Dear delegates,
It is a pleasure to welcome you to this first United Nations Simulation at El Colegio de México. This model is being celebrated in a very special moment for our institution since it is taking place on the honor of Professor Bernardo Sepúlveda Amor, who has been recently selected as Judge of the International Court of Justice and who is the professor of the International Law course at this institution. The tribute to Proffesor Sepúlveda is a way of recognizing his exceptional career that is a unique example for our generation.
On this opportunity we have decided to modify the classic format of UN Models so that resolutions will be ammended based on the comments of experts on the subject. Besides, we have selected topic areas that have not been addressed by the UN yet, and others that despite long discussions are still ongoing and relevant. In the case of the former ones -the Responsibility to protect and the impact of the War on Terror on Human Rights- it is our expectation that you can achieve creative and viable solutions to this issues that will eventually become part of the UN agenda since there are countries promoting them intensively. In the case of the latter ones -the follow up of the Kyoto Protocol and the reform of the UN Security Council- we have tried to change the way they have been dealt with the objective of taking more effective measures that really address the roots of both problems.
We hope you come well prepared so that your expertise on the issues added to the modifications we have done turn into resolutions with a high academic level. Be sure that we will make our best effort to make this an exceptional academic experience. Welcome again to El Colegio de México. If you have any doubt or comment, do not hesitate in contacting me. I am looking forward to meeting you so that we can discuss this interesting issues.
S I N C E R E L Y
Diego A. Dewar Viscarra
Secretary General
Dear Delegates,
It is a pleasure for us to greet you to the first United Nations Simulation at El Colegio de México, and especially to the Commision on Human Rights. This Committee is very special for us because of the topics that will be discussed.
This year we have chosen the effect of the war on terror on human rights with a special observation of the cases of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and Chechnya.After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the War on Terror has been used as an excuse by certain States to commit crimes that constitute violations to the human rights of innumerable individuals in the name of protecting their national security. However, we ought to ask ourselves if a country’s national security is something that deserves to be protected to the utmost consequences even if these include the torture and assassination of human beings. Critics and supporters of this behavior have raised their voice in different forums.
The simulation of the Commision of Human Rights requires some knowledge of the recent problems with the fight against terrorists and the violations come countries have been accused of committing with some detainees. We expect this will be a good experience for all the participants. Any additional information you need, contact us by e-mail.
Yours faithfully,
Karla Nieto NevarezPresident / José María Valenzuela Robles Linares
Moderator / Raudel Ávila Solís
Conference Officer
THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
The United Nations Commission on Human Rights was established in 1946 to construct the international legal structure that protects every human being’s fundamental rights and freedoms. The Commission not only sets standards to govern the conduct of States, but is also a forum where countries, non-governmental groups and human right defenders can voice their concerns.
The Commission has the responsibility to examine, monitor and publicly report on human rights situations in specific countries and territories as well as on major phenomena of human rights violations worldwide. These procedures and mechanisms are referred to as the Special Procedures of the Commission on Human Rights.[1] However, the United Nations has resolved to elevate the status of the Commission to Human Rights Council in order to make it more efficient and increase its capabilities. This also responds to the politicization recently developed in the Commission. Even though the objective is to inaugurate this new council by December 2005, the mandate, status and membership of the Council are still under discussion.[2]
THE EFFECT OF THE WAR ON TERROR ON HUMAN RIGHTS
After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the war on terror has been used as an excuse by certain states to commit crimes that constitute violations to the human rights of innumerable individuals in the name of protecting their national security. However, we ought to ask ourselves if a country’s national security is something that deserves to be protected to the utmost consequences even if these include the torture and assassination of human beings. In the following pages you will find a description of some cases in which the war on terror has been used by a state to commit human rights violations in order to advance its interests. You will then have the opportunity to discuss what the international community can do not only to keep these heinous acts from occurring again, but also to amend the ones that have already taken place.
In particular for Mexico, the protection of human rights at a time when the terrorist threats have come to dominate state policies is so important that achieving its protection is considered one of its foreign policy objectives. Mexico has been very active promoting resolutions in the UN system regarding the issue, especially in the General Assembly of the United Nations[3] and in the Commission of Human Rights[4] to seek assurance that even in the fight against terror human rights will be guaranteed. One of such resolutions, provided for the appointment of a Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism who will be in charge of gathering information on alleged violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism and make specific recommendations on the matter.[5] As you can see, the protection of human rights in the context of the war on terror is not only a pressing matter in the present world but also a very important issue in Mexico’s foreign policy and work in the international organizations. For that reason we strongly encourage you to read thoroughly both resolutions to base the debate on creative proposals which do not repeat the ones that have already been presented.
Abu Ghraib
Since the beginning of the occupation of Iraq, representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)[6] were allowed access to Iraqi detainees. From March to November 2003 the ICRC visitors made observations and recommendations to the coalition forces regarding the treatment of the prisoners. However, in February 2004 they submitted a report to the United States government which concluded that intelligence personnel in charge of the questioning of Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison had abused them.[7]
Based on this report, General Ricardo Sanchez, commander of the joint forces occupying Iraq, commanded General Antonio Taguba to conduct investigations on the behavior of the 800th Military Police Brigade in charge of the Abu Ghraib prison. This report determined that “between October and December 2003, at the Abu Ghraib Confinement Facility (BCCF), numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees.”[8] The type of abuses found by the Taguba investigation were: “ (1) Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees [, and] jumping on their naked feet; (2) Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees; (3) Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing; (4) Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time; (5) Forcing naked male detainees to wear women’s underwear; (6) Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped; (7) Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them; (8) Positioning a naked detainee on a … Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture; (9) Writing ‘I am a Rapist’ on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15 – year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked; (10) Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee’s neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture; (11) A male MP [military police] guard having sex with a female detainee; (12) Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee; and (13) Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees.”[9]
The crimes that occurred in Abu Ghraib did not go unpunished; however, it was not an international court that brought justice, but war tribunals in the United States.[10] In May 2004, seven officers of the 800th Brigade were accused of “conspiracy, dereliction of duty, cruelty, maltreatment, assault, and indecent acts”.[11] On May 19, one of them, Jeremy Sivits, was found guilty and condemned to one year in prison, demoted to private, and given a “bad conduct” discharge. In September 2005, Lynndie England was also found guilty of “one count of conspiracy, four counts of maltreating detainees and one count of committing an indecent act. She was acquitted on a second conspiracy count”.[12] However, despite these trials and their results, one of the questions that we must answer during the simulation is whether the sentences correspond to the magnitude of the crimes.
Guantanamo
When the international armed conflict in Afghanistan ended in June 2002, the USA treated prisoners of war and civilians without the adequate procedures. They were kept in captivity even though they weren’t charged with criminal offences nor with the existence of a competent tribunal.
But there is a number of prisoners that were not detained under the international armed conflict but afterwards. This made it necessary, as a minimum, to have them detained promptly, and thereafter periodically, reviewed. The same as the ones detained in countries outside of the zones of armed conflict which were subject to international human right law, including the right to prompt judicial review of the lawfulness of their detention and to release if that detention is deemed unlawful.[13]
On its 2005 report on human rights around the world, Amnesty International reported that on December 2002, United States Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld personally approved a memorandum that authorized the use of illegal techniques such as long isolation and drugs during interrogatories of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. When confronted, Secretary Rumsfeld answered that Amnesty International could not be taken seriously[14].
However, Amnesty International recorded the abuses and yet, despite its insistence, no independent investigation commission was formed to review the cases. The United States government tried to justify itself by giving arguments such as the following: it was said that the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution that refers to the right to trial and protects against unjustified privation of liberty could not be applied to foreigners captured outside the United States.[15] That meant that they could be kept behind bars without a trial for an indefinite period since they were enemies of the State. According to the administration, the Executive had the power to determine who these state enemies were in order to be able to fulfil his responsibility of protecting the land from future terrorist aggressions.
The Department of Defense published in 2005, a six-page document on its official website,[16] informing, or better said, trying to justify the extension of the detention of the prisoners in Guantanamo. In this document, it is admitted that there remain in the island 550 prisoners. It is also said that even after three years have passed, these prisoners are still giving important information for the Afghanistan operations. Mainly, they are said to have a lot of information on the Al-Qaeda organisation. Yet, it is impossible to check out this information given by Washington because of the confidentiality of the subject and the Pentagon rejection to independent research.
When the first prisoners arrived at Guantanamo Bay in January 2002 Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said: "We have indicated that we do plan to, for the most part, treat [the prisoners] in a manner that is reasonably consistent with the Geneva Conventions, to the extent they are appropriate, and that is exactly what we have been doing[17]." According to Amnesty International such a policy is clearly "vague and lacking", to use the words of the panel appointed by Secretary Rumsfeld to review the Pentagon’s detention operations.[18] However, the prisoners at Guantanamo were not even granted by the United States the status of war prisoners, and that is one of the reasons why the United States refuses to comply with International Law that protects the basic rights of these individuals. It was made clear that no detainee, whether a suspected member of the Taliban or Al Qaeda would be granted prisoner of war status or in cases of doubt presumed to be prisoners of war unless or until a "competent tribunal" determined otherwise. Therefore the rights - that all persons be equal before the law and the judges, that charges be made on internationally recognised matters, that all prisoners be considered innocent until proven guilty, and that every prisoner have the right to a lawyer and a translator in a language that he is able to understand - that Amnesty International claims for the prisoners are far from being granted.
The United States administration is not only resisting domestic judicial scrutiny of its actions in Guantanamo, but is rejecting the findings of international expert bodies. In 2002, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention challenged President Bush’s February 7, 2002 prisoner of war determinations. The Working Group pointed out that the authority competent to make such determinations "is not the executive power but the judicial power". It went on to assert that in cases where POW status was not recognized by a competent tribunal, the "situation of the detainees would be governed by the relevant provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in particular by articles 9 and 14, the first of which guarantees that the lawfulness of a detention shall be reviewed by a competent court, and the second of which guarantees the right to a fair trial"[19]. So far, no American agent has been charged with war crimes or torture under the United States War Crimes Act or Anti-Torture Act either[20]. As with the cases in Abu Ghraib only some elements of the military have undergone trail in a national court for crimes far less momentous than war crimes and torture.
Judge Joyce Hens Green, who served as the Chief Judge of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court offered the detainees and their families hope that justice would be done and their legal limbo ended[21]. Judge Green has mentioned that some Guantanamo prisoners were captured in places so far away from Afghanistan as Gambia, Zambia, Bosnia and Thailand. She wrote that even though some of these individuals could have never been close to a real battle field and had never used weapons against the United States and his allies, the Army named them as “enemy-combatants[22]”.
Amnesty International also informed that there are several prisoners in Guantanamo who are passing by a hunger strike as a protest way of their lack of capacity to attack their peculiar status before the tribunals. Susan Lee, the American regional program director has asked that independent observers may be allowed to visit sick prisoners in order to inform their families of the real conditions their relatives are passing through.
In its statement against torture and ill-treatment, Amnesty International concludes that:
“if there is no evidence against detainees they should be released. If there is evidence against them then they should be charged and tried, in accordance with internationally accepted standards of fairness, in an independent court that does not impose the death penalty[23].” An improvement to the condition of these prisoners was achieved when on June 28, 2004; the United States Supreme Court ruled in the case Rasul v. Bush that "United States courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay."[24] This signifies a great accomplishment for those who have suffered in Guantanamo though the results of these court ruling are yet to be seen in practice; still the need remains to find a way to correct these wrongs in the international arena.
Civilians
Human rights violations are not limited to prisoners of war captured by the United States on its war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq.[25] Afghan and Iraqi civilians have also suffered from abuses going from the registration of their houses to torture by the current Iraqi authorities. According to Amnesty International, in February 2005, three members of Badr, a political organisation of “chiita” inspiration were found dead. Their bodies had evidence of having being exposed to tortures and electroshocks. The television network, Al-Iraqiya is said to transmit terrorist confessions that have supposedly been extracted through torture, and that since these prisoners have no contact with the outside world, no one can confirm their condition. Civilians always suffer from wars, and even though they are protected by International Law through the Geneva Conventions, when their territories are ravaged by war there is not much they can do to resist abuses specially when in cases like these, the occupying force seems to be unstoppable in its pursuit for control even in territories where it should have no interference.