order. Ms Turayeva was denied access to a 

defense lawyer of her choice throughout her detention and trial. 

1956. According to reports, Ms Turayeva was arrested on 14 January 2007 by Uzbek 

customs officers, whilst crossing the Uzbek-Kyrgyz border at the Dustlik post in 

Andijan, for carrying press material published by the opposition Erk party in her bag. 

Ms Turayeva was subsequently detained at Andijan Region customs department 

before being transferred to the local office of the National Security Service detention 

centre on 16 January 2007. Ms Turayeva was currently being detained at the National 

Security Service Centre in Andijan. Concern was expressed that the afore-mentioned


Page 391 

events are related to Ms Turayeva’s work in defence of human rights and that her 

arrest and detention may form part of a pattern of harassment of human rights 

defenders in Uzbekistan. 


1957. In a letter dated 3 July 2007, the Government of Uzbekistan responded to the 

above communication. The letter stated that Ms. Turayeva had been found guilty of 

committing the following offences: In April 2005, Ms. Turayeva established and 

headed the unofficial organization Animakor under the pretext of providing legal 

assistance to doctors and patients. Through this organization, she engaged in the 

dissemination, in the mass media, of slanderous information that had a negative 

impact on social stability. In such information, Ms. Turayeva exaggerated a number of 

shortcomings in the work of health-care institutions. In addition, she disseminated, on 

Internet pages, unfounded information about terrorist acts committed in Andijan on 13 

May 2005, thereby spreading panic among the population. In January 2007, Ms. 

Turayeva, for a large sum of money, travelled to Osh in Kyrgyzstan in order to obtain 

literature containing an open call for the overthrow of the existing constitutional order 

of Uzbekistan and for the violation of the Republic’s territorial integrity. This 

literature was to be disseminated in Uzbekistan. On her return to Uzbekistan, she was 

arrested at the Dustlik customs checkpoint. 

1958. In the view of the Government, Ms. Turayeva’s guilt had been proven by her 

confessions and repentance for her acts at her trial, by the testimony of the witnesses 

G. Saypirov, Y. Isakov, A. Oripov, M. Tukhtasinov, I. Yuldashev and S. 

Saydakhmetov, by the findings of a comprehensive forensic psychological, 

philosophical, philological and religious examination and by other evidence. The 

pretrial investigation and trial were conducted in accordance with the Code of 

Criminal Procedure of Uzbekistan. The accusations were discussed and the evidence 

was correctly assessed. The letter further stated that there was no indication in the 

case file that law enforcement agencies exerted any physical or psychological pressure 

on Ms. Turayeva during the investigation. The materials of the criminal case showed 

that, from the moment that Ms. Turayeva was arrested as a suspect on 14 January 

2007, all investigative measures with her participation were conducted in the presence 

of the lawyer O. Matyakubova. 

1959. On 17 January 2007, Ms. Turayeva requested that Ms. Matyakubova be 

replaced by the lawyer D. Botiraliev; on 22 January 2007, she requested that Mr. 

Botiraliev be replaced by the lawyer A. Usmanov. All of her requests were met and all 

investigative measures were conducted in the presence of the lawyers D. Botiraliev 

and A. Usmanov. The preliminary investigation of Ms. Turayeva’s case was 

conducted with the participation of a lawyer, in whose presence the prisoner stated 

that she had testified of her own free will and that she had not been subjected to any 

pressure. During the trial, Ms. Turayeva also confirmed that no prohibited methods 

had been used against her during the pretrial investigation. Since the testimony given 

by Ms. Turayeva during the pretrial investigation coincided with the evidence 

assembled, the court found her testimony plausible. 

1960. In accordance with article 57 of the Criminal Code (Mitigation of sentence), 

the court sentenced Ms. Turayeva to a fine in the amount of 648,000 sum. In


Page 392 

accordance with article 59 (Sentences in the case of the commission of multiple 

crimes and multiple convictions) and 61 (Rules for calculating sentences in the case of 

multiple convictions), and bearing in mind the conviction of 24 April 2007, the court, 

on the basis of all the offences committed by Ms. Turayeva, on 7 May 2007 handed 

down the combined sentence of six years’ deprivation of liberty and a fine in the 

amount of 648,000 sum.On 8 May 2007, Ms. Turayeva filed appeals against both 

court decisions.The appeals were considered by the appellate division of the Andijan 

provincial criminal court. On 12 June 2007, the appellate court amended the court 

sentences of 24 April and 7 May 2007, applying article 72 (Suspended sentence) of 

the Criminal Code. Ms. Turayeva’s sentence was changed to six years’ deprivation of 

liberty, suspended, with three years’ probation, and a fine of 648,000 sum. Ms. 

Turayeva was released from custody in the courtroom. 



Government acknowledging receipt of a communication received from the 

Government on 26 April 2007 and thanking the Government for having taking the 

initiative of submitting to her attention, information on steps that, in the view of the 

Government, reflect respect for human rights. Whilst she was encouraged by this 

exchange of information that she considered part of a constructive dialogue between 

the Government and herself, she remained deeply concerned by the deteriorating 

situation for human rights defenders in the country. 

1962. Since the beginning of her tenure as Special Representative she has issued 

some 48 communications to the Government of Uzbekistan in relation to human 

rights defenders. The communications highlight concerns about reports of arbitrary 

arrests, incommunicado detention, harassment, threats, forced detention in psychiatric 

hospitals, restrictions in freedom of movement, unfounded criminal charges, prison 

sentences, deaths in custody, torture and ill-treatment, defamation campaigns, or other 

types of persecution in relation to their human rights activities. Reports of persistent 

harassment and targeting of the NGO community together with a legal framework on 

freedom of association and the regulations on NGOs which fail to provide a suitable 

environment in which NGO activity can operate, were of further concern. 

1963. In December 2005, the Senate approved an amendment to the Criminal Code 

on Administrative Liability. The amendment creates a number of new regulatory 

measures for NGOs and increases the power that the authorities will have to penalize 

NGOs. Amongst these new provisions are that NGOs can be penalized for the use of 

unregistered logo, for conducting events without the consent of the registering body, 

for failing to provide reports of their activities to the registering body or for failure to 

provide reports in a “timely manner”. In this regard, she encouraged the Uzbek 

Government to maintain an open policy on national and international NGOs operating 

in Uzbekistan, including Human Rights Watch, in compliance with Article 5 (b) and 

(c) of the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and 

Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and 

Fundamental Freedoms (General Assembly Resolution A/RES/53/144) which states 

that “for the purpose of promoting and protecting human rights and fundamental 

freedoms, everyone has the right, to form, join and participate in non-Governmental


Page 393 

organizations, associations or groups and to communicate with non-Governmental or 

interGovernmental organizations”. 

1964. The Special Representative urged the Government of Uzbekistan to make sure 

that national legislation is in conformity with the Declaration and other international 

commitments and international standards relating to the right to freedom of assembly. 

It is important in this regard that a holistic approach is adopted, looking not only at 

freedom of assembly but also in the context of other fundamental human rights, 

guaranteed by the Declaration and other human rights instruments, such as the right to 

freedom of association and the right to freedom of expression. In relation to this, she 

reminded the Government of Uzbekistan about article 2(2) of the Declaration where it 

is stated that “Each State shall adopt such legislative, administrative and other steps as 

may be necessary to ensure that the rights and freedoms referred to in the present 

Declaration are effectively guaranteed”. This includes the right of national and 

international NGOs to report on human rights situations as recognized in Article 6 (c) 

which states that everyone has the right “to study, discuss, form and hold opinions on 

the observance, both in law and in practice, of all human rights and fundamental 

freedoms and […] to draw public attention to those matters”. 

1965. In connection with this, the Special Representative recalled the right to 

communicate and interact with international bodies on human rights matters as 

established by Article 9, paragraph 4, which states that “everyone has the right, 

individually and in association with others, to unhindered access to and 

communication with international bodies with general or special competence to 

receive and consider communications on matters of human rights and fundamental 

freedoms.” Finally, having requested an invitation to visit Uzbekistan on a number of 

occasions she again requested that the Government extend an invitation to her to carry 

out an official visit to Uzbekistan at a convenient date to be mutually agreed. She is 

convinced that such a visit would enable her to understand better the situation in 

Uzbekistan. 


1966. In a letter dated 3 July 2007, the Government of Uzbekistan responded to the 

above communication. The letter stated that it should be noted that there were no 

grounds for “deep concern” at the “deteriorating situation for human rights defenders” 

in Uzbekistan, and that the information received by the office of the Special 

Representative and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human 

Rights (OHCHR) from politically biased sources was nothing more than an attempt to 

discredit Uzbekistan’s efforts to promote and protect human rights. The letter further 

stated that it was unfortunate that the Special Representative of the Secretary General 

and OHCHR make active use of unfounded statements from biased sources and 

ignore official information from the competent authorities of Uzbekistan, which has 

been submitted to them several times. 

1967. The Permanent Mission drew the attention of the Special Representative to the 

fact that, since the first days of its independence, Uzbekistan has endeavoured to 

revive the spiritual, intellectual and legal values of its people and has been making 

efforts to implement democratic reforms in the economic, political and social spheres. 

It has developed its own path of State reform and its own model for transition to a


Page 394 

democratic society, and has identified specific areas of activity with regard to the 

promotion and protection of human rights. 

1968. In the view of the Government, the Constitution guarantees the primacy of 

human rights and the rule of law in all spheres of civic life in Uzbekistan and the 

precedence of the universally recognized principles and norms of international law 

over national legislation. The letter further stated that Uzbekistan is party to more than 

60 international human rights treaties and conscientiously fulfils its international 

obligations under those agreements, and that the Uzbek Parliament has adopted over 

300 laws on civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, which fully 

implement the universally recognized principles and norms of international human 

rights law. A system of courts specializing in criminal, civil and economic cases has 

been established, appeal and conciliation procedures have been introduced, 

punishments have been liberalized, time limits for pretrial investigations and remand 

in custody have been reduced, and legislative norms currently in force, prohibit 

interference in judicial proceedings.A system has been established to address 

complaints concerning unlawful acts committed by officials. The system is based on 

the supremacy of law and includes an institutional legal mechanism. 

1969. The Government further asserted that in Uzbekistan, as in all democratic 

countries, everyone has the right to freedom and personal safety, as set out in national 

law. No one may be arrested or detained except on the basis of the law, and that any 

person accused of a crime is considered innocent until proven guilty in an open and 

fair trial that affords the accused every opportunity for defence. No one in Uzbekistan 

may be subject to torture, violence or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. 

Everyone has the right to protection from attacks on his or her honour and dignity and 

interference in his or her private life and to the inviolability of the home. No one has 

the right to enter a home, conduct a search or inspection or violate the privacy of 

correspondence or telephone communications, except in the circumstances and under 

the procedure established by law. 

1970. In this context, the Uzbek Government considered the allegations of 

persecution of human rights defenders in Uzbekistan to be unfounded and based on 

unsubstantiated statements, which were not confirmed by specific facts. Uzbekistan 

also wished to draw the Special Representative’s attention to the fact that all legal 

proceedings against Uzbek citizens are based on specific violations of national 

legislation that constitute punishable offences. It is well known that, in accordance 

with generally accepted norms, in such circumstances, no one is immune from legal 

responsibility. The Government has on several occasions provided exhaustive 

information on the criminal cases involving the specific individuals mentioned by the 

Special Representative in her previous communications. 

1971. The Government asserted that it was possible that the Special Representative 

was unaware that there are certain people who exploit the human rights agenda and 

falsely call themselves “human rights defenders” in order to pursue their own 

mercenary goals and deliberately distort the actual situation in the country. In the 

view of the Government, such individuals are not only indifferent to people’s needs, 

but they also discredit the very concept of human rights defenders and hide behind 

that title. The Government of Uzbekistan remains committed to its obligations to 

promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms.


Page 395 

Urgent appeal 


Rapporteur on the question of torture and the the Special Rapporteur on violence 

against women, sent an urgent appeal to the Government concerning Ms Mutabar 

Tadjibayeva, Chairwoman of the human rights organization Plammenoe Serdtse, 

Ardent Hearts Club, based in Ferghana City. She is also one of the founders of the 

national movement Civil Society and a 2005 Nobel Peace Prize nominee. Ms 

Tadjibayeva was the subject of numerous urgent appeals by Special Procedures 

mandates. Government responses dated 10 April and 26 April 2007 were noted. 

1973. However, according to recent allegations received, Ms Tadjibaeva was being 

ill-treated by prison wardens whilst in detention in Tashkent prison, and this illtreatment 

was having adverse effects on her health. She was frequently humiliated and 

threatened with acts of violence against her daughter. She was also placed in solitary 

confinement, and had been denied access to medical treatment which she urgently 

required. In addition, she had been denied her visitation rights, and delegates from the 

International Committee of the Red Cross had been prevented from seeing her. 

Serious concern was expressed at the reported continuing ill-treatment of Ms 

Tadjibaeva and the consequent deterioration of her health. Further concern was 

expressed that the above-mentioned events may form part of an ongoing attempt to 

silence human rights defenders in Uzbekistan. 


1974. In letters dated 10 April and 14 August 2007, the Government of Uzbekistan 

responded to the above communication. The letters stated that reports that Ms 

Tadjibaeva’s condition had deteriorated were false and that she had contacted the 

medical unit on various occasions since the beginning of her sentence and had been 

provided with the necessary treatment as an out-patient, on two occasions undergoing 

inpatient treatment. With regard to visitation rights, the letter stated that Ms 

Tadjibaeva had, on four occasions, received visits from her family; on 19 July 2006, a 

short meeting with her nephew; on January 9 2007, a meeting lasting three days with 

her sister; on August 10 2007, a short visit from her daughter and with her younger 

brother. 

1975. The letters stated that Ms Tadjibaeva had also met with lawyer Ms Dilafruz 

Nurmanova on 13 August 2006, but that she had not made any subsequent requests to 

meet with lawyers. It was further stated that Ms Tadjibaeva had received parcels on 

six occasions and received correspondence 32 times and sent 46 letters. In the view of 

the Government, the aforementioned facts showed that reports that Ms Tadjibaeva’s 

health had deteriourated and that she had no access to visits from relatives were based 

on unfounded information of a tenditious nature. The Government believed that such 

actions represented intentional attempts to damage the image of Uzbekistan in the 

international arena. 

Urgent appeal


Page 396 


Rapporteur on the question of torture and the the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the 


concerning Mr Sobir Tulaganov, Director of the Tashkent branch of the Human 

Rights Society of Uzbekistan (HRSU), a non-Governmental organization dedicated to 

the promotion and defence of human rights in Uzbekistan. According to information 

received, on 19 September 2007, Mr Sobir Tulaganov went to the Criminal Court of 

the Yuzunabad District in order to access information pertaining to slander charges 

that were filed against him by Ms Feruza Sokatbaeva on 13 April 2007. Mr Tulaganov 

was denied access to this information and was arrested upon the orders of the judge 

presiding over the case. Since his arrest he had been held in incommunicado detention 

and his whereabouts were unknown. 

1977. The charges of slander were filed against Mr Sobir Tulaganov by Ms Feruza 

Sokatbaeva following an article written by Mr Tulaganov and published in a local 

newspaper in which he criticized maternity hospitals in Uzbekistan and cited the 

example of a mistake made by hospital personnel over fifteen years ago which 

resulted in the confusion of his own daughter with that of Ms Feruza Sokatbaeva a 

few days after their births. Mr Tulaganov was only informed of the charges that had 

been filed against him on 26 July 2007, and was therefore prevented from introducing 

evidence he wished to rely upon in his defense before the established time-limit for 

admission of evidence had elapsed. 

1978. The enquiry procedure was closed on 17 August 2007, by Mr Almatov, the 

senior enquiry officer of the department of internal affairs of the Yunuzabad district, 

although he reportedly did not have jurisdiction to pronounce its closure. Mr 

Tulaganov lodged a complaint to the Prosecutor of the city of Tashkent, Mr Valiev, in 

relation to these irregularities in legal procedure; however he had not yet received a 

response. Concern was expressed that Mr Sobir Tulaganov’s detention may have been 

related to his activities in the defence of human rights. In view of the unknown 

whereabouts of Mr Tulaganov, further concern was expressed for his physical and 

mental integrity. 

Urgent appeal 




Mr Hurram Berdiev, who works with Mazlum, a non-Governmental human rights 

organization dedicated to the protection of the rights of victims of human rights 

violations in Uzbekistan. According to information received, on 15 August 2007, Mr 

Hurram Berdiev went to the Department of Internal Affairs in the Kumkurgan district 

of the Surhandaria oblast, in order to obtain permission to travel to Turkmenistan in 

September 2007. 

1980. When he did not return, a relative of Mr Berdiev contacted the Department of 

Internal Affairs and was informed that he had been arrested for hooliganism, 

administratively sentenced to fifteen days in prison, and that he was being held in 

Djarkurgan district police station. However, this information was not confirmed by 

the Djarkurgan police station and the whereabouts of Mr Hurram Berdiev were


Page 397 

currently unknown. On 20 August and 4 September 2007, a relative attempted to 

report Mr. Berdiev’s case to the regional police station in Termez but the request was 

declined on both occasions without any reasons given. 

1981. Concern was expressed that the arrest and continuing detention of Mr Hurram 

Berdiev may have been related to his human rights activities in defense of victims of 

human rights violations in Uzbekistan. In view of his reported incommunicado 

detention at an unknown place, further concern was expressed for the physical and 

psychological integrity of Mr Berdiev. 



the Government concerning Mr Karim Bozorboyev, a human rights defender 

working in Uzbekistan with the human rights organisation Ezgulik. According to 

information received, on 23 October 2007, Mr Karim Bozorboyev was arrested in 

Gulistan and taken to the Syrdarya police department detention centre. He was later 

charged with fraud, under Article 68 of the Penal Code. 

1983. On 22 October 2007, Mr Karim Bozorboyev was involved in a dispute 

between local traders and local authorities concerning the changing of the site of the 

market that has been ongoing since May 2007 in Yangiyer, the capital of the region of 

Syrdarya. On 22 October 2007, traders blocked a road in protest at this decision to 

change the site of the market. Mr Karim Bozorboyev offered to mediate between the 

traders and the authorities. Concern was expressed that the aforementioned arrest and 

the charges that had been brought against Mr Karim Bozorboyev may be directly 

related to his peaceful human rights activities in Uzbekistan. 

Urgent appeal 



concerning Mr Ihtiyor Hamroev, a member of the Human Rights Society of 

Uzbekistan (HRSU), currently serving a custodial sentence in Prison 64/78 in the 

district of Djizak. Mr Ihtiyor Hamroev was the subject of a joint allegation letter sent 

by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human 

rights defenders, together with the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture on 23 

January 2007. 

1985. According to information received, on 30 November 2007, Mr Bahtiyor 

Hamroev, Mr Ihtiyor Hamroev’s father and also a human rights defender, received a 

telephone call from an anonymous prison guard, informing him that the guard had 

witnessed other prison guards transferring Mr Ihtiyor Hamroev to another room on the 

night of 29 November 2007. The guards reportedly attempted to force him to sign a 

statement confessing to having used forbidden language to a prison employee. At Mr. 

Ihtiyor Hamroev’s refusal, they beat him, and then he reportedly stabbed himself in 

the stomach, although it remains unclear as to how a knife could have been in his 

possession.


Page 398 

1986. Following this incident, Mr Ihtiyor Hamroev was hospitalised due to injuries 

sustained. His whereabouts were unknown and his family had allegedly been denied 

information with regard to his physical condition. Moreover, Mr Ihtiyor Hamroev's 

sentence had recently been extended by seven months. Mr Ihtiyor Hamroev was 

arrested on 25 September 2006 and subsequently convicted with hooliganism, for 

which he was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. Concern was expressed for Mr 

Ihtiyor Hamroev’s physical and mental integrity. Further concern was expressed that 

the extension of his prison sentence may be related to his peaceful human rights 

activities. 


1987. In a letter dated 3 July 2007, the Government of Uzbekistan responded to an 

urgent appeal sent by the Special Representative, together with the Chairperson- 


on violence against women on 10 May 2006. The communication sent concerned the 

intimidation and assault of Mr. Talib Yakubov, chairman of the Human Rights 

Society of Uzbekistan (HRSU), his pregnant wife, Ms. Ozoda Yakubova, Mr. 

Bakhtior Hamroev, Mr. Mamatkul Mukhatrov, Mr. Azamzhon Farmonov and 

Mr. Alisher Karakmatov, all chairmen of regional branches of the HRSU, and the 

arrest and detention of the latter two men. 

1988. The Government stated that the Mr Farmanov and Mr Karakmatov had been 

arrested and detained on criminal charges of extortion of an employee of a diesel 

distribution agency. It further stated that they had been convicted of these charges on 

the basis of inter alia, sums of money found in their possession by a Yangier City 

Court on June 15, 2006 and subsequently sentenced to nine years imprisonment each. 

The appeal on July 18 2006 left the verdict unchanged. The Government further 

considered that the information received by the mandate-holders regarding events 

during the course of the investigation of the case against the two men was erroneous. 



In a letter dated 26 January 2007, the Government of Uzbekistan responded to an 

urgent appeal sent by the Special Representative to the Government on 2 June 2006, 

concerning criminal proceedings against Messrs Ilkhomzhon Zainobutdinov and 

Saidzhakhonovich Zainobutdinov and an urgent appeal regarding the latter, sent by 

the Special Representative, together with the the Special Rapporteur on the promotion 

and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression on 18 January 2006. 

1989. On 25 May 2006 the Department of Investigations of Andijan oblast Division 

of Internal Affairs instituted proceedings against Zainobutdinov I.S. under article 176, 

part 2, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) (Manufacture or sale of counterfeit currency), article 

228, part 2, paragraphs (a) and (b) (Preparation or counterfeiting of documents, sale or 

use) and article 168, part 3, paragraph (c) (Fraud) of the Criminal Code of Uzbekistan. 

1990. During the investigation, material evidence in the form of counterfeit bank 

notes, a computer, a printer, etc., was confiscated. An experiment was conducted


Page 399 

during which I. Zainobutdinov, without assistance, made bank notes in the following 

denominations: 500 Uzbekistan som, 200 Kyrgyzstan som and 100 United States 

dollars. Other instances of criminal activity on his part were revealed by testimony 

from witnesses and victims gathered during the case, confiscated material evidence, 

etc. 

1991. On 21 August 2006 the investigation was concluded and a bill of indictment 

was drawn up. On 9 October 2006 a court in Andijan oblast found him guilty and 

sentenced him to 11.5 years’ deprivation of freedom. During the investigation and the 

court hearings I.S. Zainobutdinov made no statements or complaints and was being 

held in the T-1 in Andijan. 

1992. Concerning Saidjakhon Zainabiddinov: On 14 October 2004, the procurator of 

Andijan instituted criminal proceedings against Mr. Zainabiddinov on the basis of 

evidence of an offence contrary to article 139 (Defamation), paragraph 3 (d), of the 

Criminal Code. On 9 December 2004, the criminal proceedings were terminated on 

the basis of article 84 (Grounds for terminating criminal proceedings without 

establishing guilt), paragraph 5 (1), of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 19 April 

2005, the Andijan procurator’s office instituted new criminal proceedings against Mr. 

Zainabiddinov under article 139 (Defamation), paragraph 2, of the Criminal Code. In 

spite of the institution of new criminal proceedings, Mr. Zainabiddinov did not halt 

his illegal activities. On 13 May 2005, it was established that Mr. Zainabiddinov had 

disseminated slanderous information to representatives of the foreign media 

concerning the events that were taking place in Andijan. 

1993. Mr. Zainabiddinov’s reports were intended to create panic among the 

population and foster a negative attitude towards the authorities and constitutional 

system of Uzbekistan. Mr. Zainabiddinov’s aims were confirmed by tape recordings 

and also by forensic, psychological, philosophical and religious and philological 

expert examinations. On 21 May 2005, during a customs inspection at the Dustlik 

crossing point on Uzbekistan’s border with Kyrgyzstan, Mr. Zainabiddinov was found 

to be in possession of materials the printing and dissemination of which are prohibited 

and which pose a threat to the public order and the country’s security. The materials 

were confiscated from him in the presence of witnesses. 

1994. Following this incident, on 22 May 2005, the Andijan procurator’s office 

overturned its decision to terminate the first criminal case. Both criminal cases were 

combined into one and the internal affairs authority of Andijan oblast was instructed 

to conduct an investigation. On 23 May 2005, Mr. Zainabiddinov was arrested as a 

suspect in accordance with article 139 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; on the 

same day, the lawyer he had chosen, M. Akhmedov, was allowed to see him and his 

rights were explained to him. On 24 May 2005 Mr. Zainabiddinov was charged under 

article 139, paragraph 3 (c) of the Criminal Code (Preparation or dissemination of 

materials constituting a threat to public safety and public order), and with the 

authorization of the procurator he was remanded in custody as a preventive measure. 

1995. By the verdict of the Tashkent city court of 5 January 2005, which became 

enforceable on 19 January 2005, Mr. Zainabiddinov was sentenced to seven years’ 

deprivation of liberty under article 139, paragraph 3 (a) and (d) (Defamation with 

aggravating circumstances), article 159, paragraph 3 (b) and (c) (Attacks against the


Page 400 

constitutional order of the Republic of Uzbekistan committed by an organized group 

or in its interests), article 244-1, paragraph 3 (a) and (c) (Preparation or dissemination 

of materials constituting a threat to public safety and public order, committed by prior 

conspiracy or by a group of persons, with the use of financial or other material 

assistance received from religious organizations as well as from foreign States and 

nationals) and article 244-2 (Establishing, leading or participating in religious 

extremist, separatist, fundamentalist or other prohibited organizations), paragraph 1, 

of the Criminal Code. 

1996. The pretrial investigation and judicial proceedings were conducted in 

accordance with national legislation and international norms. From the moment of his 

arrest, Mr. Zainabiddinov made no complaints about detention conditions in the 

remand centre and did not make any application to the investigative authorities or the 

court concerning the use of impermissible methods against him 


1997. In a letter dated 13 February 2007, the Government of Uzbekistan responded 

to an urgent appeal sent by the Special Representative to the Government on 25 

January 2006, concerning the assault of Rakhmatullo Alibaev, a human rights 

defender who has monitored trials of independent Muslims charged with religious 

extremism and assisted victims of economic fraud.. The Government response stated 

that Mr Alibaev, native of the Kashkadariskoy region, had not been prosecuted and 

had left the territory of Uzbekistan. 

Observations 

1998. The Special Representative thanks the Government of Uzbekistan for its 

responses to nineteen communications sent previous to and during the time-period 

covered by this report. 

1999. The Special Representative wishes to express her serious concerns regarding 

the situation of human rights defenders in Uzbekistan. With regard to human rights 

defenders in detention, she highlights the cases of Ms Mutabar Tadjibaeva and Mr 

Ihtiyor Hamroev as particular cause for concern. The conditions in which both human 

rights defenders are reportedly being detained are viewed as unacceptable and the 

Special Representative calls on the Uzbek Government to ensure that the conditions 

of detention and the treatment of those detained are in full compliance with 

international norms and standards. She also requests that the Uzbek Government 

provide information regarding the case of Mr Hurram Berdiev, outlined in a 

communication sent on 25 October 2007, and the legal basis for his detention. 

2000. With regard to other human rights defenders referred to in communications, 

the Special Representative is deeply concerned by the harassment of human rights 

defenders and the authorities’ responses of 6 and 13 February in which it is implied 

that human rights defenders seek merely to draw criticism upon the Uzbek 

Government and that allegations regarding ill-treatement and harassment are 

fabricated to this end. 

2001. The Special Representative considers that that the request on the part of the 

Uzbek Government to refer human rights defenders to domestic mechanisms for


Page 401 

investigation of allegations of human rights violations as valid only if these 

mechanisms can be relied upon to investigate such allegations in a fair and impartial 

manner and hopes that the Government will take urgent steps to ensure that this is 

possible. 


Venezuela 

2002. El 1 de marzo de 2007, la Representante Especial, junto con el Relator 

Especial sobre la promoción del derecho a la libertad de opinión y de expresión y la 

Relatora Especial sobre el derecho a la educación envió un llamamiento urgente al 

Gobierno venezolano en relación con el Sr. José Luís Urbano, presidente de Pro- 

Defensa del Derecho a la Educación, una organización no-gubernamental que se 

dedica a la promoción del derecho a la educación en Venezuela. 

2003. De acuerdo con la información recibida, el 10 de febrero de 2007, cuando el 

Sr. Urbano y su esposa se dirigían en coche a su casa en Barcelona, en el estado 

septentrional de Anzoátegui, un coche Mitsubishi negro con dos hombres se paró 

junto a ellos. Bajándose del vehículo, uno de los individuos gritó “métele, es el tipo 

de Pro-defensa” y el otro introdujo el arma por la ventana y disparó al Sr. Urbano, 

quien resultó herido en el abdomen. Según los informes, los atacantes siguieron al 

Sr.Urbano y su esposa cuando se dirigían al hospital. Gracias al Defensor del Pueblo, 

el Sr. Urbano habría gozado de protección policial durante su estancia en el hospital. 

Sin embargo, dicho protección parece haber cesado el 20 de febrero de 2007, a pesar 

de que la esposa del Sr. Urbano habría denunciado oficialmente el ataque ante la 

policía y ante la Defensoría del Pueblo el día anterior. 

2004. El 9 de febrero de 2007, Pro-Defensa del Derecho a la Educación habría 

ofrecido una rueda de prensa durante la cual habría denunciado la deficiente calidad 

de la educación proporcionada a los menores del estado de Anzoátegui y el cobro 

sumas de dinero por la educación, que es gratuita. Ese mismo día, se alega que el Sr. 

Urbano recibió una llamada telefónica amenazándole con que algo le sucedería si no 

dejaba su actividad. Se temía que estos eventos puedan estar relacionados con la 

actividad en defensa de los derechos humanos de la Organización Pro-Defensa de el 

Derecho a la Educación presidida por el Sr. Urbano y se expresaba profunda 




2005. En comunicación de fecha 28 de junio de 2007, el Gobierno venezolano 

respondió a la comunicación arriba. La respuesta gubernamental notó que la 

información provenía de la Fiscalía General de la Republica Bolivariana de 

Venezuela, mediante comunicación fechada el día 20 de junio de 2007. Se indicó que 

por la presente investigación fue comisionada la Fiscalía Segunda del Ministerio 

Publico de la Circunscripción Judicial del Estado Anzoátegui, a cargo de la abogada 

Carmen Brito.


Page 402 

2006. Asimismo las diligencias adelantadas por la Fiscalía Segunda eran: Acta de 

Entrevista al Sr. Urbano el 18 de mayo de 2007, y solicitud del Cuerpo de 

Investigaciones Científicas, Penales y Criminalísticas, del resultado del Examen 

Medico Legal Practicado a la victima; La causa se encontraba en Fase Preparatoria. 

Se indicó que en cuanto a las medidas de protección, la Fiscalía Segunda del 

Ministerio Publico de la Circunscripción Judicial del Estado Anzoátegui, el 1 de 

marzo de 2007, había solicitado la tutela correspondiente ante el Juzgado Quinto de 

Primera Instancia en Funciones de Control del Circuito Judicial Penal del referido 

Estado, acordándose la medida de vigilancia policial en la zona donde reside el Sr. 

Urbano; habíendo designado el Instituto Autónomo de Policía del Municipio Bolívar 

para ejecutarla. 


2007. El 20 de noviembre de 2007, la Representante Especial, junto con el Relator 


Relator Especial sobre la independencia de magistrados y abogados, envió un 

llamamiento urgente al Gobierno venezolano en relación con la reforma de la 

Constitución de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela, aprobada el 3 de 

noviembre de 2007 por la Asamblea Nacional de la República Bolivariana de 

Venezuela, y que sería sometida a referéndum a principio de diciembre de 2007. Por 

un lado, querían destacar que, dentro de la reforma propuesta, hay importantes 

avances para los derechos humanos como, por ejemplo, la extensión de la prohibición, 

contenida en el artículo 21 de la Constitución a la discriminación por razones de salud 

y de orientación sexual, así como el reconocimiento al valor de la diversidad de 

culturas, contenido en el artículo 100 de la Constitución. Por otro lado, se había 

recibido información sobre los cambios sugeridos y aprobados por la Asamblea 

Nacional en los artículos 337, 338 y 339 referidos al estado de excepción. Según las 

informaciones recibidas, la reforma aprobada por la Asamblea Nacional eliminaría la 

obligación de presentar el decreto que declare el estado de excepción ante la Sala 

Constitucional del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia para que se pronuncie sobre su 

constitucionalidad. 

2008. Se habrían suprimido los límites temporales que la Constitución vigente 

establece para los estados de excepción. Además, la reforma eliminaría la exigencia 

expresa de que el decreto que declare el estado de excepción cumpla con las garantías 

establecidas en el Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos y en la 

Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos. Asimismo, durante un estado de 

excepción, podrían suspenderse algunas garantías consagradas en la Constitución 

vigente, en particular el acceso a la información. Si bien el nuevo texto incluye, en el 

listado de derechos humanos intangibles, al derecho a la defensa, a la integridad 

personal, a ser juzgado o juzgada por sus jueces naturales y a no ser condenado o 

condenada a penas que excedan los treinta años, así como la prohibición a la 

desaparición forzosa; no menciona en forma expresa, como así lo hace el texto 

vigente, el derecho a un debido proceso. 

2009. Asimismo, dicha propuesta de reforma cambiaría las disposiciones vigentes 

sobre la remoción de los magistrados del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia (Artículo 265). 

Mientras la Constitución en vigor prevé que dichos magistrados pueden ser removidos 

por la Asamblea Nacional mediante una mayoría calificada de las dos terceras partes


Page 403 

de sus integrantes, la reforma prevé que su remoción puede ser votada por solo la 

mayoría de los integrantes de la Asamblea Nacional. Esta disposición fragiliza la 

posición de los magistrado y vulnera su independencia respeto al poder legislativo. 

Según las informaciones recibidas, dicha propuesta de reforma cambiaría las 

disposiciones vigentes sobre libertad de asociación, prohibiendo a las “asociaciones 

con fines políticos y que participen en el proceso electoral” recibir fondos 

provenientes de fuentes internacionales, tanto públicas como privadas. La definición 

de “asociaciones con fines políticos” podría dar lugar a incertidumbres legales que 

afectarían directamente a las asociaciones de defensa de los derechos humanos y otras 

organizaciones no-gubernamentales. De esta manera, se les impediría recibir fondos 

internacionales de los que, en muchos casos, dependen. 

2010. Los titulares de mandato expresaron su preocupación por la seguridad de los 

periodistas y los participantes en las manifestaciones que se suceden entre partidarios 

y opositores a la mencionada reforma constitucional. En este sentido, querían señalar 

a la atención de su Gobierno la información que hemos recibido sobre varios 

incidentes que han tenido lugar recientemente. Así, el 25 de octubre de 2007, Paulina 

Moreno, de la cadena pública Ávila televisión, habría resultado herida por un 

explosivo cuando cubría un foro en el Instituto Pedagógico de Caracas, y un 

camarógrafo del mismo medio habría sido agredido por opositores a la reforma. El 7 

de noviembre de 2007, varios estudiantes habrían resultado heridos de bala por varios 

desconocidos armados en el campus de la Universidad Central de Venezuela, en 

Caracas, durante una manifestación de oposición a la reforma. 


2011. En comunicación de fecha 30 de noviembre de 2007, el gobierno venezolano 

respondió a la comunicación arriba. El gobierno lamentó que, a su juicio, los titulares 

de mandato no respetaron las pautas de conducto al no darle al Estado venezolano la 

oportunidad de formular sus observaciones sobre las evaluaciones hechas. 

Información adicional 

2012. Los titulares de mandato se comunicaron poco después con representantes del 

gobierno venezolano para tratar este asunto a satisfacción de ambas partes. 

Observaciones 

2013. La Representante Especial agradece al gobierno venezolano las respuestas 

recibidas a las comunicaciones del 1 de marzo y del 20 de noviembre de 2007. 

2014. En relación con el comunicado del 1 de marzo de 2007, espera que las 

medidas de protección extendidas al Sr José Luís Urbano aumenten su nivel de 

seguridad. Asimismo expresa su esperanza de que el gobierno de Venezuela 

reconozca y respalde los esfuerzos de los defensores de los derechos humanos. 

Urgent appeal 

Viet Nam


Page 404 


Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, the Special Rapporteur on the question of 

torture and the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, 

sent an urgent appeal to the Government concerning Ksor Daih, 45 years old, from 

Ploi Ko village, commune Dang Ya, district Cu-Pah, Gialai province, Ksor Jak, 24 

years old, from Ploi Ko village, commune Dang Ya district Cu Pah, Gailia province, 

and Ksor Har, 54 years old, from Ploi Ia-Gri village, commune Dang Ya, district Cu 

Pah, Gialai province. All of them are currently held at Trai Ba-Sao prison in Ha Nam 

province. 

2016. According to the information received Ksor Daih was arrested in 2004 after 

having spent two years in hiding, for participating in the 2001 peaceful protest for 

religious rights and supporting an organization called “Montagnard Foundation”. He 

was then sent to prison, where he had been subjected to beating and kicking on a 

regular basis. During one incident he was blinded in one eye. As a result of the 

treatment in prison, his body was covered in scars and bruises, his eye-socket gorged 

and he could barely stand. Ksor Jak was arrested in 2004 for supporting the 

“Montagnard Foundation” and participating in the peaceful demonstration in 2001 for 

religious freedom. After the 2001 demonstration he went into hiding, but was 

captured on 24 February 2004 by Vietnamese soldiers and imprisoned at Trai-Ba-Sao, 

where his leg was broken and disfigured and he was subjected to taunting by the 

authorities. Also, guards forced him to eat rice mixed with broken glass. Ksor Har was 

arrested in 2004 for participating in the 2001 peaceful protest for religious rights and 

supporting the “Montagnard Foundation”. He went into hiding but was captured by 

Vietnamese soldiers in August 2004. 

2017. As a result of the treatment he had received in prison, his left ear has been torn 

into pieces. Guards continued to regularly pull his wounded ear. Concern was 

expressed that the detention and ill-treatment as outlined above represents an attempt 

by the authorities to intimidate, suppress and punish Ksor Daih, Ksor Jak and Ksor 

Har for their activities in defence of human rights, in particular the rights to freedom 

of expression, freedom of religion or belief and the human rights of indigenous Degar 

peoples. Further concern was expressed for the physical and mental integrity of the 

above mentioned persons and that they might not have access to adequate medical 

treatment. 


2018. In a letter dated 24 April 2007, the Government of Viet Nam responded to the 

above communication. The letter first dealt with the case of Ksor Daih, stating that a 

health examination had been carried out on 9 March 2007 and that the doctor had 

concluded that his health ranked in the first category. According to all reports, 

including the minutes of an inspection by a delegation from the Department for the 

Management of Prison Camps, there had been no cruel treatment against him. With 

regard to Ksor Jak, the letter stated that a health examination had been carried out on 

9 March 2007 and the doctor concluded that his health ranked in the first category. 

2019. According to all reports, including the minutes of an inspection by a 

delegation from the Department for the Management of Prison Camps, there had been 

no cruel treatment against him and the information that he had been forced to eat rice


Page 405 

mixed with broken glass was slanderous. The letter lastly addressed the case of Ksor 

Har, stating that a health examination had been carried out on 9 March 2007 and the 

doctor concluded that his health ranked in the second category. According to all 

reports, including the minutes of an inspection by a delegation from the Department 

for the Management of Prison Camps, there had been no cruel treatment against him. 

In the view of the Government, all three individuals had received the right ration of 

food and drink in strict accordance with provisions of laws on regimes for prisoners. 

Since they were arrested, no complaint had been lodged by them or on their behalf. 

Urgent Appeal 


Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, sent an urgent appeal to the 

Government concerning Mr. Nguyen Van Dai, a lawyer, founder of an organization 

called “Committee for Human Rights”, and co-founder and Executive Director of the 

“Translation and Legal Consultation Firm” in Hanoi, whose license was withdrawn on 

28 February 2007 by the Business Registration Office of Hanoi’s Planning and 

Investment Bureau. Mr. Nguyen Van Dai was already the subject matter of a joint 

urgent appeal by the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary 

Detention and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of 

human rights defenders on 27 November 2006. 

2021. While the mandate-holders appreciated the Government’s response dated 23 

February 2007, in which it was, inter alia, stated that Mr. Nguyen Van Dai was 

arrested and detained ahead of the 14th APEC summit, they were concerned about his 

most recent arrest. According to the latest information received, on 6 March 2007, 

security forces arrived at the residence of Mr. Nguyen Van Dai in Hanoi, and placed 

him under arrest. He was being detained in cell 17-19 of Pre-Detention Centre No 1, 

13 kilometers from Hanoi. He was charged pursuant to article 88 of the Criminal 

Code with “conducting propaganda against the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam”. Mr. 

Nguyen Van Dai was to be held for four months pending investigation. However, 

under the Criminal Procedure Code, this four-month period may reportedly be 

extended four times, after which the People’s Prosecutor’s is entitled to apply “other 

deterrent measures”. This might include another extension of his detention, according 

to article 120 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 

2022. Concern was expressed that Mr. Nguyen Van Dai's arrest may be connected to 

his legitimate human rights activities, and may represent an attempt to prevent and 

deter him from continuing his human rights work. This concern was expressed in the 

context of a recent sustained campaign against human rights defenders in Viet Nam. 


2023. In a letter dated 4 May 2007, the Government of Viet Nam responded to the 

above communication. The letter stated that Mr Nguyen Van Dai had abused his 

position as a lawyer, inciting disorder in society and security and establishing illegal 

organizations to distribute propaganda and store documents defaming the State of Viet 

Nam. The letter further stated that any citizen was permitted to exercise their right to 

freedom of expression, but that Mr Nguyen Van Dai had used the rights of freedom 

and democracy to undermine national security and unity, thus violating existing laws


Page 406 

of Viet Nam. The letter asserted that the Hanoi Lawyers’ Association had advised Mr 

Nguyen Van Dai several times to observe the rules and regulations governing 

lawyers’ conduct but that as Nguyen Van Dai did no heed this advice, he was arrested 

and detained on 6 March 2007, and subsequently expelled form the Hanoi Lawyers’ 

Association on 11 March 2007. 

2024. The Government response refuted the allegation that a response dated 23 

February 2007 stated that Mr Nguyehn Van Dai had been in relation to the 14 th APEC 

summit, although the reponse in the possession of the Special Representative would 

appear to contradict this statement. 



Government concerning lawyers Mr Nguyen Van Dai and Ms Le Thi Cong Nhan. 

Mr Van Dai is founder of the Committee for Human Rights in Viet Nam, and cofounder 

and Executive Director of the Translation and Legal Consultation Firm 

(TNHH) in Hanoi. He is also one of the leaders of the online pro-democracy 

movement Bloc 8406 and regularly posts pro-democracy essays on foreign websites. 

Ms Cong Nhan is a spokesperson for the Progression Party. Mr Van Dai was the 

subject of joint urgent appeal by mandate-holderson 27 November 2006 and again on 

9 March 2007, the latter appeal being outlined above. 

2026. According to the latest information received, on 11 May 2007, Mr Van Dai 

and Ms Cong Nhan were sentenced to prison by the Hanoi People's Court. Mr Van 

Dai was sentenced to 5 years in prison and 4 years house arrest whilst Ms Cong Nhan 

was sentenced to 4 years in prison and 3 years house arrest. Both were charged with 

“spreading propaganda against the State” in accordance with Article 88 of the 

Vietnamese Penal Code. According to reports, on 6 March 2007, Mr Van Dai and Ms 

Cong Nhan were arrested by security forces from their respective homes in Hanoi. 

They were detained at the Pre-Detention Centre No 1, 13 kilometers from Hanoi. 

2027. In November 2006, Mr Van Dai had been reportedly summoned on numerous 

occasions for Police questioning. On 28 February 2007, following reported pressure 

from Security Police, the Business Registration Office of Hanoi’s Planning and 

Investment Bureau issued an order to withdraw the licence of TNHH. Ms Cong Nhan 

was reportedly under police surveillance prior to her arrest. Concern was expressed 

that the arrest and detention of Mr Van Dai and Ms Cong Nhan may be directly 

related to their work in defence of human rights in Viet Nam. Further concern was 

expressed that that these events may form part of an ongoing pattern of violations 

against human rights defenders in the country. 


2028. In a letter dated 23 July 2007, the Government of Viet Nam responded to the 

above communication. The Government response stated that Mr Nguyen Van Dai and 

Ms Le Thi Cong Nhan had conducted acts to distort policies and laws of the state of 

Viet Nam, to sully Ho Chi Minh Leader, to appeal to the change of the political 

regime, to encourage a boycott of the election of members of the National Assembly, 

and to cause public disorder. They spread propaganda and participated in the


Page 407 

establishment of illegal organisations. They were thus arrested and detained on 6 

March 2007. On 11 May 2007, Mr Nguyen Van Dai and Ms Le Thi Cong Nhan were 

tried and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment and four years’ administrative 

probation and 3 years’ administrative probation respectively. 

2029. This was an open trial, attended by foreign diplomats and journalists. They are 

entitled by law to lodge an appeal, and if they do, they will be retried. Mr Nguyen 

Van Dai and Ms Le Thi Cong Nhan were arrested and tried not because of their 

opinions, but because of their violations against the law. In accordance with Articles 

19, 20, 21, and 22 of the ICCPR, while exercising their right to freedom of expression 

and freedom of assembly, individuals must also respect the rights and reputations of 

others, to assure national security and public order. 



Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, sent a letter of allegations to the 

Government concerning Mr Tim Sa Khorn, chief monk in the North Phnom Denh 

temple, and member of the Khmer Krom community in Cambodia. Mr Tim Sa Khorn 

acquired Cambodian citizenship after he moved in 1979 to the commune of Phnom 

Denh in Kirivong District in Takeo Province because of acts of harassment against 

him. 

2031. According to the information received, on 8 November 2007, the People’s 

Court of Justice of the An Giang Province, Southern Viet Nam, sentenced Mr Tim Sa 

Khorn to one year’s imprisonment for “sabotaging the unification policy” under 

Article 87 of Viet Nam’s Penal Code, following a pre-trial incommunicado detention 

of more than four months. The trial reportedly failed to meet international standards 

as Mr Tim Sa Khorn was denied the right to be represented by a lawyer and to present 

his defence, including the opportunity to present his own witnesses or cross-examine 

prosecution witnesses. Instead, he was forced to repeat a text read by the judge. 

2032. In 2002, Mr. Tim Sa Khorn was appointed as chief monk of North Phnom- 

Denh temple. On 16 June 2007, Supreme Patriarch Tep Vong issued a religious 

decree in both Cambodian and Vietnamese languages to defrock Mr. Tim Sa Khorn, 

accusing him of conducting activities that were harmful to the Cambodia-Viet Nam 

friendship. Subsequently, the Vietnamese authorities allegedly circulated this decree 

to Khmer Krom Buddhist temples. On 3 July 2007 a spokesperson of the Cambodian 

Minister of Foreign Affairs declared that Mr. Tim Sa Khorn “had returned to Viet 

Nam” after reportedly being summoned to the office of the religious head of the 

Takeo Province in Cambodia and being forced to enter a car. On 2 August 2007 

Vietnamese authorities announced that he had been arrested for having illegally 

entered the country. Concern was expressed that the arrest, incommunicado detention 

and prison sentence of Mr Tim Sa Khorn may have been directly linked to his nonviolent 



2033. In a letter dated 29 January 2008, the Government of Viet Nam responded to 

the above communication. The letter stated that Mr Tim Sa Khorn had, in April 2005,


Page 408 

joined the the Khmers-Kampuchea-Krom Foundation (KKF) and had accepted money 

and equipment to arouse hatred among nations, falsely accusing Viet Nam of 

suppression against religions and the Khmer minority in Viet Nam. The letter further 

stated that, on 16 June 2005, the Central Managing Board of the Cambodian Board of 

Cambodian Buddhism had issued decision Nº 502/67 DN dismissing Mr Tim Sa 

Khorn from the monk community on the grounds that he had wrongfully conducted 

activities violating Buddhist dogma. 

2034. On 30 June 2007, Mr Tim Sa Khorn illegally entered Viet Nam, where he was 

arrested and provisionally detained by the Vietnamese border guards. He was carrying 

a number of distorted documents aimed at undermining policies for the solidarity of 

all ethnic minorities in Viet Nam. Mr Tim Sa Khorn reportedly admitted to the law 

enforcemner agency of the An Giang Province that during the time he lived in 

Cambodia, he joined the KKF and that, together with a number of the Khmer from 

Southern Viet Nam wearing bronze clothes, he had organized gatherings to incite 

hatred against Viet Nam and to convince the Khmer minority in Viet Nam to request 

secession and the create pretexts to accuse the Government of Viet Nam of 

suppression of the Khmer minority. 

2035. On 9 July 2007, the Police Agency for Investigation made an introduction of 

instance against and provisionally detained Mr Tim Sa Khorn in accordance with 

Article 87 of the Penal Code. On 8 November 2007, the People’s Court of the An 

Giang Province brought Mr Tim Sa Khorn to an open and fair trial, convicted and 

then sentenced him to 12 months of imprisonment for ‘undermining policies for the 

solidarity of ethnic minorities’. At time of writing he was serving out his sentence and 

his health was normal. 

2036. In the view of the government, the allegations outlined in the communication 

were therefore unfounded and the legal basis of the arrest, detention and prison 

sentence of Mr Tim Sa Khorn were in line with international conventions on human 

rights. 

Response from the Government to a communication sent before 2 December 

2006 

2037. In a letter dated 23 July 2007, the Government of Viet Nam responded to an 

urgent appaeal sent by the Special Representative on 27 November 2006 together with 

the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention regarding 

the intimidation and harassment of several Vietnamese religious activists, lawyers, 

human rights activists, journalists and members of land rights organisations and in the 

lead up to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) which took place in Hanoi 

from 17 to 19 November 2006, including Mr Nguyen Khac Toan, Mr Nguyen Van 

Dai, Mr Hoang Tien, Mr Nguyen Phuong Anh, Mr Duong Van Duong (aka Dai 

Duong) and Ms Bui Thi Kim Thanh. Mr Nyugen Tan Hoanh, Ms Tran Thi Le 

Hong (also known as Nguyen Thi Le Hong), Mr Doan Huy Chuong (also known as 

Hoang Huy Choang), his brothers Mr Doan Trieu Hai and Mr Doan Trieu Kinh- 

Kha (14 years old), Mr Doan Van Dien. Ms Thich Nu Dam Thoa and Mr Thich 

Vien Dinh, Mr Thich Vien Dinh had previously been the subject of two urgent 

appeals sent by mandate-holders, on 21 May 2004 and 10 June 2004.


Page 409 

2038. The Government response stated that Mr Nguyen Van Dai and Mr Nguyen 

Phuong Anh had been involved in activities which might have threatened the security 

of the 14 th APEC Summit; and that Mr Hoang Tien had been engaged in activities 

infringing on Vietnamese laws and that law enforcement agencies were conducting 

investigations on him. Regarding Mr Nguyen Khac Toan, the Government response 

stated that he had been released in early 2006, still on administrative probation and 

that due to violations of his probation on several occasions, the law enforcement 

agency had taken necessary measures. 

2039. Regarding Mr Duong Van Duong, the letter stated that he had been asked to 

come to a police station to verify details of a traffic accident in which he was 

involved. The Government denied any allegation that he had been beaten by 

undercover police officers. The letter proceed to state that Mr Doan Huy Chuong, Mr 

Doan Van Dien, Mr Nguyen Tuan Hoanh and Ms Tran Thi Le Hong had all been 

arrested and provisionally detained for activities violating Article 79 of the Penal 

Code of Viet Nam. These procedures had been carried out in strict accordance with 

the law and their respective families had been informed. 

2040. The Government reponse then addressed the case of Ms Thich Nu Dam Thoa, 

asserting that during her religious life at Nguyet Nham Pagoda, she breached the 

security and the social order and was transferred to another pagoda. Despite being 

informed that complainants would not be allowed to attend meetings, she had refused 

to return to her pagoda, and so in order to assure security in Hanoi for the 14 th APEC 

Summit, the Department of Labour, Invalids, and Social Affairs arranged for her to 

stay at the Centre of Care Service for Old People of bac Giang from 15-22 November 

2006. This was, according to the Government, also aimed at ensuring her safety given 

her old age. Mr Thich Vien Dinh is a monk responsible for Giac Hoa Pagoda and so, 

was invited to the office of the ward’s police in order to notify police of those of his 

colleagues who were temporary residents and make commitments with regard to the 

observation of laws, as part of the preparation procedures for the 14 th APEC Summit. 

Ms Bui Thi Kim Thanh had some symptoms of mental illness and so was hospitalised 

for treatment at Bien Hoa Mental Hospital, Dong Nai Province. Mr Truong Quoc Huy 

had according to the Government, also been engaged in activities violating Article 

258 of the Penal Code and so ahd been provisionally detained for further 


Observations 

2041. The Special Representative thanks the Government of Viet Nam for its 

responses to all her communications sent in the time-period covered by this report. 

2042. She remains deeply concerned regarding reports of ill-treatment of human 

rights defenders in detention and calls on the Government to initiate independent 

health examinations which can fully allay these concerns. She also urges the 

Government to ensure that conditions in detention are in compliance with 

international norms and standards and that the issue of ill-treatment of detainees is 

examined fully by the Government. 

Yemen


Page 410 

Urgent Appeal 



the question of torture, sent an urgent appeal to the Government concerning Mr 

Maamar Mohamed Ahmed Salah Al Abdelli, academic, President of the 

Committee for Freedom of Conscience and the Release of Political Prisoners, and 

correspondent of the non-Governmental organization Alkarama for Human Rights. 

2044. According to the information received, on 26 May 2007, Mr Al Abdelli was 

arrested on the campus of the University of Sanaa by unknown persons. Since then, he 

had been detained at the Al Amn Assiyassi intelligence facilities of Sanaa. He had 

been denied access to a lawyer and his family. In May 2007, Mr Al Abdelli informed 

Alkarama for Human Rights of several cases of incommunicado detention of persons 

belonging to the Shiite religious minority and suspected of supporting the Al Houti 

movement. Concern was expressed that the arrest and detention of Mr Al Abdelli may 

have been related to his peaceful activities in defence of human rights. In view of his 

incommunicado detention further concern was expressed that he might be at risk of 

torture or ill-treatment. 




expression and the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, sent a letter of 

allegations to the Government concerning Mr. Abdel Karim al-Khaiwani, former 

editor of the online newspaper Al-Shoura. Mr. al-Khaiwani is a harsh critic of the 

Government’s policies, particularly in the fight against rebels in Saada. He also wrote 

recently an article published in Al-Needa'a which highlighted human rights violations 

in Yemeni prisons. According to the information received on 27 August 2007, Mr. al- 

Khaiwani was abducted by six gunmen wearing civilian clothes outside the offices of 

the weekly newspaper Al-Nedaa in central Sana’a. It appeared that at least one of his 

abductors was a Yemeni security service officer. Mr. al-Khaiwani was then 

blindfolded and forced into a vehicle. On the way to a remote area in the outskirts of 

Sanaa he was interrogated, kicked and beaten in his face, which caused an injury to 

his eye. The gunmen also put the fingers of Mr. al-Khaiwani’s writing hand into a 

metal finger cutter. Upon arrival he was allegedly beaten again on the face and chest. 

2046. The gunmen threatened to kill Mr. al-Khaiwani and his family if he continued 

to write “words harmful to Government officials or to national unity”. They also 

confiscated his passport, identification card and cell phone before abandoning him, 

still blindfolded. Mr. al-Khaiwani’s home had been raided in June 2007, when he was 

last detained by the security services. According to reports, since 2005 six other 

journalists have been the target of assaults that were believed to be politically 

motivated. Serious concern was expressed that the aforementioned events may have 

been directly related to Mr al-Khaiwani's peaceful activities in defence of human 

rights in Yemen. 



Page 411 

2047. In a letter dated 24 January 2008, the Government of Yemen responded to the 

above communication. The letter stated that the Government wished to inform the 

mandate-holders that the information in their possession regarding the abduction, 

detention and threats made against Mr al-Khaiwani were untrue. The letter further 

stated that Mr al-Khaiwani had been arrested to be brought to justice but did not 

specify the allegations or charges against which led to his arrest and detention. 

Observations 

2048. The Special Representative thanks the Government of Yemen for its response 

to the communication of 4 September 2007; however she requests that the 

Government provide her with more detailed information regarding the charges which 

form the basis of the judicial proceedings initiated against Mr al-Khaiwani. 

2049. She also reiterates her grave concern regarding the detention of Mr Maamar 

Mohamed Ahmed Salah Al Abdelli and calls on the Government to provide her with 

information regarding the legal basis of his detention as soon as possible. 

Urgent appeal 

Zimbabwe 

2050. On 7 December 2006, the Special Representative, together with the 



expression, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, the 

Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and the Special Rapporteur on violence 

against women, sent an urgent appeal to the Government concerning members of 

Women of Zimbabwe Arise (WOZA) and Men of Zimbabwe Arise (MOZA). 

WOZA, and its subdivision MOZA, is a grassroots organization working to promote 

and protect women’s activism, whose members have already been the subject of 

previous communications by the Special Representative, together with the Special 


expression on 15 September 2006, 16 February 2006, 28 June 2005, 20 May 2005, 29 

September 2004 and 26 September 2003. 

2051. On 31 August 2005, the Government replied to the communication of 28 June 

2005, which which concerned events similar to those now reported. While the 

mandate-holders welcomed that reply, it did not allay their concerns as enumerated 

below. According to the allegations recently received, on 29 November 2006, more 

than 60 WOZA members and four MOZA members were arrested while 

demonstrating peacefully in central Bulawayo on their way to the Government offices 

at Mhlanhlandlela. The march, composed of 200 participants, was to mark the launch 

of the People’s Charter and the “16 Days of Activism against Gender Violence”, an 

international campaign running until International Human Rights Day on 10 

December, as well as to protest against the Public Order Security Act (POSA). A 

large group of riot police officers allegedly assaulted the group with baton sticks, 

forcefully dispersing most of it. Many people – including a young baby – were beaten, 

and received medical care at Mpilo Hospital. 41 persons were reportedly taken to


Page 412 

Drill Hall by police officers who subsequently beat them, before releasing them 

without charge on the same day. 

2052. The other marchers, including WOZA leaders Ms. Jennifer Williams and Ms. 

Magodonga Mahlangu, were taken to Bulawayo Central Police Station, and 36 

members, including six mothers with babies, spent the night there. On 30 November 

2006, the six mothers with babies were released. As of 1 December 2006, 34 

WOZA/MOZA members reportedly remained in police custody, beyond the 48-hours 

limit provided for by law. The WOZA and MOZA members, including the six 

mothers released, were charged on 1 December 2006 under two separate sections of 

the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act: Chapter 46 section 2 (v) – 

“employing any means whatsoever which are likely materially to interfere with the 

ordinary comfort, convenience, peace or quiet of the public, or does any act which is 

likely create a nuisance or obstruction” and Chapter 37 – ”participating in a public 

gathering with the intent to cause public disorder, breach of peace or bigotry”. If 

found guilty, the members could be fined and/or imprisoned for a period not 

exceeding six months. A lawyer for WOZA was also threatened with arrest for 

“interfering with the course of justice” whilst trying to attend to her clients. She only 

managed to see the group on 30 November 2006, in the afternoon, several hours after 

being in police custody. 

2053. Serious concern was expressed that these new arrests of WOZA/MOZA 

members and the charges against them were in relation to their legitimate activities in 

defence of human rights, in particular the promotion and protection of women’s 

rights. This concern was reinforced by the fact that this incident took place on the 

occasion of the first International Day on Women Human Rights Defenders celebrated 

every 29 November. Further concern was expressed that this new instance of 

repression against WOZA/MOZA members may form part of a campaign of 

harassment and intimidation against human rights defenders in Zimbabwe. 


2054. In a letter dated 14 December 2006, the Government of Zimbabwe responded 

to the above communication. The letter stated that the protesters arrested had been 

charged with contravention of section 37(1)(b) of the Criminal Codification Act, 

Chapter 9:23 ‘Participating in gathering with intent to promote public violence, 

breach of peace or bigotry’. The Government response further stated that those 

charged appeared before a Court on 1 December 2006, where the Public Prosecutor 

did not request that they be remanded to police custody, advising that they be 

summoned to court. 

2055. The letter further denied that any of those arrested had been assaulted by the 

police and also denied that there had been any children among those arrested. The 

response further stated that the detainee’s lawyer, Ms Perpetua Dube had been 

allowed to see her clients and that there was no record of any complaint made by her 

regarding the alleged threatening behaviour. The Government response finally alleged 

an incostistency in the communication sent by mandate-holders, stating that the letter 

from the Special Representative first stated that WOZA’s members were arrested and 

released without charge on the same day, 29 November, before noting that their 

lawyer only saw them once in custody, on 30 November 2006.


Page 413 


2056. On 5 February 2007 the Special Representative sent a letter of allegations to 

the Government concerning Mr Ishmael Mayabo and Mr Cleopas Gwatirisa, 

members of the Combined Harare Residents Association (CHRA). The CHRA 

advocates for housing rights and the participation of residents in the economic, 

political, social and religious aspects of their community. 

2057. According to the information received, on 10 January 2007, two young 

militiamen who claimed to be associated with the ruling Zimbabwe African National 

Union - Patriotic Front Party (ZANU PF) reportedly rushed into the room where the 

CHRA was holding a meeting to discuss the recent budget of the Commission of the 

City of Harare. It is reported that these militiamen told Mr Mayabo and Mr Gwatirisa 

that they were unhappy with their work with the CHRA and forcibly brought them to 

the Party's provincial offices where a crowd of approximately 50 individuals 

proceeded to punch and kick them as well as beat them with broomsticks. The assault 

lasted for more than an hour. The perpetrators then telephoned the Police Internal 

Security Intelligence (PISI) who picked up the two activists and brought them to the 

Harare Central Police Station. 

2058. It is further reported that Mr Mayabo and Mr Gwatirisa were detained for 

several hours at the police station, and were physically assaulted. They were 

reportedly ordered to remove their shirts and were hit with open palms. They were 

subsequently fined for an alleged violation of section 46 of the Criminal Law 

(Codification and Reform) Act. 

2059. Concern was expressed that the assault and ill-treatment of Mr Mayabo and 

Mr Gwatirisa may be related to their legitimate peaceful activities in defence of 

human rights, in particular their advocacy work in promoting housing rights and 

encouraging residents to participate in the economic, political, social and religious 

aspects of their community. 





sent a letter of allegations to the Government concerning Mr Arnold Tsunga, a 

prominent lawyer, Director of the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights organisation, 

acting Secretary of the Law Society of Zimbabwe, Chairperson of the Zimbabwe 

Human Rights Association, and the trustee of the radio station Voice of People 

(VOP). Mr Tsunga is also the laureate of the 2006 international Martin Ennals Award 

for Human Rights Defenders which is granted annually to someone who has 

demonstrated an exceptional record of combating human rights violations by 

courageous and innovative means. Mr Tsunga, together with five other activists, was 

the subject of an urgent appeal by the Special Representative on 31 January 2006, to 

which a response from the Government was received on 4 May 2006.


Page 414 

2061. According to new information received, on 25 January 2007, Mr Tsunga was 

reportedly detained for a brief period at the Harare International Airport when 

returning from the World Social Forum in Kenya. He was stopped in the arrivals 

terminal by four men in civilian clothing who asked to see his passport. When Mr 

Tsunga enquired about their identification, they physically dragged him into an office 

where they demanded to see his baggage. Mr Tsunga was reportedly released without 

charge. Concern was expressed that the most recent detention of Mr Tsunga may be 

related to his legitimate and peaceful activities as a lawyer acting in defence of human 

rights, in particular his participation in the World Social Forum in Kenya, and may 

form part of a campaign of intimidation and harassment against human rights 

defenders in Zimbabwe. 

Urgent appeal 

2062. On 19 February December 2007, the Special Representative, together with the 


Special Rapporteur on the right to education, sent an urgent appeal to the Government 

concerning Mr. Promise Mkwananzi, President of the Zimbabwe National Students 

Union (ZINASU), Ms. Maureen Kademaunga, Secretary-General of the University 

of Zimbabwe, and Mr. Lawrence Mashungu, President of the Zimbabwe Christian 

Students Movement (ZSCM), who engaged in a peaceful demonstration in Harare on 

13 February 2007. 

2063. According to the information received, on 13 February 2007 officers from the 

Police Internal Security and Intelligence of the Harare Central Police Station arrested 

Mr. Mkwananzi, Ms. Kademaunga, and Mr. Mashungu together with eight other 

students activists, including Abisha Dube, Chanda Chinale, Lovemore Chinoputsa, 

Kudzai Mupazviriwo, Gladys Mukubvu, Kudakwashe Mapundu, and Blessing Vava, 

President of the Bulawayo Polytechnic College, who have since been released after 

paying admission of guilt fines amounting to Z$ 250 each. Mr. Mkwananzi, Ms. 

Kademaunga, and Mr. Mashungu remain in detention at Harare Central Police station 

under the authority of the Law and Order Section despite the expiry of the prescribed 

48 hours period of detention. 

2064. The arrests took place following a meeting at Harare Polytechnic College and 

a subsequent peaceful demonstration in the streets of Harare. The students’ 

demonstration was aimed at addressing the current economic situation in Zimbabwe 

and the effect it has on the income of students, lecturers, doctors, nurses, teachers, 

workers, and civil servants. The demonstrators also expressed their concern with the 

state of higher education in the country and demanded the abolition of the recently 

introduced new tuition fees structure. Mr. Mkwananzi, Ms. Kademaunga, and Mr. 

Mashungu were charged pursuant to section 37, para. 1 (b) of the Criminal Law 

(Codification and Reform) Act, which provides that “Any person who- acting together 

with one or more other persons present with him or her in any place or at any meeting 

performs any action, utters any words or distributes or displays any writing, sign or 

other visible representation that is obscene, threatening, abusive or insulting, 

intending thereby to provoke a breach of the peace or realising that there is a risk or 

possibility that a breach of the peace may be provoked shall be guilty of participating 

in a gathering with intent to promote public violence, a breach of the peace or bigotry,


Page 415 

as the case may be, and be liable to a fine not exceeding level ten or imprisonment for 

a period not exceeding five years or both.” 

2065. Concern was expressed that the arrest and detention of the aforementioned 

persons may have been connected to their peaceful and legitimate activities in defence 


Urgent Appeal 



Government concerning Ms Beatrice Mtetwa, President of the Law Society of 

Zimbabwe and Board member of the non-Government organization Zimbabwe 

Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR), Mr Andrew Makoni, Board member of ZLHR, 

Mr Harrison Nkomo, Mr Alec Muchadehama, Mr Otto Saki, Mr Tafadzwa 

Mugabe, Mr Rangu Nyamurundira, Mr Dzimbabwe Chimbga, Ms Irene Petras, 

and Mr Arnold Tsunga, all members of ZLHR. All the aforementioned individuals 

are registered legal practitioners in Zimbabwe and represent other human rights 

defenders, including women human rights defenders, trade unionists, constitutional 

rights activists, and students. May of the aforementioned had also been the subject of 

communications sent by mandate-holders; Ms Mtetwa, on 18 June 2004; Mr Nkomo, 

on 20 March 2007; Mr Mugabe, on 30 April 2004; and Mr Tsunga, on 31 January 

2006 and on 7 February 2007. 

2067. According to the information received, on 11 March 2007, Mr Nkomo was 

assaulted by a police officer with a baton stick at Machipisa police station while 

enquiring about the whereabouts of the members of the Save Zimbabwe Coalition 

who were arrested following an attempt to hold a peaceful prayer meeting in Harare. 

He was chased away from the station by police officers. On the same day, Ms Petras 

Mr Makoni, Mr Muchadehama, and Mr Mugabe were threatened with physical harm 

by armed police officers when attempting to enter the Harare Central police station 

and meet with the Officer in Charge of the Law and Order section. On 12 March, Ms 

Mtetwa was threatened by armed police at Borrowdale police station when attempting 

to serve a court order and gain access to Mr Tsvangirai, an arrested member of the 

political opposition. 

2068. On 16 March, Mr Saki received an anonymous phone call at the office of 

ZLHR threatening him with death if he did not stop representing members of the Save 

Zimbabwe Coalition. He was also warned that all the ZLHR lawyers would be 

“silenced”. On 16 March, the offices of Mr Makoni and Mr Muchadehama in Harare 

were visited by officers from the Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO) who 

attempted to intimidate the lawyers from carrying out their legal representation work. 

Officers from the CIO have since reportedly visited the premises of ZLHR at least 7 

times. On 17 March, Mr Mugabe accompanied his clients Mrs Sekai Holland and Ms 

Grace Kwinjeh, who were reportedly injured by police, to the airport to seek medical 

treatment in South Africa, but they were prevented from leaving the country, rearrested 

and escorted by armed police back to a private hospital. Mr Mugabe tried to 

assert their rights to intelligence and immigration officials, but he was threatened with 

arrest and physical harm, and warned to desist from representing his clients and taking 

up similar cases.


Page 416 

2069. On the same day, Mr Chimbga was stopped by intelligence and immigration 

officers at the airport when returning to Harare, and told to stop taking up similar 

cases. These officers reportedly told Mr Chimbga that all the lawyers working for 

ZLHR would be “dealt with” shortly. On 18 March, Mr Makoni was threatened with 

disappearance by Assistant Commissioner Mabunda at Harare Central police station 

while attempting to serve a High Court order on him. Assistant Commissioner 

Mabunda allegedly stated that lawyers had disappeared during Zimbabwe’s liberation 

struggle, and that since Mr Makoni and his colleagues believed they were waging a 

new “liberation struggle”, they too would suffer the same fate. 

2070. On 19 March 2007, Ms Mtetwa and Mr Nkomo were manhandled by police 

officers and threatened with arrest by Assistant Commissioner Mabunda at Harare 

Central police station whilst attempting to serve court orders and notices of set down 

for an urgent hearing. Concern wasexpressed that these acts of intimidation and 

harassment against the aforementioned lawyers working for ZLHR may be related to 

their legitimate and peaceful activities in defence of human rights, in particular the 

right to provide legal assistance to detainees. This concern was heightened by the fact 

that there seem to be a limited number of lawyers both engaged in and willing to take 

up human rights cases. Further concern was expressed that the independence of the 

judiciary is also threatened by the fact that those representing members of certain 

political groups are targeted. 

Urgent Appeal 

2071. On 12 April 2007 the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal to the 

Government concerning Mr Edward Dzeka, district chairperson of the Zimbabwe 

Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU), and Mr Joyce Muwoni. Both are local organisers 

for the General Agriculture and Plantations Workers Union of Zimbabwe (GAPWUZ) 

in the farming town of Chegutu. 

2072. According to the information received, on 3 April 2007, Mr Dzeka and Mr 

Muwoni received threatening phone calls allegedly from officers of the Zimbabwe 

Republic Police (ZRP) and Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO), some of whom 

were known to the two trade unionists. Mr Dzeka and Mr Muwoni were reportedly 

threatened for mobilising workers from Chegutu town and in the surrounding farms to 

participate in the national job “stay away” demonstration organised by the ZCTU on 

the same day. On 4 April, ZRP and CIO officers visited the GAPWUZ premises 

looking for Mr Dzeka and Mr Muwoni, and later went to Mr Dzeka’s home in 

Chegutu. However, the officers could not locate Mr Dzeka and Mr Muwoni since the 

aforementioned threats led the two trade unionists to go into hiding. Concern was 

expressed that the threats against Mr Dzeka and Mr Muwoni may be related to their 

peaceful and legitimate activities in defence of economic and social rights, in 

particular workers’ rights, and may form part of a continuous pattern of harassment 

and repression against Zimbabwe’s human rights defenders, including trade union 

leaders. 



Page 417 

2073. In a letter dated 25 June 2007, the Government of Zimbabwe responded to the 

above communication. The letter stated that the Government wished to put on record 

the correct position pertaining to alleged threats against Mr Edward Dzeko and Joyce 

Muwomi stating that neither individual had made a formal complaint and therefore it 

was not possible to provide an adequate response to the allegations. It was further 

noted that the Zimbabwe Republic police as custodians of law in the country do not in 

condone harassment of any individual. In conclusion, the Government suggested that 

the individuals in question approach their local police station or any other in 

Zimbabwe in order to submit an official report, and in doing so a thorough 

investigation would be conducted. 



Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers sent a letter of allegations to 

the Government concerning the harassment, assaults and arrests of human rights 

lawyers in Zimbabwe. According to the information received, on 25 April 2007 the 

wives of the lawyers Mr Alec Muchadehama and Mr Andrew Makoni each 

received an anonymous call, threatening the families of the two lawyers by saying that 

they were going to be dealt with ruthlessly and that their husbands would meet the 

same fate. 

2075. On 4 May 2007, Alec Muchadehama and Andrew Makoni were arrested and 

detained during their course of business on charges of obstructing the course of justice 

in the case of Amos Musekiwa and others who are facing arson charges. The two 

lawyers are the main legal representatives for the 30 members of the opposition group 

Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), who are accused by the Government of a 

series of petrol bomb attacks. Defence lawyer Muchadehama argued that several of 

his clients were already in detention when the alleged arson attacks took place. On 7 

May 2007, the lawyers were finally released after spending three days in police 

custody. The lawyers were being held despite two court orders ordering their release. 

In addition, they were both denied access to their lawyers. 

2076. On 8 May 2007, members of Law Society of Zimbabwe were subjected to 

brutal treatment by the state as they attempted to gather outside the High court of 

Zimbabwe in Harare for a peaceful solidarity protest against the arrest of the two 

lawyers and the non-execution of the court order. Around 60 lawyers had gathered, 

when they were ordered to disperse. As the lawyers began to disperse, police started 

assaulting them with baton sticks. Seeking protection in the Attorney General’s office, 

they met officers waiting for them inside the building. They were forced into a police 

truck, driven away, severely beaten up a few kilometres away and finally abandoned 

by the side of the road. It was also reported that contempt of court orders by the police 

had become frequent, and that lawyers exercising their duties in defending the people, 

and notably political dissidents, were experiencing increasing harassment and 

violence from the police. Grave concern was expressed for the lack of respect for the 

independence and authority of the judiciary and for the harassment and attacks on 

lawyers who execute their lawful mandate as provided for under the law, which is 

essential for the safeguard of fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens in the 

country.


Page 418 

Urgent appeal 

2077. On 12 June 2007, the Special Representative, together with the Chairperson- 



Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers and the Special 


concerning members of the Women and Men of Zimbabwe Association (WOZA- 

MOZA). Members of WOZA-MOZA have already been the subject of previous 

communications snet by mandate-holders, the most recent dated 7 December 2006, to 

which a reply was received on 14 December 2006. 

2078. According to the new information received, on 6 June 2007, around 200 

members of the Women and Men of Zimbabwe Association (WOZA-MOZA) 

undertook a silent and peaceful march through the city of Bulawayo to launch a 

document entitled "Ten steps to a new Zimbabwe”. The Association was also 

expressing its concern that Zimbabwean civil society was excluded from the ongoing 

dialogue initiated by the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) and mediated by 

South African President Thabo Mbeki, creating the danger that pertinent issues on 

civil, political, economic and social rights and democracy would be given not enough 

attention. After having walked one block, one group of participants was reportedly 

violently dispersed by the riot police. Five WOZA members, namely Ms. Rosemary 

Sibiza, Ms. Angeline Karuru, Ms. Martha Ncube, Ms. Sangeliso Dhlamini and 

Ms. Pretty Moyo, were badly beaten with baton sticks, arrested and detained at 

Bulawayo Central Police Station. 

2079. Upon hearing that five of their colleagues had been beaten, another group of 

women went to the police station. The police officers then assaulted the women, 

before arresting Ms. Jennifer Williams, WOZA National Co-ordinator and Ms. 

Magodonga Mahlangu, another WOZA leader. Following the arrest of the WOZA 

women, attorney Kossam Ncube went to the police station to represent them. At the 

police station, Superintendent Nsingo reportedly accused him of being “unethical” 

and “irresponsible” and stated that lawyers had no business at the police station as he 

sought to speak to his clients. He also ordered Mr. Ncube to leave and pushed him out 

of the station. On 7 June 2007, Mr. Ncube tried again to meet with his clients but was 

denied access by the police. 


2080. In letters dated 19 June and 4 September 2007, the Government of Zimbabwe 

responded to the above communication. The letters stated that this was not the first 

time that WOZA had violated the laws of Zimbabwe with the sole intention of 

attracting the attention of human rights groups. They further stated that all rights had 

been respected and access had been granted to lawyers. The letters informed that the 

first group of five accused persons had been charged with contravening section 46, 

sub-section 2 of the Criminal Code, “criminal nuisance”. They had taken to court on 8 

June 2007 where they were remanded until 21 June 2007 on $100,000 bail each. 

2081. On 21 June 2007, the police were instructed to proceed by way of summons. 

Jennifer Williams and Magodonga Mhlanga were charged for contravening section 37


Page 419 

(1) (a) (1) of the Criminal Code, “participating in an unlawful demonstration” and 

“criminal nuisance”. They were also released on $100,000 bail. They appeared in 

court on 22 June 2007. During the court proceedings their lawyer raised the question 

of constitutionality in respect of the charges against them. The case had since been 

referred to the Supreme Court for a determination on the issues raised by the defence 

lawyer. 




concerning Mr Beloved Chiweshe and Mr Munjodzi Mutandiri. Mr Chiweshe is the 

Secretary-General of the Zimbabwe National Students’ Union (ZINASU), and 

Munjodzi Mutandiri is the former President of Chinhoyi University of Technology 

(CUT) Students’ Union. According to information received, on 26 June 2007, at 

approximately 6pm, Mr Chiweshe and Mr Mutandiri were driving to Sotherton when 

their car was intercepted by police who ordered them to go to Sotherton Police 

Station. At the police station, Mr Chiweshe and Mr Mutandiri were identified as 

having appeared on a list of activists currently being sought by the Government. They 

were questioned as to the whereabouts of other known activists, in particular Mr Otto 

Saki who has reportedly been the subject of death threats sent to him in an attempt to 

dissuade him from providing legal assistance to human rights defenders in Zimbabwe 

following the events of 11 March 2007. 

2083. Mr Chiweshe and Mr Mutandiri were then forced onto a truck and brought to 

a sewer discharge river where they were allegedly instructed to drink the sewer water 

and perform a number of press-ups, 83 press-ups in honour of President Mugabe’s age 

and 27 to represent Zimbabwe’s national sovereignty. Mr Mutandiri collapsed as a 

result. After taking their belongings, including their clothes, mobile phones and 

money, the police left Mr Chiweshe and Mr Mutandiri in the river where they were 

found two hours later. The two were receiving medical treatment. Concern was 

expressed that the arrest and treatment of Mr Chiweshe and Mr Mutandiri may be 

related to their human rights activities and may form part of an ongoing pattern of 

intimidation against human rights defenders in Zimbabwe. 



to the above communication. The letter stated that the Police had no record of this 

matter and expressed surprise that academics at the highest institutions of learning 

would sink so low as to fail to know that is they were assaulted, ill-treated of handled 

in any manner that constituted an offence in a democratic country such as Zimbabwe, 

that the first port of call would be a police station where such threats are reported and 

investigations initiated. The letter states that the two men should have made a 

complaint immediately of any time after the alleged ill-treatment. In the view of the 

Government, there was little that could be done in the absence of an official complaint 

and it was evident that these allegations were completely false and merely meant to 

tarnish the reputation of the Government and the police. 

Urgent appeal


Page 420 



Government concerning Mr Kucaca Phulu, a lawyer and chairperson of the 

Zimbabwe Human Rights Association (also known as ZimRights). According to the 

information received, on 22 August 2007, Mr Phulu reportedly received threats over 

the phone by a person introducing himself as “Moyo” from the Zimbabwe African 

National Union - Patriotic Front. This person threatened Mr Phulu with physical harm 

for representing one of his clients who is charged with armed robbery and wanted for 

arrest, and warned him that should his client not be found, Mr Phulu would be killed 

in his place. 

2086. Serious concern was expressed that the aforementioned death threats against 

Mr Phulu may be related to his work in defence of human rights. Further concern was 

expressed that these threats may form part of an ongoing pattern of harassment against 

human rights defenders and lawyers in Zimbabwe. 



to the above communication. The letter firstly stated that the administration viewed 

the suggestion that the Government should guarantee that people should not receive 

threatening calls from any quarters as dusturbing, and difficult to ensure. The 

Government further responded that the allegations of death threats could not be 

substantiated as no complaint had been received regarding the case at hand. The 

Government did not see any reason why Mr Kucaca Phulu should not have made an 

official police report and asserted that in the absence of said report, it became difficult 

to institute investigations. 

Observations 

2088. The Special Representative thanks the Government of Zimbabwe for its 

responses to five of the communications sent but calls on the Government to respond 

to the remaining six communications sent in the time-period covered by this report 

and address the concerns raised. 

2089. The Special Representative remains deeply concerned by the threats and 

intimidation of human rights defenders in Zimbabwe, such as the lawyers Mr Kucaca 

Phulu, Mr Alec Muchadehama, Mr Andrew Makoni, Mr Arnold Tsunga and the trade 

union activists Mr Edward Dzeka and Mr Joyce Muwoni. 

2090. She would also like to address the supposed inconsistency in the 

communication of 7 December 2006 and bring to the Government’s attention that the 

urgent appeal referred to the release of those taken to Drill Hall as occurring the same 

day, and stated that, as of 1 December 2006, 34 members of the group remained in 

detention. She views with concern the continued harassment of members of the non- 

Governmental organization Women of Zimbabwe Arise and hope that the authorities 

will allow its members to exercise their right to freedom of assembly and peaceful 

protest without fear of intimidation or use of excessive force on the part of authorities.


Page 421 

2091. The Special Representative further expresses her regret that the government 

response of 10 December 2007, appears not to attach much importance to the 

allegations outlined in the communication of 20 July 2007 concerning the threats 

against and assault of Mr Beloved Chiweshe and Mr Munjodzi Mutandiri. She views 

allegations of harassment of human rights defenders which involve police officers as 

grave cause for concern and calls on the Government to conduct a thorough 

investigation of this case independently of the law enforcement agency whose 

members are allegedly implicated in the case. 

****

XXX words - Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?