Syria: Millions of civilian lives depend on outcome of Tehran Summit

Ahead of the presidential summit which is set to take place in Tehran on Friday 7 September between Russia, Turkey and Iran to discuss the conflict in Syria, Samah Hadid, Amnesty International’s Middle East Director of Campaigns, said:

“The lives of millions of people in Idlib are now in the hands of Russia, Turkey and Iran – the three countries with the most influence over the parties involved in the conflict in Idlib. As this crucial summit convenes, they have the power to ensure civilians are protected from the relentless unlawful attacks that have characterized much of this brutal conflict.

“The shocking civilian death tolls and war crimes witnessed recently in other parts of Syria such as eastern Aleppo city, Eastern Ghouta, and Daraa must not be repeated in Idlib. It is essential that all parties to the conflict do not attack civilians, grant safe passage to civilians wishing to flee the fighting and attacks, and ensure unimpeded access to humanitarian relief for all civilians in need in Idlib.

“The humanitarian situation in Idlib – which is currently hosting some 700,000 internally displaced people on top of its two million residents – is already dire. People have little access to basic services such as healthcare, education and clean water and the vast majority rely on humanitarian aid. People cannot bear the consequences of yet another offensive using prohibited tactics such as starvation of civilians and indiscriminate bombardment.

“The international community must act immediately to pressure the Syrian government, armed opposition groups and their allies to respect international humanitarian law in order to avoid another humanitarian catastrophe.”

Failure to approve Chelsea Manning a visa sends chilling message on freedom of speech

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL | DIGITAL RIGHTS WATCH | GETUP! | HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CENTRE | AUSTRALIAN PRIVACY FOUNDATION | ELECTRONIC FRONTIERS AUSTRALIA | NATIONAL JUSTICE PROJECT

The government’s failure to approve a visa in time for human rights defender Chelsea Manning to enter Australia for a series of speaking events has been strongly condemned by a coalition of human rights organisations.

Amnesty International and several of Australia’s top human rights organisations have said the lack of decision is chilling and is a galling restriction on the human right to free speech, that strongly questions the value our government places on freedom of expression and political opinion.

Chelsea Manning was invited to Australia by Think Inc, for a series of talks which included discussion of the potential human rights violations she exposed as a whistleblower and her human rights activism in and since prison, including as an outspoken LGBTQI rights advocate. Ms Manning will instead appear via video link at all the scheduled events.

“By failing to approve a visa for Chelsea Manning, our Government has silenced an important voice on human rights and in doing so sends a message to the people of Australia, and to the international community, that this new Australian Government places little value on freedom of speech.” 

Claire Mallinson, National Director at Amnesty International Australia

Claire Mallinson, National Director at Amnesty International Australia said: “By failing to approve a visa for Chelsea Manning, our government has silenced an important voice on human rights and in doing so sends a message to the people of Australia, and to the international community, that this new Australian Government places little value on freedom of speech.”

Tim Singleton Norton, Chair of Digital Rights Watch said: “This is nothing more than a political stunt designed to appease the current US administration, and an unnecessary imposition on the movements of a world renowned civil rights activist. The Australian Government talks a lot about freedom of speech, but this rarely seems to be extended to defend those who profess opinions that are not aligned with their own.”

Paul Oosting, National Director for Getup! said: “Mr Dutton has boasted repeatedly about his common sense approach to immigration, but here he is denying Australians the opportunity to engage in conversation with a renowned human rights whistleblower. It seems that under this government Chelsea Manning would have more chance getting into the country if she was an au pair for one of Peter Dutton’s mates.”

“As a democracy we should be encouraging not banning contributions from people like Chelsea Manning. This is yet another example highlighting the need for far stronger checks and balances over the Minister’s powers under migration laws.”

Hugh de Kretser, Executive Director of the Human Rights Law Centre

Hugh de Kretser, Executive Director of the Human Rights Law Centre said: “As a democracy we should be encouraging not banning contributions from people like Chelsea Manning. This is yet another example highlighting the need for far stronger checks and balances over the Minister’s powers under migration laws.”

Dr Monique Mann from Australian Privacy Foundation said: “This decision highlights the subjectivity of Australia’s current immigration controls, and the scope for politicisation. The NZ process for instance, where a Special Direction Visa has been granted for Chelsea, is more objective, focusing on the negligible risk of re-offending or breaching visa conditions.”

Lyndsey Jackson, Chair of Electronic Frontiers Australia said: “It is appalling that New Zealanders are afforded the opportunity to hear Ms Manning share her experiences in person, but Australians who had bought tickets to sold out events across the country miss out.”

George Newhouse from the National Justice Project said,  “The Australian Government saw fit to welcome General Petraeus to Australia.  He was convicted for disclosing Secret materials, a much higher classification than anything Chelsea Manning released.  The government’s hypocrisy is yet another shameful episode in Australia’s diminishing reputation within the international community.”

Our organisations believe that failing to allow Chelsea Manning entry to Australia based on a past criminal conviction is an impermissible restriction on her right to freedom of expression and hampers her legitimate human rights work.

Chelsea Manning should not continue to face penalties after the time she served in jail and the commutation of her sentence by presidential order. She should have been granted a visa to enter Australia and be free to tell her story to Australian citizens who wish to hear it.

Background

  • Chelsea was set to speak at events organised by Think Inc. an organisation focused on promoting discussion and debate in Australia and internationally. Events included ANTIDOTE at the Sydney Opera House on September 2 and, in Melbourne on September 7 and Brisbane on September 11.
  • Chelsea Manning was sentenced in the USA to 35 years in prison after releasing information that pointed to potential human rights violations and crimes under international law by US and other armed forces. The trial was marred by due process shortcomings. Key documents were withheld from her defence team, who were only permitted to call 10 of their 48 witnesses while the prosecution called 80. The trial entailed many closed sessions, court records were kept secret, and key defence arguments were preemptively eliminated. Initial claims that the release led to harm to armed forces personnel were not substantiated, although these discredited allegations are still repeated by external critics.
  • Chelsea Manning served 7 years in prison, three of those years were in pre-trial detention, 11 months in conditions which the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture described as cruel and inhumane.
  • Her sentence was commuted by President Obama in January 2017; in doing so, the US President observed that her sentence was excessive when compared with similar offences by others.

Malaysia: Caning of two women a terrible day for human rights

Responding to the news that a sentence of six strokes of caning has been carried out in a courtroom against two women in Terengganu state – reportedly witnessed by family members and government officials – after they were convicted of attempting to have consensual same-sex sexual relations with each other, Rachel Chhoa-Howard, Amnesty International’s Malaysia Researcher, said:

“This is a terrible day for LGBTI rights, and indeed human rights, in Malaysia. To inflict this brutal punishment on two people for attempting to engage in consensual, same-sex relations is an atrocious setback in the government’s efforts to improve its human rights record.

“The caning of the two women is a dreadful reminder of the depth of discrimination and criminalization that LGBTI people face in the country. It’s a sign that the new government condones the use of measures that amount to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment, much like its predecessor.

“As long as draconian legislation which criminalizes Malaysians based on their sexual orientation and gender identity remains on the books, LGBTI people will continue to be at risk of this type of punishment. People should not live in fear because of who they are who they love – the Malaysian authorities must immediately repeal repressive laws, outlaw torturous punishments, and ratify the UN Convention against Torture.”

Myanmar: Reuters journalists’ guilty verdict sends stark warning on press freedom

Responding to the news that Reuters journalists, Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo, have been sentenced to seven years in jail after being found guilty of breaching Myanmar’s Official Secrets Act, Tirana Hassan, Amnesty International’s Director of Crisis Response, said:

“Today’s appalling verdict has condemned two innocent men to years behind bars. Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo face lengthy jail terms simply because they dared to ask uncomfortable questions about military atrocities in Rakhine State. These convictions must be quashed, and both men immediately and unconditionally released.    

“This politically-motivated decision has significant ramifications for press freedom in Myanmar. It sends a stark warning to other journalists in the country of the severe consequences that await should they look too closely at military abuses. This amounts to censorship through fear.

“Today’s verdict cannot conceal the truth of what happened in Rakhine State. It’s thanks to the bravery of journalists like Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo, that the military’s atrocities have been exposed. Instead of targeting these two journalists, the Myanmar authorities should have been going after those responsible for killings, rape, torture and the torching of hundreds of Rohingya villages.”

Background

Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo were arrested in Yangon, Myanmar’s main city, on 12 December 2017. At the time, the two men had been investigating military operations in northern Rakhine State. These operations were marked by crimes against humanity targeting the Rohingya population, including deportation, unlawful killings, rape, torture and burning of homes and villages.

The two journalists were held incommunicado for two weeks before being transferred to Yangon’s Insein prison. The Official Secrets Act – one of a number of repressive laws in Myanmar – carries a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison.

Pacific Islands Forum / Nauru: NGO coalition calls for halt to escalating child health crisis

The escalating health crisis for refugee children on Nauru and the Australian Government’s shameful refugee policy must be at the top of the agenda when regional heads of government meet at the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) next week, said Amnesty International, in an open letter co-signed by a coalition of 84 influential civil society organisations.

The letter urges PIF leaders to call for an immediate end to Australia’s cruel and abusive refugee policy, which has seen more than 2000 women, men and children warehoused on Nauru and Manus Island in cruel and degrading conditions over the past five years.

“Pacific Island leaders cannot ignore this issue any longer and need to ensure that it is at the very top of the forum’s agenda,” said Roshika Deo, Amnesty International’s Pacific Researcher.

“This is a desperate situation that requires urgent action. Regional leaders must show that they will not stand by while the Australian Government’s abusive policies continue to risk more lives. It is a stain on the region.”

“This is a desperate situation that requires urgent action. Regional leaders must show that they will not stand by while the Australian Government’s abusive policies continue to risk more lives. It is a stain on the region” – Roshika Deo, Amnesty International’s Pacific Researcher

Earlier this week three medical professionals warned that refugee children on Nauru are facing an unprecedented health crisis and are at real risk of death. Documents leaked to media in Australia reveal horrific incidences of self-harm, including a 14-year-old child who “had poured petrol over herself and had a lighter”, and another 10-year-old refugee who “attempted to self-harm by ingesting some sharp metal objects”.

“The system is clearly broken if children are even considering self-harm,” said Roshika Deo.

The release of this disturbing information came only a week after a critically ill 12-year-old boy was finally flown to Australia for medical treatment, following repeated delays by the Australian Government in transferring him, despite medical advice that he was at imminent risk of dying.

These shocking revelations come at a time when the Australian Government has begun winding back health services and other support to refugees, including the removal of access to psycho-social support and translators in the past year.

Amnesty International is calling on the Australian Government to end offshore processing and immediately transfer refugees and asylum seekers in Manus and Nauru to Australia or to another safe third country. Pacific Island Forum leaders must ensure the human rights of refugees in their territories are protected.

The Pacific Islands Forum, an intergovernmental organisation that aims to promote cooperation between the countries of the Pacific, will take place in Nauru from 3-6 September.

Background

On 19 July 2013, Australia enacted a policy that meant anyone who arrived by boat anywhere in Australia – including the mainland – would be barred from seeking asylum in the country. Instead, any persons arriving by boat would be transferred to Manus Island in Papua New Guinea or Nauru, and even those recognised as refugees would never be allowed to settle in Australia.

More than 1600 people remain on Manus Island and Nauru, with the majority being assessed as refugees. Under a bilateral agreement, whereby the United States Government agreed to settle up to 1250 refugees, nearly 400 refugees have been sent to the US in the past year. However, hundreds of people are likely to remain on Manus Island and Nauru in abysmal conditions indefinitely, with no clear plans for their future.

In Papua New Guinea, refugees and people seeking asylum have been violently attacked by locals, contractors and the authorities. In Nauru, there have been widespread reports of physical and sexual abuse, including against women and children.

Nauru and Papua New Guinea are unable to provide protection for refugees and asylum seekers and the Australian Government refuses to accept responsibility for refugees and asylum seekers who remain under its effective control in these territories.

The full list of signatories to the open letter can be found below.

 

JOINT OPEN LETTER:

TO THE PACIFIC ISLANDS FORUM LEADERS AND OBSERVERS IN THE CONTEXT OF AUSTRALIA’S ABUSIVE OFFSHORE REFUGEE PROCESSING POLICY

We are writing to urge that Australia’s cruel treatment of refugees in the Pacific countries of Papua New Guinea and Nauru is considered at the top of the agenda at the 49th Pacific Islands Forum Meeting.

While it is hard to call out close neighbours and allies, the Pacific Islands Forum is the correct space for this urgent discussion. It is important that Pacific Island countries hold Australia and each other accountable to human rights obligations for all refugees and people seeking asylum.

Pacific Islanders remain the most vulnerable and impacted by climate change, and also are global leaders on climate and disaster response. As worsening ecological conditions continue to escalate a global refugee crisis, a global human rights benchmark needs to be established, with Pacific leaders at the forefront of this change.

As you will be aware, since 2013, the Australian Government has been unlawfully sending asylum seekers arriving in its territory by boat to the Pacific Island nations of Papua New Guinea (to the remote province of Manus) and to Nauru.

These refugees and people seeking asylum have been subject to cruel and degrading conditions over the past five years, with widespread reports of violence against refugees in Papua New Guinea and violence and sexual harassment of women and children on Nauru.  The worsening plight of refugees and asylum seekers on Manus and Nauru has been well documented by the UN Refugee agency UNHCR and by human rights organisations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Human Rights Law Centre; by refugee support agencies and faith-based justice groups globally, and in national, regional and global media.

Papua New Guinea and Nauru cannot and will not be able to provide just, safe or durable solutions for the protection of this group of refugees, and the Australian Government continues to shirk its responsibility for the over 2000 people it has forcibly sent there. This is while Australia has just successfully lobbied for UN membership of the Human Rights Council from 2018.

The UNHCR has condemned Australia’s cruel policies, and noted that these refugees and asylum seekers have amongst the highest rates of mental illness for any refugee population worldwide. It is amid this climate that the Australian Government has begun winding back health and other support to refugees, including removal of psycho-social support and access to translators in the last year.

In late 2016, the Australian and USA governments announced an arrangement for the USA to take up to 1250 refugees from Manus and Nauru. This agreement has resulted in a total of 493 refugees going through a US assessment process, with 372 refugees accepted for relocation, most of whom have been transferred to the US already. However, a further 121 people including some with refugee status, have been rejected by the US with a large portion being of Iranian nationality. Around 1650 people currently remain in Papua New Guinea and Nauru.

Even if the US accepts the 1250 refugees it has agreed to settle, between 600 and 800 people will remain indefinitely on Manus and Nauru, with no solution in sight. This number is likely to be more if Iranians continue to be largely excluded or rejected from the US/Australia agreement. The Australian Government has not made clear plans for these people, but has repeatedly stated they will never be brought to Australia. Growing civil society and people’s movements in Australia continue to advocate to ‘Bring them here’ as general living and medical conditions deteriorate and self-harm, suicide and deaths increase.

The Australian Government has blocked an offer by the Aotearoa/New Zealand Government to settle up to 150 refugees from Manus and Nauru per year.

We call on the Australian Government to immediately end offshore processing. We further call on Australia to immediately transfer people it sent to Manus and Nauru back to Australia or to another safe third country, where they will enjoy the full legal rights and protection of that country.

We sincerely urge Pacific Island Forum leaders to make these same calls, in consideration of the human rights and justice for the people on Manus and Nauru. We sincerely urge Pacific Island Forum leaders to also ensure the human rights of refugees in their territories are protected.

Sincerely,

Signatories

  1.    Amnesty International
  2.    Amnesty International Australia
  3.    Amnesty International New Zealand
  4.    Diverse Voices and Action for Equality (DIVA)
  5.    The Pacific Conference of Churches
  6.    Vanuatu Human Rights Coalition
  7.    Oxfam in the Pacific
  8.    Fiji NGO Coalition on Human Rights (NGOCHR)
  9.    Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre
  10. The Fiji Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission
  11. Voice for Change, Jiwaka Province, PNG
  12. Bune United Sister from Tombil Village, Minj, Jiwaka Province, PNG
  13. Mubalu Sisters of Hope Federation of Western Highlands Province, PNG
  14. The Catholic Women Federation of Jiwaka Province, PNG
  15. Solomon Islands Young Women’s Parliamentary Group
  16. The Solomon Islands Women’s Rights Action Movement (WRAM)
  17. Forum Solomon Islands International (FSII)
  18. FemLINKpacific
  19. Oceania Pride, Fiji
  20. Palau Chamber of Commerce
  21. 350 Pacific and the Pacific Climate Warriors
  22. Citizens’ Constitutional Forum (CCF), Fiji
  23. Strumphet Alliance Network, Fiji
  24. Vanuatu Young Women For Change (VYW4C)
  25. Vatu Mauri Consortium
  26. Anne’s Christian Community Health School and Nursing Services
  27. The Secretariat of the Alliance for Future Generations (AFG), Fiji
  28. Fiji Council of Social Services (FCOSS)
  29. Aspire Network, Fiji
  30. Fiji Women’s Rights Movement (FWRM)
  31. Survival Advocacy Network (SAN)
  32. Rainbow Pride Foundation (RPF), Fiji
  33. Tonga Leitis Association (TLA)
  34. Haus of Khameleon, Fiji
  35. Pacific Sexual and Gender Diversity Network (PSGDN)
  36. Pacific Partnerships on Gender, Climate Change and Sustainable Development (PPGCCSD)
  37. Pacific Women’s Network Against Violence Against Women
  38. Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC) Pacific Regional Secretariat
  39. World Vision New Zealand
  40. World Vision Australia
  41. Refugee Council of Australia (RCOA)
  42. Australian Council for International Development (ACFID)
  43. Asia Pacific Refugee Rights Network (APRRN)
  44. Women’s Major Group (WMG) on Sustainable Development, Pacific Small Island Developing (PSIDS)
  45. Uniting Church in Australia, Queensland Synod
  46. Communify Qld, Australia
  47. Asylum Circle, Australia
  48. Oxfam Australia
  49. ActionStation Aotearoa
  50. The Weaving House, New Zealand
  51. First Home Project, Perth, West Australia
  52. Cornerstone Church, Perth, West Australia
  53. Asia Pacific Transgender Network (APTN)
  54. ActionAid Australia
  55. Love Makes a Way, Australia
  56. Asylum Seeker Resource Centre (ASRC), Australia
  57. International Women’s Development Agency (IWDA), Australia
  58. Teacher for Refugees and People Seeking Asylum (TRAPSA), QLD
  59. Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development (APWLD)
  60. International Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific (IWRAW)
  61. Urgent Action Fund for Women’s Human Rights Asia and Pacific (UAF A&P)
  62. Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN)
  63. We Rise Coalition
  64. Loreto Sisters Australia & South East Asia
  65. Reacción Climática (RC), Bolivia
  66. Centre for Indigenous Cultures of Peru (Chirapaq), Peru
  67. Fundación Arcoiris, México
  68. Red De Educacion Popular entre Mujeres de América Latina y el Caribe (REPEM)
  69. Cornerstone Church Joondalup, Western Australia
  70. Women Engage for a Common Future (WECF), Europe
  71. Childolescent and Family Survival Organization Women’s Rights Action Group (CAFSO-WRAG), Nigeria
  72. Civil Society Coalition on Sustainable Development (CSCSD), Nigeria
  73. Civil Society Coalition on Migration and Diaspora, Nigeria
  74. Women and Media Collective (WMC), Sri Lanka
  75. Africa Development Interchange Network (ADIN), Cameroon
  76. Commonwealth Civil Society Advisory Committee (CSAC), Cameroon
  77. Global Social Economy Group (GSEG), Cameroon
  78. Mexican Foundation for Family Planning (MEXFAM), Mexico
  79. Réseau Genre et Droits de la Femme (GEDROFE), Democratic Republic of Congo
  80. Passionists International, USA
  81. Association For Promotion of Sustainable Development (APSD HISAR), India
  82. Feminist Task Force (FTF), USA
  83. Equality Bahamas
  84. Realizing Sexual and Reproductive Justice (RESURJ), Global

 

Chelsea Manning: Australian Government may refuse visa

The Australian Government is considering denying US activist Chelsea Manning a visa to enter Australia for a speaking tour.

Chelsea Manning served seven years in prison, including 11 months in cruel and inhumane conditions, after releasing information pointing to potential human rights violations and crimes by US forces.

An outspoken LGBTQI rights advocate, Chelsea Manning is scheduled to give a series of talks around the country. She plans to discuss the violations she exposed as a whistle-blower and her human rights activism since being released from prison.

Intention to refuse visa

Think Inc, the Australian organiser of Chelsea Manning’s tour received a Notice of Intention to Consider Refusal under s501 of the Migration Act from the Australian Government. Section 501 of the Migration Act allows the government to deny anyone a visa if they do not pass “the character test”.

In response to the news, Claire Mallinson, National Director of Amnesty International Australia, said: “Amnesty International is very concerned that the Australian government is seeking to silence American activist Chelsea Manning by intending to deny her a visa into Australia.

“By refusing her entry, the Australian Government would send a chilling message that freedom of speech is not valued in this country. It is not too late for the government to change its mind.”

“There is great interest in what Chelsea Manning has to say, evidenced by the fact her upcoming public appearances in Australia are selling quickly.”

– Claire Mallinson, National Director of Amnesty International Australia

Freedom of expression

Denying Chelsea Manning entry to Australia based on a past criminal conviction is a restriction on her right to freedom of expression and hampers her legitimate human rights work.

“Chelsea Manning should not continue to face penalties after the time she served in jail and the commutation of her sentence by presidential order,” said Claire Mallinson.

“There is great interest in what Chelsea Manning has to say, evidenced by the fact her upcoming public appearances in Australia are selling quickly. This decision must be reversed and Chelsea Manning must be allowed to continue with her speaking tour so Australians have an opportunity to engage in discussion of human rights issues.”

Amnesty International has written to the Department of Home Affairs strongly urging the Government to allow Chelsea Manning to be granted a visa to enter Australia and be free to tell her story to Australians who wish to hear it.

By refusing her entry, the Australian government would send a chilling message that freedom of speech is not valued by our government.

– Claire Mallinson

In 2010, Chelsea Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison in the US in a trial marred by due process issues, including not being able to present evidence that she had been acting in the public interest. In the final days of his term, President Obama commuted Chelsea Manning’s sentence and she walked free in May 2017.

Why become an Amnesty Member?

Why become an Amnesty Member?

Amnesty International is a Member-led movement. Our Members are leading voices in our work to promote and protect Human Rights. They have a say in the running of the organisation and also contribute to deciding which campaigns should be supported and how our activism is practiced. This allows our Members to influence the direction of our Human Rights work and to play a bigger part in our movement.

Amnesty is run in a democratic manner with Members voting for their regional representatives. Members also vote to select regional delegates to the national general meetings. They can attend these meetings to discuss the issues that they feel are important, and can submit items to be heard on the agenda.

Members can stand for positions on regional and national governance bodies and committees. Non-members and Amnesty staff are not eligible to stand.

Members also receive regular updates from the Amnesty leadership (e.g. the National Board).

What is an Amnesty Member?

A Member is a person who is over the age of 18, is resident in Australia, and has paid the annual Membership fee.  This fee is not a donation and is not tax deductible. Some Amnesty supporters have donated regularly for years but are not Members unless they have also paid the annual Membership fee. The Membership fee is being reduced to a flat rate of $22 per person from September, replacing the previous Standard, Family and Concession fees.

The Branch Committee encourages all our supporters, activists and volunteers to become Members so you can participate in the running of Amnesty and have your voice heard on the Human Rights issues that are important to you.

Please go here to either become a Member or to renew your Membership.

Rob Roylance
NSW Branch Committee Member

For further information about the Branch Committee or Membership please email to: nswbranchsecretary@amnesty.org.au

 

Yemen: United Nations’ scathing report underscores need for arms embargo, tougher scrutiny

  • Amnesty International has concerns about Australia’s military exports to Saudi Arabia

Responding to a scathing report published by the United Nations Group of Eminent Experts on Yemen (GEE) which concludes that all parties to the conflict may be guilty of war crimes, Lynn Maalouf, Amnesty International’s Middle East research director, said:

“The GEE, in its first report, confirms what we have known for the past three years, namely that all parties to the conflict in Yemen have acted with utter disregard for civilian lives. The Saudi Arabia-led coalition and allied forces, Huthi and Yemeni government aligned forces have consistently carried out unlawful attacks, restricted access to humanitarian aid, carried out widespread arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances, child recruitment and other serious violations that have and continue to inflict unimaginable suffering on Yemen’s civilian population.

“Scrutiny and strong action from the international community are more crucial than ever. The USA, UK and other states should do everything in their power to prevent further violations and address the catastrophic humanitarian crisis. They should start by immediately stopping the flow of arms to the country and end the Coalition’s arbitrary restrictions on humanitarian assistance and essential imports.

“The armed conflict is still ongoing, and the GEE’s mandate should be renewed ahead of the 39th session of the Human Rights Council next month. It is imperative that it can investigate new violations and abuses, and identify those responsible, with the same depth and rigour.”

Background

On September 2017, the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) passed a resolution (number 36/31) to establish a Group of Eminent Experts (GEE) on Yemen involving international and regional experts with knowledge of human rights law and the context of Yemen for one year, renewable as authorised.

On December 2017, three independent experts were appointed and the GEE began its work in February 2018.

The GEE was mandated to investigate violations and abuses committed by all parties to the conflict in Yemen between September 2014 and June 2018, and to identify, where possible, those responsible. It carried out six investigative missions to Yemen between March and May 2018, visiting the governorates of Hodeidah, Sa’da, Sana’a and Aden. It also reported having shared information linking specific violations or abuses with purported perpetrators with the UN High Commissioner confidentially.

Cambodian land rights activist Tep Vanny released

After more than 700 days in detention Tep Vanny, a Cambodian land rights activist, is released from prison.

What happened?

Tep Vanny was released from prison following a royal pardon. Vanny spent over 700 days in prison, after being arrested on 16 August 2016.

For almost 10 years, she has defended her community in the centre of Phnom Penh where the Cambodian Government has forcibly evicted thousands of families from their homes.

For years, Tep Vanny has been targeted by the authorities for her activism. She has been harassed, beaten, arrested and imprisoned.

In doing this, the government has attempted to silence her voice and send a chilling message to the Cambodian people of what can happen if you stand up for your rights, and the rights of others.

She was arrested for taking part in a ceremony as part of “Black Monday”, a campaign launched in 2016 to call for the release of five imprisoned human rights defenders.

On 23 February 2017, Phnom Penh’s First Instance Court convicted Tep Vanny of “intentional violence with aggravating circumstances”, and sentenced her to two and a half years imprisonment.

The conviction was based on her peaceful participation in a March 2013 protest in front of Prime Minister Hun Sen’s house, calling for the release of one of the arbitrarily detained Boeung Kak Lake Community Members.

Cambodia’s crackdown on civil society

Civil space in Cambodia has been shrinking radically over the past few years. Arbitrary restrictions of the rights of freedom of expression, assembly and association are the new norm.

The country’s ruling party launched a ruthless crackdown on all forms of dissent in the lead up to general elections in July 2018. Opposition figures, rights activists and journalists have all become targets of the authorities.

At least 35 other leading opposition figures have been arrested since 2015. The main opposition party, the Cambodia National Rescue Party, has been dissolved, and many of its key members have been banned from political activity for five years.

NGOs and individual human rights activists like Tep Vanny have continued to bravely fight against injustice, increasingly doing so at their own risk.

In September 2018, the English-language Cambodia Daily – one of the country’s few independent print media outlets – was abruptly forced to close over an allegedly unpaid tax bill. Around the same time, the government forced broadcasts from Voice of America and Radio Free Asia off the air, while also shutting down the independent radio station Voice of Democracy. Broadcast media in Cambodia is now almost completely under government control.

How did Amnesty respond?

Amnesty International considered Tep Vanny a prisoner of conscience held solely for her peaceful human rights work, and began campaigning for her release following her imprisonment.

She was a key figure in the global Brave campaign, which calls on governments to support and stand up for human rights defenders like Tep Vanny.

In April 2018, Amnesty International France handed over 200,00 actions to the Cambodian embassy in Paris calling for Tep Vanny’s release. This included 24,192 actions taken by Australians.

What next?

After more than two years of being unjustly detained for her peaceful activism, the news that Tep Vanny is once again reunited with her family is a cause for great celebration.

However, her release was long overdue. Tep Vanny has endured a catalogue of injustice – from baseless, politically-motivated charges to unfair trials – and should never have been imprisoned in the first place.

As well as allowing Tep Vanny to resume her activism without fear of further reprisals, Cambodia’s authorities must quash all convictions against her and halt any investigations into any other pending charges. Additionally, the many other human rights defenders and prisoners of conscience still languishing behind bars in the country must also be immediately and unconditionally released.

Japan’s sexism problem runs deep

With only tepid support in Japan for the #MeToo campaign against sexual harassment, Amnesty’s East Asia Researcher Hiroka Shoji believes Japanese women must hold the government to account and demand respect for their rights.

“I beat my wife again, because she gave birth to a girl.” These are the words my grandfather wrote in his diary on the day my mother was born in 1958. He was angry because he now had two daughters but still no son to continue the bloodline. This attitude was not unusual among Japanese men of his generation.

While he regularly beat my grandmother, my aunt and my mother, my grandfather never raised his hand to my uncle, born four years after my mother. He was cherished as the family heir.

It has been 60 years since my mother was born. Though Japan has made enormous economic progress during that time, there’s been little progress in attitudes toward women.

I was born and raised in the Tokyo area. The recent revelations that Japan’s leading medical school had manipulated entrance exam scores to exclude women for more than a decade generated global headlines – but it hardly shocked me. While it is rare for such clear evidence of institutional discrimination against women to emerge in Japan, I am still constantly reminded of a woman’s traditional role in Japanese society, whether it’s coming from lawmakers or ordinary acquaintances.

The same discrimination based on gender in academic institutions can be found in Japanese high school entrance exams. Schools often offer equal numbers of places to boys and girls through examinations. However, because girls tend to score higher in those examinations, schools require them to have higher scores than boys for enrolment.

What was shocking to me is that more than 65% of Japanese medical doctors who responded to a survey said reducing the entrance exam scores for women is unavoidable, since the extreme working hours make it impossible for female doctors to work full time while taking care of their children. Japanese society still sees household chores and childcare as the main responsibility of women, whether or not they are in paid employment.

The same survey revealed that many female doctors were told by colleagues not to get pregnant because it would increase the burden for others in the workplace. This pattern can also be seen in other sectors with labor shortages, such as childcare.

For too long, many women internalised such discrimination and took it as a given. I was no exception. When I was job-hunting with Japanese corporations during university, the recruiters often asked: “Do you have a boyfriend?” and “Will you give up your job when you get married or get pregnant?”

Under existing gender norms, in other words, giving birth and raising children is still considered a woman’s main contribution to Japanese society. This view is deeply ingrained.

Rather than recognising these questions as a clear example of gender-based discrimination, I took them as a routine set of questions all female students are asked by recruiters. In Japan, having both a successful career and a family is rarely seen as feasible.

When I sought career advice from alumnae at my university, the women told me that they had little option but to stop working after giving birth. This is because it is still far too common for women to have to take care of the household chores and child-raising on top of working full time. With limited support from their spouses, a shortage of publicly funded day-care and few policies or practices to enable flexible ways of working, many consider it impossible to continue their career.

Once children are old enough to stay home on their own after school, women re-enter the job market as part-time workers with low earning potential and limited prospects for career advancement despite their education and capability.

Increasing numbers of young women are no longer willing to give up their own career aspirations to raise a family, one reason behind the sharp drop in the number of marriages in Japan and the lowest birth rate for decades.

There was only tepid support in Japan for the #MeToo campaign against sexual harassment, compared to the impact it had elsewhere in world.

Under existing gender norms, in other words, giving birth and raising children is still considered a woman’s main contribution to Japanese society. This view is deeply ingrained. In 2007, the Minister of Health, Labor and Welfare, Hakuo Yanagisawa, said publicly that “women are child-bearing machines.”

Just last month, Mio Sugita, a parliamentarian from the ruling party, used gender stereotypes around child-bearing to attack same-sex marriage. Sugita sparked widespread criticism after a magazine article in which she challenged the use of taxpayers’ money to support same-sex marriages, writing that, because same-sex couples “don’t produce children…they lack productivity and, therefore, do not contribute to the prosperity of the nation.”

These are just two examples of stereotypes that are commonly shared throughout Japan.

Things are starting to change. In August, 57 lawyers across Japan formed a coalition to support redress for students who applied for the medical school. Yet the movement to challenge gender discrimination in Japan is not yet broad enough to bring about significant reforms. There was only tepid support in Japan for the #MeToo campaign against sexual harassment, compared to the impact it had elsewhere in world.

In 2017, journalist Shiori Ito became the first Japanese woman to speak publicly about the sexual violence she had experienced, after prosecutors decided to drop the case. Ito alleges that in 2015 she was raped by prominent Japanese TV journalist Noriyuki Yamaguchi. He denies the allegations.

Instead of being praised for her courage in speaking out, she faced a public backlash including death threats. Women and men branded her an embarrassment and she was mocked on television by Japanese officials for immoral behavior and accused of sleeping around to advance her career. Anonymous threats made her feel so unsafe that she eventually moved to the UK.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has made “creating a society where all women shine” a key message in his growth policy for Japan, but the country will need a much stronger foundation if it hopes to achieve this. Women in Japan manage to shine in spite of the system—not because of it.

Rather than silently enduring discrimination, Japanese women must hold the government to account and demand respect for our rights.

The government of Japan has legal obligations under international human rights standards to eliminate discrimination against women and girls and guarantee equality, including in the fields of education and employment. It is also obliged to take all appropriate measures to modify social and cultural beliefs and patterns to eliminate practices that are based either on ideas of the inferiority or the superiority of either sex, or on gender stereotypes.

Even more important is for all women—myself included—who have internalised everyday gender discrimination to consider what steps we can take to bring about the changes needed in society. Rather than silently enduring discrimination, Japanese women must hold the government to account and demand respect for our rights.

This article was first published by TIME.