Rape as a Weapon of War

In order for the rule of law to be truly just, there must be equal access to justice for women. GJC works to ensure legal rights for women victims of war, fight impunity and ensure accountability for crimes against women. GJC’s “Rape As a Weapon of War” project focuses on having rape as a weapon of war prosecuted as an illegal weapon under international law, thus increasing victim’s avenues for medical treatment, reparations, and access to justice.

The laws of war prohibit the use of all weapons or tactics of warfare that cause superfluous injury, unnecessary suffering, or violate “principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience.’’ Rape is a prohibited weapon or tactic of war under the criteria set by the laws of war. Yet, despite the endemic use of rape as a weapon, no state has ever been held accountable for the use of rape as a prohibited weapon of war.

Rape is the most powerful, cost-effective weapon available for destroying the lives of “enemy” women, families, and entire communities. Rape is being used more than any other prohibited weapon of war including biological or chemical weapons. The failure to treat war rape like other illegal weapons removes the central protection of the laws governing the conduct of war from rape victims, mainly women and girls. It is time to punish states that use rape as an unlawful weapon in armed conflict.


Ending Impunity for Widespread and Systematic Use of Sexual Violence in Colombia’s Ongoing Armed Conflict

On November 27, as part of 16 Days of Activism against Gender Violence, advocacy group ABColumbia published a report on women, conflict-related sexual violence and the Colombian peace process. This report reveals the widespread and systematic use of sexual violence in Colombia’s ongoing armed conflict by security forces, guerilla groups and paramilitaries. Torture and mutilation, the killing of unborn children, rape in the presence of family members and gang-rape are used as a tactic to achieve military goals. This report sheds light on the strategic use of rape as an illegal weapon of war, a method of conducting hostilities that violate states’ responsibility as well as international law. This report also illuminates the economic and cultural systems that sustain violence against women and girls – pre-existing norms and patterns of discrimination, both inside and outside the conflict – that must be dismantled to establish an equality-based rule of law in Colombia. Massively underreported, these crimes are almost never prosecuted and the impunity rate for sexual-related crimes runs at more than 98 percent. According to the report, ending the almost total impunity for this crime is essential for the potential success of a peace process in Colombia.

A woman holds up a poster dotted with rose petals and a message that reads in Spanish; “Only a kiss would shut me up,” during a march to protest physical abuse of women and in support of Colombia’s peace talks in Bogota, Colombia on Friday, Nov. 22, 2013.

In 2012, Amnesty International said that in Colombia, “women are targets of sexual violence to sow terror within communities to force them to flee their land, wreak revenge on the enemy, control the sexual and reproductive rights of female combatants or exploit women and girls as sexual slaves.” While sexual violence against women is employed as a strategy of war by all armed actors in the Colombian conflict, different objectives are pursued using sexual violence by security forces, guerilla groups and paramilitaries.

The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Fuerzas Armados Revolucionarias de Colombia – FARC) uses sexual violence strategically in the forced recruitment of female combatants. Though recruitment of children below the age of 15 is a war crime, young girls are either lured into the FARC or abducted, to serve “as companions for their leaders,” their forced sexual services as ‘payment’ to protect other members of their family. Furthermore, once ‘recruited,’ FARC imposes their policy of contraception and forced abortion to further control the sexual and reproductive rights of female combatants.

Oxfam wrote that “state military forces, paramilitaries and guerrilla groups have used sexual violence with the goal of terrorizing communities, using women as instruments to achieve their military objectives.” By terrorizing rural communities, most commonly inhabited by indigenous populations, these groups use women’s bodies to exercise forced displacement and advance their control of territories and resources. The use of sexual violence to induce terror is epitomized by the act being carried out in full view of the community, according to the ABColumbia report. This practice of forced displacement on indigenous communities puts them at risk of physical or cultural extinction – a campaign that looks a lot like genocide. Furthermore, with an increased presence of state military forces in regions characterized by large scale-mining, agribusiness and areas of strategic importance for drug trafficking comes an increase in the exploitation of women and girls as sexual slaves.

Sexual violence is also used to impose social control over the activities of women. This tactic is extensively used by paramilitary groups and occasionally by guerilla groups. Cultural attitudes and social codes are imposed on women and transgression from those roles result in punishment, often public and intended to shame the victim and cause social stigmatization against them. The use of sexual violence as a method of conducting hostilities identifies the ‘enemy’ as the civilian population rather than other armed combatants. Colombia’s Human Rights Ombudsman reported that “even if cases of sexual violence against women perpetrated by the Security Forces do not correspond to a war strategy (…), they constitute a generalized practice that takes advantage of the conditions of subordination of women, their precarious economic conditions resulting from lack of protection by the State, and the acceptance of existing ideas in the local culture, such as a woman’s body is an object that belongs to men.”

Protesters in Bogota chant “miniskirts are not an invitation.”

“(Rape) is one of the only crimes for which a community’s response is more often to stigmatize the victim rather than prosecute the perpetrator.” – UN Action against Sexual Violence in Conflict

According to this report, “impunity for these crimes acts to reinforce, rather than challenge, these pre-existing norms and patterns of discrimination against women, both inside and outside of the conflict.” Incidents are rarely reported because there are no guarantees for women in the justice system – either they are not believed, or the police took no action, refused to document their case or they feared for their safety. Also, the social stigma attached to sexual violence that fosters the practice of victim-blaming and encourages women to remain silent about their attacks. When Colombia’s security forces are themselves among the perpetrators of violence, it makes sense that women have an extreme lack of faith in their access to justice. Ending impunity for these crimes is essential for changing attitudes about conflict-related sexual violence.

Unlawful weapons violate states’ responsibility as well as international law. Peace talks between the Colombian Government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) were officially announced in August 2012, after five decades of conflict. The ABColombia report calls for Colombia to adhere to UN Resolutions 1325 and 1820. Colombia signed both these resolutions, which state that Governments must ensure sexual violence is on the agenda during peace talks, that there should be no amnesties for sexual violence crimes, and that women must play a major part in the peace process and in the construction of peace. Women’s issues cannot be dealt with ex-post, especially when mistreatment and abuse of women is deeply rooted in Colombian society. Women are being sacrificed for their country without their consent and their voices must be heard during the peace process.

The Audacity of Hope for Peace Amidst Devastation in Congo

In a move that raised hopes for a peace agreement to end nearly two years of insurgency in the North Kivu region of the Democratic Republic of Congo, the rebel group M23 surrendered to authorities in Uganda. M23 has been the dominant rebel group fighting to seize control of the Congo’s mineral resources in the latest installment of the multinational war that has devastated the region since 1998. M23 stated that their movement would adopt “purely political means” to achieve its goals and urged its fighters to disarm and demobilize. Yet they were forced to end their rebellion in the face of military victories from the Congolese army, and crumbling under international pressure, particularly action from the United Nations “intervention brigade” and Rwanda’s alleged decision to stop its rumored military support for the rebels.

At the heart of the world’s longest-running conflict has been a battle over Congo’s abundant mineral wealth, as warlords, corrupt government officials, competing ethnic groups and corporations fight to control them. Congo has more than 70% of the world’s coltan, used to make vital components of mobile phones, 30% of the planet’s diamond reserves and vast deposits of cobalt, copper and bauxite.While ten armed groups still operate and compete for access to mineral resources in Congo, M23 has been the most active group since April 2012 and represent the latest manifestation of this ongoing crisis. In April 2012, the rebels accused the government of failing to live up to the terms of their 2009 peace agreement, and took up arms in April 2012. This country has repeatedly witnessed decades characterized by patterns of violence, peace accords and continued violence.

Now that the rebels have abandoned their insurgency, the government will “make a public declaration of acceptance” and within five days, a formal peace agreement will be signed. The peace process in DRC is unique because due to years of nonstop war and abuse, sexualized violence has become normalized and impunity is the rule. Because the sex-subordination of women in society has been reinforced and defined by the conditions of endless war and war trauma in DRC, peacebuilding process must involve the participation of women.

Congolese soldiers interviewed by the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative displayed “extremely rigid and formalized gender roles in times of both war and peace.” Wartime sexual violence is linked in general to sex-subordinating attitudes such that wartime rape becomes part of the larger system of sex subordination as well as part of war itself. For a country that has experienced decades of war with very few intervals, the violent subordination of women becomes synonymous with the daily conditions of living in a war zone. Furthermore, the trauma of war and exposure to violence – seeing family members killed, being personally injured or raped, or forced to witness rape – increase the likelihood of perpetrating gender-based violence. According to researchers, 59 percent of men and 73 percent of women in DRC reported at least one traumatic event due to the conflict. What is being enacted on women in DRC’s war and homes is the result of a lack of relief from constant exposure to violence as well as an extreme conception of masculinity that is synonymous with war.

Dr. Denis Mukwege is one of the only surgeons in Congo performing surgeries to repair the devastating vaginal and reproductive damage done to victims of war rape. He has stated that he’s performed thousands of reconstructive surgeries, including surgeries to remove fistulas, brought on by unique brutality of war rape in DRC. He discusses how these vicious acts of rape and sexual violence are used as a weapon of war by both government and rebel forces.

In addition, Dr. Mukwege states that child soldiers who return home grow into men are not being taught any other way to behave and have learned to live only through aggression. Among men who were forced to leave home during the conflict, 50 percent reported committing an act of gender-based violence against their female partner. Furthermore, 800,000 people have been displaced since M23’s insurgency alone – a traumatic experience characterized by economic disenfranchisement and associated with a loss of masculinity, which has contributed to widespread spousal abuse. Within the context of war, the language of power is asserted by subordination, in this case gender-based violence predominately against women and girls (though men have also been systematically raped in DRC).

The status of women within society is a key factor in the prevalence of violence against them. Post-conflict DRC must involve dissolving the sex-subordination of women that has defined this armed conflict. A certain kind of masculinity gets forged in the crucible of war that is sustained by its contrast to a subordinated femininity. This conflict has normalized sex-subordination of women in society and re-establishing the rule of law is key for women’s peace, security and protection of rights.

US special envoy Russell Feingold described the enduring instability in the DRC as “one of the toughest problems in the world”, but said “it has never seen such sustained (international) attention.” In a country in armed conflict where current law rules marital rape is not a prosecutable crime and impunity for gender-based violence is rampant, the international community must step forward to establish a new rule of law. Congolese men, women and children have all suffered unimaginable traumas but the disproportionate impact of conflict on women demands calling for women’s engagement in conflict resolution and peacebuilding.

The United Kingdom’s Duty under International Humanitarian Law to Ensure Non-Discriminatory Medical Care to Women and Girls Raped in Armed Conflict, including Access to Safe Abortion Services

Excerpts of UK, EU and International Laws, Policies & Practices Relevant to this Duty

Updated as of October 8, 2013

The duty of the United Kingdom ("UK") to respect international law, and in particular international humanitarian law, is firmly rooted in its body of domestic law which implements the Geneva Conventions and its Additional Protocols, and is further supplemented by the laws, regulations, and guidelines of the European Union.
For women raped in armed conflict, abortion is a legal right under international humanitarian law ("IHL"). Girls and women raped in armed conflict are "protected persons" under the Geneva Conventions and are entitled, as the ―wounded and sick, to "receive to the fullest extent practicable and with the least possible delay, the medical care and attention required by their condition." This care must also be non-discriminatory. To deny a medical service to pregnant women (abortion), while offering everything needed for victims who are male or who aren't pregnant, is a violation of this requirement of non-discrimination. Therefore, IHL imposes an absolute and affirmative duty to provide the option of abortion to rape victims in humanitarian aid settings; failing to do so violates the Geneva Conventions, its Additional Protocols, and customary international law.

These protections are further supported by international human rights law. The Committee against Torture and the Human Rights Committee have both declared the denial of abortion to be torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment in certain situations. Furthermore, under these treaties, which apply concurrently with humanitarian law during armed conflict, State Parties are required to provide the highest standard of rehabilitative care for torture victims, which includes the provision of complete medical services for injuries resulting from torture. In the case of impregnated female rape victims, such care must include the option of abortion.

This compendium contains excerpts from British legislation, policy, and practice which underscore the UK's commitments to ensure that its humanitarian aid to girls and women raped in armed conflict affords them their full and inalienable rights to medical care under IHL. This requires: (1) access to a complete range of health and life-saving treatments including abortion, and (2) compliance with the tenet of non-discriminatory humanitarian aid for girls and women raped in armed conflict.

Download PDF

Compendium: The Obligation of the United Kingdom to Protect the Inalienable Rights of Girls and Women Raped in Armed Conflict to Non-Discriminatory Medical Care Including Access to Abortion: Excerpts of Relevant UK Laws, Policies, & Practices

The duty of the United Kingdom (UK) to respect international law, and in particular international humanitarian law, is firmly rooted in its body of domestic law which implements the Geneva Conventions and its Additional Protocols, and is further supplemented by the laws, regulations, and guidelines of the European Union.

For women raped in armed conflict, abortion is a legal right under international humanitarian law (IHL). Girls and women raped in armed conflict are “protected persons” under the Geneva Conventions and are entitled, as the “wounded and sick,” to “receive to the fullest extent practicable and with the least possible delay, the medical care and attention required by their condition.” This care must also be non-discriminatory. To deny a medical service to pregnant women (abortion), while offering everything needed for victims who are male or who aren’t pregnant, is a violation of this requirement of non-discrimination. Therefore, IHL imposes an absolute and affirmative duty to provide the option of abortion to rape victims in humanitarian aid settings; failing to do so violates the Geneva Conventions, its Additional Protocols, and customary international law.

These protections are further supported by international human rights law. The Committee against Torture and the Human Rights Committee have both declared the denial of abortion to be torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment in certain situations. Furthermore, under these treaties, which apply concurrently with humanitarian law during armed conflict, State Parties are required to provide the highest standard of rehabilitative care for torture victims, which includes the provision of complete medical services for injuries resulting from torture. In the case of impregnated female rape victims, such care must include the option of abortion.

This compendium contains excerpts from British legislation, policy, and practice which underscore the UK’s commitments to ensure that its humanitarian aid to girls and women raped in armed conflict affords them their full and inalienable rights to medical care under IHL. This requires: (1) access to a complete range of health and life-saving treatments including abortion, and (2) compliance with the tenet of non-discriminatory humanitarian aid for girls and women raped in armed conflict.

The UK is a global leader in providing humanitarian aid and assistance to the victims of armed conflict. The UK should continue to endeavour to comply fully and faithfully with the rights and protections these victims are accorded under IHL.

Download PDF

Burma Refuses to Relinquish Rape as Weapon of War

The event was hosted by Secretary Hague and Zainab Hawa Bangura, special representative of the Secretary-General on sexual violence in conflict, and included speakers from 27 member countries who discussed the need to prevent and respond to sexualized violence committed under the cloak of war. They also highlighted the devastating effects that rape and sexualized violence wreak on individuals, families, communities, and entire nations.

By the end of the day, 113 member countries had endorsed what Secretary Hague called the “milestone” Declaration of Commitment to End Sexual Violence in Conflict. The declaration holds that sexualized violence in conflict is in direct violation of international humanitarian law (IHL) and declares that the perpetrators should be pursued and arrested no matter where they are in the world. The declaration also calls upon signatory member states to do more than raise awareness to the issue and to provide better support not only to the victims but to national and international efforts to prevent and respond to sexualized violence in conflict.

But 80 nations opted not to sign the Declaration of Commitment to End Sexual Violence in Conflict. One of them was Burma.

For many, Burma’s refusal to sign the declaration didn’t come as a surprise. Reports of sexualized violence committed by the army and police, particularly in Burma’s ethnic and border regions, have increased over the last two years, according to some advocacy groups. And Burma President Thein Sein has done little to address the issue, preferring to highlight gains made in other sectors, including the opening of the economy to global investment and his periodic release of political prisoners.

The international community, eager to praise these reforms, has neglected to call Burma out on its sexualized violence problem, ignoring the ingrained culture of impunity that has allowed sexualized violence to flourish for decades. The military regime that came to power in a 1962 coup has used rape, particularly against women in the ethnic and border regions, as a way to quell opposition movements and retain control. A weapon of war, the practice is typically employed to keep communities compliant by sowing fear and humiliation and punishing and interrogating those who would support opposition groups. Sadly, the Burmese military junta’s campaign of widespread and systematic sexual violence continues unabated today.

It’s understandable, then, that President Thein Sein and his new admirers would not want to tarnish fragile gains, but how much do these gains really mean in the face of continued sexualized violence toward women and girls in Burmese conflict zones?

Burma President Thein Sein speaks at Chatham House in July. (Chatham House)

This is precisely why Burma’s failure to stand with 113 other nations in signing the Declaration of Commitment to End Sexual Violence in Conflict was such a disappointment. More than just a squandered opportunity for the nation to demonstrate an honest and ongoing desire for social and political reform, it was a chance to turn the tide, to announce an end to the culture of silence and impunity that legitimizes rape and sexual violence in Burma.

Human rights groups in and outside of Burma were quick to condemn the government’s failure to sign on to the Declaration.

Zoya Phan, Campaigns Manager at Burma Campaign UK, said, “The use of rape and sexual violence in conflict in Burma must be stopped. If Thein Sein refuses to cooperate, then international legal action should be taken to prevent these crimes. For many ethnic women, rape by Burmese army soldiers is a daily fear, and justice seems to be just a distant dream.”

“The government should bear the responsibility of crimes perpetrated by its army. They should ensure justice for such crimes in accordance with the law,” Naw Susanna Hla Hla Soe, Central Committee member of the Myanmar Women’s Network, told the 2013 Myanmar Women’s Forum prior to the UN event.

The Burmese Diplomatic Mission to the UN in New York declined to comment by telephone and did not reply to email requests for an official statement on their failure to sign the declaration.

But it’s hard to fault the Mission for their non-answer; after all, they’re simply following President Thein Sein’s lead in ignoring the issue. One of the biggest stumbling blocks in Burma’s transition to civilian rule has been the government’s unwillingness to fully divest itself of the privileged status of the previous military junta. In fact, this lack of accountability is hard-wired into the country’s constitution, rendering the nation incapable of enforcing IHL against its military, as the Global Justice Center’s President Janet Benshoof has noted.

Ultimately, last week’s missed opportunity can be seen as less a statement on Burma’s disinterest in ending government-sanctioned sexualized violence and more an appraisal of Burma’s transition to democracy. To assent to the UN’s declaration of commitment to end sexual violence in conflict would be to assent to accountability and to a new era of checks and balances for a government whose members seem more concerned with losing a seat at the table than addressing the issue being discussed at the table.

Perhaps this is only another hiccup on the road to reformation. Perhaps Burma will relent and commit to the mandates of the declaration. But, in the meantime, the girls and women of Burma will continue to be victimized without means of redress or protection, and the body count will continue to rise.

A version of this article was cross-posted with Women Under Siege.

Justice in Syria

All the talk this week will be whether the United States will launch air strikes on Syria, in the wake of the Syrian government’s alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians in the country’s ongoing civil war. During yesterday’s Senate hearing, Secretary of State John Kerry made the case that President Bashar al-Assad’s regime has committed egregious human rights violations, including the violation of one of the most important norms of international law: the ban of using weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) against civilians. President Obama emphasized that potential US strikes is about protecting this fundamental international norm, which is threatened by the Syrian government’s alleged gassing of its own people. Yet, Syria has long been in a state of unrest – and the Global Justice Center takes a look a few other areas in which Syria is violating international law, particularly when it comes to equal protection and rights for women.

Impunity

As has been evident throughout the conflict in Syria, neither the government nor the rebel faction shave been held accountable for their crimes – even when these crimes do not respect international law. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon noted that government abuses were largest in scale. In its 2013 Annual Report on Syria, Amnesty International wrote that “the government took no steps to investigate the numerous allegations against their forces or to bring anyone to justice for alleged gross human rights violations, crimes against humanity or war crimes. The government maintained a reign of impunity, including legislation giving members of the security forces effective immunity for unlawful killings, torture, enforced disappearances and other human rights violations.”

The Global Justice Center is all too familiar with the dangers of governmental impunity through its work with the Burma Law Project. The Burma Constitution perpetuates injustice as a policy by giving complete amnesty to the military for its crimes, including systematic rapes of ethnic women. It also excludes women, just as 2012 Syrian Constitution. With the human rights violations mounting in Syria, including an alarming number of reported rapes and sexual crimes, it is clear that no matter how the conflict in Syria ends, perpetrators must be held accountable on both sides. The international community cannot allow yet another example of war crimes, especially gender-based violence, to be carried out with impunity.

In addition, according to Women under Siege, a journalism project founded by Gloria Steinem, sexual violence is and has been rampant in Syria throughout the conflict. It is perpetrated by both sides, without justice for victims (or, in many cases, even necessary medical care). Women Under Siege has been collecting reports of sexual violence in Syria to document the way rape is being used to terrorize and intimidate the Syrian people. With this data they have created a live, crowd-sourced map. The crimes documented went largely unpunished and represent only a small part of the whole, because sexual violence in Syria is largely underreported.

“With no clear future for Syria in sight, refugees are understandably cautious about who they speak to and trust with sensitive and personal information… It may be hard to put their trust in a stranger when, time and again, there has been little justice for victims of wartime rape.” – Lauren Wolfe, Director, Women Under Siege.

Gender Equality

According to data from the WEF Gender Gap Report on countries’ gender equality progress since the Arab Spring, overall the region’s score increased by a dismal 1.2% from 2010 to 2012. Syria, on the other hand, decreased by 5.3%. That’s right: Syria is moving backwards on women’s rights issues, mainly because of decreases in estimated earned income. In addition, in a list of 135 countries, Syria was ranked an abysmal #111 in the Gender Gap Index for “political empowerment” in 2012 by the report.

“[Syria]’s civil war has coincided with reduced political participation for women and sharply curtailed access to the country’s shattered economy,” wrote Max Fisher, Washington Post’s foreign affairs blogger, in an article.

But Syria is not only moving backwards; the basis on which it started never had equal opportunities for women in the first place.

“While the penal code no longer fully exonerates perpetrators of so-called honor crimes, it still gives judges options for reduced sentences if a crime was committed with “honorable” intent. The nationality law of 1969 prevents Syrian women married to foreign spouses the right to pass on their citizenship to their children or spouses,” Human Rights Watch stated in its 2012 World Report on Syria.

When this tragic and deadly conflict finally comes to an end, any future government in Syria must look towards building long-term stability. A major key to that is to have a government and a constitution that is representative. Women’s rights are not something that can be pushed to the side and fixed only after the country is considered “stable.”In reality, ensuring women’s rights is anecessary step to achieving long-term stability. There must be increased participation in the political process by women if the country is to fulfill the pledge in the 2012 Syrian Constitution of a multi-party system, replacing ade facto one-party system that has hindered democratic reform for the past several decades.

As the world waits to see if the US will strike and what the global fallout from such action will be, it is critical to examine the roots of injustice if Syria can ever hope to move forward.

Donate now to help the Global Justice Center establish global human rights through the rule of law.

August 12th Marks Anniversary of U.S. Signing of the Geneva Conventions – Now It’s Time for President Obama to Fulfill this Pledge for Girls & Women Raped in War

August 12, 2013

Why is a young girl in the Central African Republic raped & impregnated, then DENIED access to a safe abortion, when abortion is legal in CAR for cases of rape?

It’s because of a US ban on humanitarian aid.

Read this powerful article from Baroness Kinnock in the Guardian.

On August 12, 1949, the United States signed the Geneva Conventions. Yet, 64 years later we are not living up to our pledge. We provide life-saving medical care to the those “wounded and sick” in war – unless they are young girls and women rape and impregnated through war rape.

That is why, on August 12, 2011, the Global Justice Center launched its August 12th Campaign to end systemic discrimination against girls and women raped and impregnated in armed conflict, who are routinely denied access to safe abortions, even in lifesaving situations and when they’ve been the victim of brutal rape.

We have tremendous progress, but we need your help to WIN.

Help us end this inhumane policy – PLEASE SUPPORT OUR WORK BY DONATING TODAY.  

A Few Highlights of our August 12th Campaign:

August 12th, 2011 – The Global Justice Center’s campaign begins.

September 2012 –  A coalition representing over 3,300 groups, has written letters to President Obama, urging him to issue an executive order lifting U.S. abortion restrictions on humanitarian aid for girls and women raped in armed conflict.

January 10, 2013 – The UK announces a historic change in their policy, acknowledging that girls and women raped in armed conflict have absolute legal rights to abortions when medically necessary under the Geneva Conventions.

March 14, 2013 – For the first time in history, the UN Secretary General makes a recommendation in his annual Report on sexual violence in conflict that aid girls and women raped in armed conflict must include services to terminate an unwanted pregnancy resulting from rape.

April 8, 2013 – The Netherlands affirms the right of war rape victims to have access to safe abortion services.

June 24, 2013 – The UN Security Council unanimously passes Resolution 2106, which for the first time, explicitly calls for UN bodies and donor countries to provide “non-discriminatory and comprehensive health services, including sexual and reproductive health.”

But We’re Not Done Yet! Our Work Continues…

This campaign is far from over! Today, Women Under Siege published a compelling piece by GJC Senior Counsel Akila Radhakrishnan, on the devastating effects of the US policy in places of conflict, such as the Democratic Republic of Congo.

With support from people like you, we can end to this discrimination and give a voice to women all over the world. DONATE TODAY.

UN Expert Observers Not Enough to Combat Sexual Violence in Conflict-Ridden South Sudan

South Sudan no longer has the capacity to protect civilians in Jonglei. Neither do UN peacekeeping forces. The region’s conflict between militia groups has grown increasingly violent, and attacks are now targeting civilian communities, “including women and children, and possibly aimed at destroying their livelihoods and social and economic infrastructure,” says a United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISSReport from June 2012. According to Medicines sans Frontiers (MSF), there is also a rise of sexual violence against women and children within this conflict.

Within five months in 2012, MSF reported to have treated 96 victims of sexual violence from the conflict, including 25 victims of rape or attempted rape. Sexual violence is also underreported in the region and thus may be even more widespread than data shows (UNMISS Report Jun 2012).

With the current challenges facing the UN Mission in South Sudan, addressing sexual violence against civilians is especially important. The UN has begun implementing its Women’s Protection Advisors (WPA) program, and UNMISS is the first UN Mission with WPAs. The WPA initiative comes from UN Security Council resolutions 1888 and 1960, passed four years ago in order to address conflict-related sexual violence. A major responsibility of WPAs is reporting incidents of sexual violence for data collection (for the purposes of informing further Security Council action).

During June’s Security Council’s debate on Women, Peace and Security, several speakers lauded the UN’s deployment of WPAs in South Sudan as great progress for women’s security. Unfortunately, only six of the positions have been filled (the only WPAs deployed globally), and the three vacancies include the senior-level managing position within the office of the Special Representative to the Secretary General (SRSG).

Refugees International published a field report regarding its investigation into the implementation of the WPAs in South Sudan, finding that such vacancies are hampering the success of the WPA initiative due to lack of leadership. Refugees International recommends that the senior manager position be filled as quickly as possible, but it also notes that it is imperative that the recruitment process prioritizes finding a candidate experienced in gender-based violence response. Though the WPAs were meant to be individuals with expertise in conflict-related sexual violence, current recruitment focuses on hiring individuals from either the UN’s Human Rights roster or the UN’s political roster, neither of which are areas guaranteed to provide candidates with such vital experience.

In addition to these recruitment problems, Refugees International highlights the fact that WPAs are not trained in conflict-related sexual violence before deployment. Upon arriving in the country, the WPAs are trained on the relevant Resolutions but are not given any training specific to conditions in South Sudan. Given the complexity of the conflicts within South Sudan, this lack of country-specific training makes it even more difficult for the WPAs to be successful. According to the Refugees International reportUN Action against Sexual Violence in Conflict began the process of developing WPA-specific training curriculum but needs to revive its efforts.

These problems of ineffective implementation have prevented the WPA initiative to be successful in South Sudan. This initiative is important for the Security Council’s role in extinguishing and preventing sexual violence in conflict. The UN’s Department for Peacekeeping Operations and the UN Action against Sexual Violence in Conflict should address these problems in order to effectuate successful WPA programs in both South Sudan and elsewhere.

For more information on Refugees International’s investigation and policy recommendations, see the full report at refugeesinternational.org.

A Step Forward in Libya: Treating Rape as a War Crime

A woman stood up during the conference and told the graphic and horrific details of the sexual torture she was subjected to for nine months. She, however, was not alone; there had been around 35 other women in the same detention center, all of whom were subjected to sexual violence. And these 35 women were also not unique in their experiences of sexual violence; International Criminal Court Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo stated, “The information and evidence indicates at this stage that hundreds of rapes occurred during the conflict.”

This conflict was the Libyan Revolution of 2011. Because rape is viewed by most Libyans as an attack upon the honor of a family or tribe—rather than an attack against a woman’s body, mind, and autonomy–sexualized violence was used as a weapon of war by Gaddafi’s forces to obtain information and punish rebel communities. Rape was also used as a terror tactic to induce submission to the regime.

As Libya recovers from the violent Arab Spring and begins to rebuild its government and country, a bill that would treat rape during armed conflict as a war crime is being drafted. As the law currently stands, rape is already a crime under Libyan law. Convicted rapists face around 10 years in jail. Under the new specialized law, convicted rapists in armed conflict could potentially face a life sentence in prison.  Additionally, legislators have agreed that this new law should require compensation from the state to victims of sexual violence. The amount of compensation would be determined on a case-by-case basis.

While this bill is not yet law—it still must be passed by the general national congress of Libya—it is a positive first step toward ending impunity for sexualized violence in war. Such a law would make it possible to begin holding perpetrators of wartime rape accountable, including where those rapes were sanctioned by the government.

The Global Justice Center has been advocating for states to be punished for using rape as an unlawful weapon of armed conflict. The GJC strongly hopes that the Libyan bill will provide an example for countries like Syria and Burma, whose governments similarly authorize mass rape of ethnic minority civilians and rebel populations. Action must be taken around the globe to ensure that women are no longer systematically harmed through sexualized violence condoned by the governments that are supposed to protect them.

Legal Victory in Kenya Can Serve as Model to Fight Impunity in Burma

Girls and women in Kenya recently made history when the High Court of Kenya delivered a favorable outcome to a constitutional challenge in which 160 girls between the ages of 3 and 17 sued the Kenyan government for failing to protect them from being raped.

The girls brought the action under Section 22(1) of the Kenyan constitution, which provides that “Every person has the right to institute court proceedings claiming that a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights has been denied, violated or infringed, or is threatened.” The Kenyan criminal code contains laws that protect against rape, however they are not enforced and as a result rape has been on the rise. The petitioners accused the police of “neglect, omission, refusal and/or failure…to conduct prompt, effective, proper and professional investigations” into sexual violence complaints.

The High Court agreed with the petitioners, saying that the police had “unlawfully, inexcusably and unjustifiably” failed to respond to reports of sexual abuse in Kenya. It said police inaction and lack of enforcement has created a “climate of impunity” that shows perpetrators they can commit crimes of sexual violence and not be punished. The Court found that the petitioners’ fundamental rights and freedoms had been violated, not only under the Kenyan Constitution but also according to international law. The Court found police inaction to violate fundamental rights that are protected by the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Court also considered international cases that demonstrate a consensus that states may be held accountable for failing to properly respond to sexual violence because they have a duty “to protect all citizens from violence and ensure their security of person.”

Two days after the victory, several people contacted Fiona Sampson, the Toronto attorney who worked on the case. They wanted to use the case as a model in other countries for fighting impunity in the context of sexual violence, a problem that is hardly limited to Kenya.

For the women in Burma, for example, the problem of impunity in the face of widespread sexual violence is dire. The prevalence of abuse, documented by Burmese women’s groups, UN special rapporteurs, and even the Security Council, is extensive. These violations are not anecdotal incidences of crime. Rather, the Burmese military uses rape as a weapon of war against the civilian population.

Although this problem has been reported at length, the Burmese government refuses to take any action to punish such acts. In fact, the current 2008 Constitution provides complete impunity for sexual violence perpetrated by the military by including an amnesty provision that precludes the prosecution of military perpetrators of crimes. What’s more, current law requires that any amendment to the Constitution be supported by more than 75% of parliament. Because 25% of parliamentary seats are reserved for the military, all nonmilitary members plus at least one military member must support any proposed amendment. It is therefore unlikely that the amnesty provision will be overturned any time soon.Because of this, the International Center for Transitional Justice has said that Burma presents “one of the most difficult challenges in the world in relation to making progress toward combating impunity”.

As a signatory to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Burma has an affirmative duty to ensure women are protected from sexual violence, which includes not affording immunity to its perpetrators. Like Kenya, Burma is bound under the Convention on the Rights of the Child and should be guided by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in developing policies and practices that protect Burmese citizens from sexual violence. Burma is violating these international obligations when it relies on its 2008 Constitution to justify inaction.

The international community should look to the recent case in Kenya as a model and call for Burma to put an end to impunity if it wants to establish viable democracy in the country. Given the Burmese military’s reliance on aid, international pressure could be highly effective. While the government continues to fail to act to combat impunity, the international community must demand a change in the constitution so that girls and women in Burma, just as in Kenya, receive the protections their government owes them.

Why is a War Criminal Getting a Peace Prize?

Tuesday, April 23, 2013, 17:00-18:00

At New York, New York

On Tuesday April 23, Burmese President Thein Sein was awarded a peace prize from the International Crisis Group, an NGO dedicated to resolving deadly conflict. Oddly, presenting Thein Sein with this award is a step away from the ICG’s goal, seeing as their main focus involves conflict resolution, something the Burmese president has evaded. In ICG’s recognition of Thein Sein, they highlight that he has transformed Myanmar by “liberalizing past repressive laws” and “making significant strides in ending internal conflicts, securing ceasefires with all but one of the ethnic armed groups”. However, they gloss over the fact that despite the changes that he’s made, ethnic groups are still being oppressed by the military. There have been ongoing reports against the Myanmar Army from a multitude of sources, including the UN, with claims accusing them of systemic use of rape against Ethnic women. These allegations clearly indicate that rape is being used as a weapon of war against ethnic minorities, while the government turns a blind eye to these atrocities. Instead of acknowledging these methodical violations of human rights or making some sort of effort to alleviate the situation, President Thein Sein has merely denied the allegations. Reports have made it clear that the Myanmar army uses rape to terrorize and intimidate Ethnic people. As a signatory of the Geneva Convention, the nation of Myanmar is obligated to take initiatives to enforce humanitarian law against its army, but has failed to do so. As an advocate of human rights, GJC does not support a leader who oppresses its citizens and violates principles of humanity, especially against women. Our Rape as a Weapon of War Campaign demands justice for women raped in conflict in order to shatter this culture of impunity. Raping women for military objections is a complete violation of the Geneva Conventions, and states must face repercussions for these actions. Thein Sein should not be awarded a peace prize when he is not recognizing the abuses that his own citizens are facing under his rule as he allows this to continue, and by awarding him, the ICG is only approving of the suffering of innocent civilians. It is time to punish states that use rape as an unlawful weapon in armed conflict, not reward them.

GJC Rises for V-Day's One Billion Rising Campaign to End Gender Violence

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - February 14, 2013

[NEW YORK, NY]– Today, the Global Justice Center rises. We support V-Day and its One Billion Rising campaign to end violence against girls and women. One in three women will be subjected gender-based violence in their lifetime, including sexualized violence. That’s one billion women.

One Billion Rising: GJC Rises Against Rape as a Weapon of War

On February 14, The Global Justice Center is rising. We support V-Day and its One Billion Rising campaign to end violence against girls and women. One in three women will experience gender-based violence in their lifetime. That’s roughly one billion women on this planet subject to some form of abuse. The time to end this culture of rape and violence is now. Rise in solidarity with V-Day and the Global Justice Center.

Global Justice Center’s Work to End Rape as a Weapon of War

A primary focus of the GJC’s work against sexualized violence is our Rape as a Weapon of War Project. Raping girls and women to accomplish military objectives, including genocide, is used more than any other unlawful weapon of war. Yet, it is routinely ignored and overlooked, despite the staggering number of girls and women subject to this brutality daily in conflict zones around the world.Although rape is the most powerful and cost effective weapon being used in armed conflict today, no state has been held accountable for use of rape as an illegal weapon of war. Our Weapons Discrimination Project to have rape treated as an unlawful weapon of war in order to end impunity for culpable states and give rape victims better avenues for redress has recently been met with great support in the UK. As UK Foreign Minister William Hague said in October 2012:

“We now know that rape and sexual violence is used as a deliberate weapon of war in the same way that guns and tanks are, to terrorise civilian populations, to humiliate, scar and destroy whole ethnic groups or religious or political opponents, cheaply, silently and devastatingly…I believe that the time has come for a concerted international effort to challenge the use of rape as a weapon of war and to shatter the culture of impunity.”

In addition, the Socialist International Women passed a Resolution on the need to treat rape as a weapon, based on a resolution that the GJC drafted for the Norwegian Labour Party, who in turn had the resolution passed in early 2012 by the International Congress of Socialist Youth.  This step is particularly important because the Socialist International Women is composed of 149 member groups for a range of countries and three of the four action items in the resolution relate to treating rape used as a weapon of war as an illegal weapon.

Why is it important to have rape classified as an illegal weapon of war?

Victims of war rape should have the same rights to justice as war victims injured by other unlawful weapons. GJC works to hold states accountable for tactical mass rapes, advocates for classifying rape as an illegal weapon of war under international law, and pressures international monitoring bodies to report the impact of rape on weapons-related morbidity and mortality.

It is imperative that rape is classified as an illegal weapon of war for the following reasons:

  1. Treating rape as an unlawful weapon will open up new access to justice for rape victims and monitoring mechanisms by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).
  2. The GJC argues that the non-discrimination mandates of international humanitarian law (IHL) are violated by the failure of states to prosecute the transmission of HIV by any means during armed conflict, a clear violation of the international prohibition on “biological” weapons. Enforcing existing biological weapons prohibitions, including by Security Council sanctions on such use and by international prosecutions, will have an enormous deterrent effect on rape in armed conflict.
  3. Just as the classification of landmines as an illegal weapon of war led to a dramatic decrease in its use in armed conflict, classifying rape as an illegal weapon of war can also have a great deterrence impact on the use of mass tactical rape as a weapon in war.

Support us in the movement to end mass rapes in armed conflict.

Learn more at www.globaljusticecenter.net

GJC Rises Up! One Billion Rise to End Gender Violence

February 14, 2013, 15:00

At Times Square, NYC

 

On February 14, 2013, the staff of the Global Justice Center  joined with Amnesty International is Times Square today for One Billion Rising, V-Day’s global movement to end violence against women. It was such a meaningful event and incredible atmosphere, so we'd like to share a few photos from the day!

Please also take a look at our blog to see more of our One Billion Rising activities and learn more about our work: http://globaljusticecenter.net/blog/

Global Day of Action: Help GJC fight for safe abortion access for girls & women raped in war

For over two decades, women’s rights organizations in Latin America have mobilized around September 28th, which is also the day slavery was abolished in Brazil. Today, the Global Justice Center joins the Women’s Global Network for Reproduction Rights, who have declared September 28th Global Day of Action for Access to Safe and Legal Abortion. As part of our August 12thCampaign, GJC fights for full medical rights for girls and women raped in war, including access to safe abortions. We urge President Obama to lift the blanket abortion on US humanitarian aid that denies a girl or woman raped in war the option of an abortion, even in life/threatening situations.

War rape victims are forced to carry the child of their rapists in conflict areas such as Burma, the Democratic Republic of Congo or the Sudan, where systematic rape is often used as a weapon of war. It is even used to accomplish military goals such as genocide and ethnic cleansing. Apart from being inhumane, the American ban also violates the Geneva Conventions, which guarantee non-discriminatory medical care to the “wounded and sick”. The situation is presented in a recent article by GJC Senior Counsel Akila Radhakrishnan, published in The Atlantic.

Sign the petition on Global Action Day, or donate to the GJC and help us in the fight to lift the ban, on behalf of girls and women raped in war.

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett Supports False Claim of Nearly Nonexistent Pregnancy Rates Resulting From Rape

Once again, we are left speechless by the extreme rhetoric used to describe rape victims. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) added vitriolic fuel to the controversy sparked by Rep. Todd Akin’s comments regarding pregnancy rates resulting from “legitimate rape.” In addition to the offensive attempt to distinguish acts of rape – rape is rape; their claim of nearly nonexistent pregnancy rates resulting from rape is scientifically entirely false.

One would imagine that since Akin’s comments gained international scorn, politicians would be more prudent and rational when discussing the topic of abortion. The lesson to be learned clearly went amiss for Rep. Bartlett who, in a similar comment to Akins’ said, “There are very few pregnancies as a result of rape, fortunately, and incest — compared to the usual abortion, what is the percentage of abortions for rape? It is tiny. It is a tiny, tiny percentage.” The remark, was made at a town hall meeting when pressed to reiterate his stance on abortion. And while he recently modified his stance to include exceptions of life threatening situations, rape, and incest, his comment reflects an ignorance about the horrors of rape and its devastating consequences.

Yet despite immediate condemnation, the fact is US foreign policy does not stray far from Bartlett and Akin’s beliefs. The US currently places a blanket ban on abortion aid, denying abortion options to girls and women raped in war. According to the 1973 Helms Amendment, “no foreign assistance funds may be used to pay for the performance of abortion as a method of family planning.” USAID wrongly interprets this statement to include circumstances of rape. This inhumane policy does not even allow for abortion in the case of life-threatening circumstances. For women and girls in nations such as Burma, Sudan, and Congo where systematic rape is used widely as a weapon of war, this ban on abortion “twice tortures” them. Furthermore, this policy is in direct conflict with international law and the Geneva Conventions, which guarantee indiscriminate medical care for victims of rape. As America continues its national discussion of abortion laws, it is critical that we do not forget those suffering abroad from the horrors of rape and war. President Obama must seize this moment to act. Join the Global Justice Center in urging him to issue an executive order lifting the ban. It is a necessary step to help victims of rape in conflict areas and to show solidarity with rape victims everywhere.

As Aung San Suu Kyi Visits US, International Law Violations in Burma Constitution are Highlighted

Burmese democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi’s is in Washington DC today to received the Congressional Gold Medal. She will also be meeting with President Barack Obama. This is a proud moment for the Burmese community and for the Global Justice Center, which has worked tirelessly on democracy issues in Burma.

However, we also recognize that Burma’s transition to democracy is far from complete. A major obstacle continues to be the country’s constitution, which entrenches military influence over Burma’s civilian government. Daw Suu Kyi said herself that amending the constitution must be a top priority, and we agree with her. The Global Justice Center calls for the international community to challenge the constitution as a violation of fundamental international law—including the UN Charter.

Burma has seen substantial change these past few years; a civilian government was formed, political prisoners were released (Suu Kyi herself being one example), and, this April, opposition parties were allowed to take part in the by-elections, carrying 43 out of 44 open parliamentary seats (but continuing to exert little influence overall). However, Burma has yet to fully commit to democracy. The Burmese civilian government still owes its parliamentary majority to the fraudulent elections of 2010, and the current constitution hinders further democratization and gives complete autonomy to the military. This makes it nearly impossible to prosecute Burma’s military rulers, who are guilty of egregious crimes—including the use of systematic rape of ethnic women as a weapon of war, torture, forced relocation and forced labor. All are rampant violations of fundamental international law, including the Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter. The impunity accorded to the military under the current constitution leaves civilian victims, particularly those in the conflict areas of the Burmese border, virtually without legal protection. Activities of the Myanmar military are also in breach of a set of agreements that govern nuclear development.

The Burmese government and the international community must ensure that Burma is meeting international law requirements. Yet, because the constitution gives the military a “legal vacuum” the government would be legally unable to fulfill these obligations. Thus Burma’s new constitution stands in breach of core international commitments.

The Global Justice Center urges the international community to stand with the people of Burma and challenge the legality of the constitution.

(For an in-depth analysis of the constitution and restraint it puts on the civilian government, read GJC president Janet Benshoof’s report, co-written with the Burma Lawyers Council or see the Global Justice Center Project Page on Burma.)

Children of War

The conversation about the importance of providing abortion services to victims of rape in armed conflicts would be incomplete without looking at the impact on children born to rape victims. The international community has already recognized forced pregnancy as a crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) but it has a limited application since it requires all three elements of the crime to be satisfied. Article 7, paragraph 2 (f) requires–(1) unlawful confinement of a woman (2) forcibly made pregnant (3) with the intent of carrying out other grave violations of the international law. It is unclear what exactly falls under other grave violations of international law and means that women who were forcibly made pregnant but escaped or forcibly made pregnant without the requisite intent are not protected under the Statute.

As a result of rape or forced impregnation, these unwanted children whose mothers were forced to carry them to term due to lack of abortion services are often subject to stigma, discrimination, abandonment, abuse, neglect, and even infanticide, especially in cases of boys who are seen as potential enemy combatants. These children are commonly rejected not only by their mothers who seek to avoid shame but also by the entire community- they are seen as illegitimate, “enemy” children and may be denied citizenship rights, effectively rendering them stateless. In Rwanda, children born out of rape are often referred to as “children of hate” or “children of bad memories.”Lacking necessary support from their mothers and communities, rape children are caught up in a vicious cycle and end up getting exploited, becoming child soldiers or turning to prostitution and crime. They are more likely to suffer psychological and physical trauma as a result of unsuccessful abortion attempts by their mothers or nonexistent neonatal care, and are at a higher risk to contract HIV. They also often have attachment and trust issues even later in life and are unable to maintain familial relationships. Even children who are kept by their mothers are often raised in extreme poverty resulting from societal stigma that prevents rape victims from finding a job given lack family support or alternative childcare options.

Currently there are no specific initiatives by the international community that would protect and provide assistance to rape babies. The ICRC, WHO, and UNFPA merely issued recommendations recognizing the need to combat stigma associated with rape children. Readily available access to safe abortion services could provide an immediate solution for rape victims who are now forced to carry to term an unwanted pregnancy and later abandon or even murder their unwanted children.

Continued Violence in Burma’s Rakhine State Demands Greater Attention from International Community

Ethnic and religious violence continues to flare in the Rakhine (formerly Arakan) State of western Burma after an incident last month in which a local woman was raped by three men, allegedly of Rohingya minority. The Rohingya are a largely Muslim ethnic group that lives mainly along the border between Burma and Bangladesh. They are not recognized by the Burmese military government as citizens in Burma, nor have they been permitted to obtain citizenship in Bangladesh. According to United Nations estimates, there are approximately 800,000 Rohingya living in Burma, many of whose families have lived in the country for generations. An estimated 300,000 currently live in Bangladesh. The Burmese refer to Rohingya as “Bengalis,” illustrating the widespread perception of the Rohingya people as unwelcome foreigners in Burma. Nor have members of the minority received much support from their supposed country of origin. Boats of Rohingya refugees seeking asylum in Bangladesh are being turned away by government authorities, who have effectively closed their border to refugees fleeing persecution in Burma.

The conflict risks creating greater political strife within the country at a time when the government is especially vulnerable to instability due to the recent “liberalization” undertaken by the ruling military regime. Many government officials are hesitant to address the issue publicly. Even Aung San Suu Kyi, Nobel Peace Prize winner and leader of Burma’s National League for Democracy has remained tight-lipped on the plight of the country’s Rohingya population. The NLD spokesman Nyan Win would not comment on Suu Kyi’s position but said, “The Rohingya are not our citizens.”

The three men accused of committing the rape that are believed to have initiated the conflict have been arrested and charged for the crime, yet the ethnic tensions sparked by the incident have continued to evoke violence in the region. After the attack, a group of Buddhist Burmese citizens boarded a bus and beat ten Rohingya passengers to death, some of whom were apparently thought to have been involved in the rape. Since then, clashes between the Arakanese (members of the ethnic Burmese population in Rakhine state) and the Rohingya community have included rioting, arson, and a continuing cycle of revenge attacks. Government officials report that the month of clashes has resulted in eighty deaths. The Rohingya community believes the death toll to be much higher.

In response to the violence, the military regime has instituted a state of emergency in the Arakan state, a situation which gives the military full governing rights under the 2008 constitution. While the government claims the measures have been undertaken to ensure the safety and security of the local population, a declared state of emergency robs the state’s civilian government of what little power and authority it previously enjoyed in the region.

It’s time for the international community to recognize the plight of the Rohingya people in Burma by increasing humanitarian aid to the region and openly calling for the military junta to end its oppression of minority groups in Burma, a trend that has characterized the regime’s rule for decades. In addition, the international community should call for Bangladesh to reopen its borders to refugees fleeing the violence in Burma and allow international humanitarian aid to enter the country. As Human Rights Watch has noted, Bangladesh is obligated under international law to provide temporary protection to refugees and asylum seekers. While Bangladesh is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol, it is a party to the Convention against Torture, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. These treaties and customary international law establish the obligation of states to respect the principle of nonrefoulement, which holds that refugees should not be forcibly returned to a place where their lives or freedom would be threatened and that no person should be returned to a place where they would be subjected to torture.

Post by: Adrian Lewis