Under International Criminal Law

I. Introduction

The North Korean State, under the command of Kim Jong Un, commits systematic, widespread and grave violations of human rights that contravene international law, and therefore the Kim regime should be held accountable for its actions. On a daily basis, 24 million North Koreans suffer to varying degrees because of the incredibly oppressive tactics of the Kim regime, all while its leaders continue to build up North Korea’s weapons capabilities designed for regime preservation. Kim Jong Un’s government commits mass atrocities under the shield of state sovereignty and avoids any level of accountability by striking fear throughout the international community.

Mass atrocities, however, are comprised of thousands of individual stories of suffering. Joseph, a recent defector, is one victim of the Kim regime.[1] Joseph defected from North Korea in the late 2000’s. Now in his early twenties, he has also undergone more tragedy in his short lifetime than anyone should ever have to. Joseph is the youngest child and only son of a family that he will likely never see again. Joseph was a young teenager when his father passed away from starvation. Shortly thereafter, his mother was taken by North Korean officials and never heard from again. Joseph’s sister attempted to travel to China to earn money in order to provide food for her brother and her, but Joseph does not know if she was successful. At only thirteen years old, Joseph became an orphan in North Korea. He barely survived each day, constantly searching for food, until he miraculously escaped to China when he was sixteen.[2] Joseph can tell us about the extreme hardships he faced, but until we, as an international community, care enough that a young boy can lose his whole family and not remember a time he was not hungry (and this is considered a ‘success story’ for North Koreans), then there will be more people who are not even as ‘lucky’ as Joseph.

II. International Criminal Law Violations

A. Brief Overview

Over the course of the last 65 years or so, the principles of state sovereignty, sovereign equality of states, and non-intervention have slowly eroded to allow individual perpetrators to be held accountable for actions society has deemed to be the most egregious and ‘worst of the worst.’ With developments in international criminal law due to the horrific tragedy of the Holocaust, less priority has been placed on a state consent-based system. “Prior to WWII, states could do pretty much anything they wanted to internally and it would be a violation of a state’s sovereignty to try to intervene.”[3] Since then, however, there is no longer head of state immunity or substantive immunity for actions that rise to the level of crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide, and crimes of aggression. There are no statutes of limitation (SOL) for these crimes and states do not have to agree to the respective laws.[4]

In July 2002, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute) was created to establish the International Criminal Court (ICC), which was designed to prosecute perpetrators of atrocities.[5] The ICC prosecutes “people accused of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. It offers the hope that some of the perpetrators of the worst crimes committed in armed conflicts will be brought to justice.” [6] The Court has temporal jurisdiction which limits it to crimes under its subject matter jurisdiction committed from July 2, 2002 and onwards.[7] As of May 2013, there were 122 states parties (either ratified or acceded) to the Rome Statute.[8] These are states that have agreed to be held to the ICC’s jurisdiction.

North Korea, however, is not a state party to this treaty. Nevertheless, “the ICC may have jurisdiction over crimes committed by D.P.R.K. citizens if: (1) the UN Security Council refers a case to it, acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter; (2) a State Party refers the situation to the ICC; or (3) the prosecutor initiates an investigation proprio motu, pursuant to Article 13 of the Rome Statute.”[9]

A primary requirement for determining whether a Prosecutor should initiate an investigation under Article 53 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is to evaluate whether there is “a reasonable basis to believe that a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has been or is being committed.”[10]

As a result, Kim Jong Un could be held accountable in the future under the Rome Statute, based on his current actions, which arguably constitute crimes against humanity and genocide.

B. Crimes Against Humanity

Although the specific legal definition of a “crime against humanity” depends on the body of law being used to prosecute, under Article 7(1) of the Rome Statute, a “‘Crime against humanity’ means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:”

(a)     Murder;

(b)     Extermination;

(c)     Enslavement;

(d)     Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

(e)     Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;

(f)     Torture;

(g)     Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;

(h)     Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;

(i)     Enforced disappearance of persons;

(j)     The crime of apartheid;

(k)     Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.[11]

Based on defector testimony, there is evidence the Kim regime has committed acts that qualify as crimes against humanity. Professor Lee has asserted, “North Korea is the most systematic violator of human rights, having committed nine out of the ten crimes against humanity as specified in article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court [except (j) apartheid because North Korea is intentionally homogeneous].”[12] A key element of Article 7 is that the perpetrator has to commit any one of these acts “as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population.”

In the case of the Kim regime, it is known that North Korea has the songbun system, which ensures that certain castes are imprisoned in gulags because of their political class; this is collective punishment. North Korea acceded to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1981. As such:

The Covenant thus explicitly prohibits arbitrariness in the deprivation of life (art. 6), arrest and detention (art. 9), exclusion from one’s own country (art. 12) and interference with privacy, family, home or correspondence (art. 17). The Covenant further guarantees fair and lawful process for arrest and detention (art. 9), imprisonment (art. 10), deportation (art. 13) and fair trial (art. 14). Importantly, article 26 recognizes all persons as equal before the law and entitles them to equal protection of the law without discrimination.

The evidence from defectors and also satellite imagery from DigitalGlobe indicates that these gulags are growing in size and population.[13] Recently, a BBC reporter traveled to North Korea under the guise of a school-sponsored educational trip in order to obtain more information about North Korea.[14] The reporter made a short video documenting his trip and also interviewed defectors. He asked a defector, who wished to remain anonymous, about life in the gulags. “How did they bury the dead in the winter when the ground was cold?” The defector responded, “No, we don’t bury them. We leave the dead bodies in a warehouse until April. We bury them in April. When we go to bury them, they’re already rotten and totally decomposed. So, they are shoveled like rubbish and buried.”[15] The defector further recounted that there are roughly 70-80 bodies in one hole, and that the camps are getting bigger, not smaller.[16]

These gulags, where political prisoners are starved, tortured, and worked to death, have accounted for over 1 million deaths.[17] This figure does not factor in recent intelligence and aerial satellite imagery that shows that the gulags in North Korea are far larger than previously known. Amnesty International estimates conservatively that Kim’s gulags now imprison at least 200,000 people for political reasons.

This evidence allows the inference that the Kim regime is committing these acts “as part of a widespread or systematic attack” against civilians, with knowledge of the attack. Therefore, clearly the Kim regime violates international human rights law and international criminal law with the operation of its gulags. As David Hawk has advocated for in his 2012 and 2003 reports, North Korea should dismantle these prisons.[18] Those responsible must be held accountable for the tremendous suffering it has caused as a result of the songbun system and gulags.

C. Genocide

Additionally, the case for genocide has also been levied against the Kim regime and should be again. A 2006 article by Grace Kang first argued that Kim Jong Il was committing genocide.[19] Since Kim Jong Il’s 2011 death renders him untouchable for a genocide conviction, arguably Kim Jong Un can be said to be perpetuating the acts of his father and therefore committing genocide, which violates international criminal law. Under Article 6 of the Rome Statute:

“Genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a)     Killing members of the group;

(b)     Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c)     Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d)     Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e)     Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.[20]

To meet the legal definition of the crime of genocide, specific intent must be proven. Here, the key phrase in Article 6 is “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part.” The North Korean regime does not allow freedom of religion, and Christians, for example, have been publically executed without due process.[21] “Open Doors designated North Korea as the worst prosecutor of religion in World Watch List 2012…North Korea has been in first place for persecution of Christians for ten consecutive years.”[22] While these actions constitute human rights violations (right to life, right to due process (and other fair trial rights), right to religion, right to free speech, etc.), the argument should also be made that because of the targeted persecution – with intent to destroy – of anyone in North Korea who practices a religion, namely Christianity, Kim Jong Un is committing genocide.

Importantly for purposes of accountability and prosecution, Kim Jong Un does not actually have to kill members of the religious group to constitute genocide. As Article 6 above shows, Kim’s actions could rise to the level of genocide by “causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.” This could appear in evidence from the gulags that the regime imprisoned Christians, with the intent to destroy, and tortured them, thereby causing serious bodily harm to them.

III. Accountability

A. Brief Overview

The international community is relatively new to the concept of accountability, as it has been more widely accepted in the past to grant amnesty to perpetrators or practice non-interference in internal state affairs. However, there is an increasing trend towards accountability because crimes against humanity, genocide, and war crimes are viewed as unacceptable in today’s world. Although accountability is now preferred over impunity in general, it is still exceedingly difficult to hold violators of international law accountable for their actions. This is evidenced by the fact that very few have been convicted of genocide, for example, although many more have been accused of committing genocide. North Korea would be no exception, unfortunately, as it is practically impossible to hold Kim Jong Un, as the current head of state, accountable at this time. Nevertheless, it is still prudent to consider holding Kim accountable in the future for alleged atrocities because so many victims have suffered, and will continue to suffer, under the regime.

B. North Korean Leadership

While relatively little is known about North Korean leadership, it is obvious that the regime is uniquely oppressive and controlling, and almost all policies and institutions appear to originate from the Kim family, in this case Kim Jong Un. The North Korean power dynamic is one that ensures that the person in charge stays in charge, as is evidenced by Mao Zedong’s teachings that the ‘big guns’ must be controlled so that they do not overthrow the leader.[23]

There is evidence, however, that points to the leadership’s structure and organization. The Korean Workers’ Party (KWP) controls the military, in terms of making decisions of personnel and promotions, and it can appoint the top brass since the military is not allowed to appoint its own leaders. The KWP is the sole, all-powerful political body. Under the KWP, there is the Political Bureau, the Party Secretariat, and the Central Military Commission.           

i. Kim Jong Un 

Kim Jong Un, although only about 29 years old, appears to be commanding the Korean leadership, military, and citizens. Kim Jong Un is the head of all three sub-organizations under the KWP. Additionally, he chairs the National Defense Commission and its subordinate Armed Forces and State entities.[24] As a result, in the event of a regime collapse and transition away from the current state of North Korea, Kim Jong Un will be the most likely, visible, and logical suspect to be tried for atrocities.

As mentioned, though, the prosecution of Kim Jong Un is currently unrealistic. Kim is North Korea’s leader, but there is currently little political will and practical means to bring him before the ICC. When the regime eventually collapses – assuming Kim Jong Un is still alive – it will, however, make sense and be far easier to try Kim Jong Un for atrocities committed. In past instances of accountability, heads of state or “senior leaders” have been charged with international crimes. The regime, of course, only releases information that it desires to have the world see, but thus far this tells us that Kim Jong Un is responsible for the actions that the State takes. Although many of the worst atrocities began prior to Kim Jong Un’s rule, as head of state he has made no effort to cease these activities (e.g. dismantle the gulag system).

ii. Jang Sung Taek

Jang Sung Taek is recognized as the second most powerful person in North Korea after Kim Jong Un.[25] He is a prominent politician, leader, and the uncle of Kim Jong Un (as the husband of Kim Jong Il’s sister). In North Korea, family members of the Kims are normally given special, privileged statuses, and Jang Sung Take is no exception to the rule.

Jang Sung Taek is a member of the KWP’s Political Bureau and Central Military Commission, and he is a Vice Chairman in the National Defense Commission.[26] As a Vice Chairman and four-star general, Jang Sung Taek is Kim Jong Il’s “key policy advisor.” When Kim Jong Il’s health was deteriorating in 2008, there was speculation that Jang Sung Taek was the de facto North Korean leader.[27] Additionally, “[s]cholars argue that Jang may be appointed president of the Supreme People’s Assembly Presidium (nominal head of state) or premier, replacing the current office-holders who are in their 80s.”[28]

Currently, Jang Sung Taek’s role in alleged human rights violations and atrocities is not completely established due to the secrecy of the regime. However, when more information becomes available that confirms Jang’s role and authority in state decision-making, it may likely be evident that Jang Sung Taek is also responsible for atrocities as a ‘senior leader.’ In a similar vein, it is possible that other senior leaders, mid-level leaders, or perpetrators of atrocities may come to light. Currently, there is not enough information to determine everyone who may be responsible for atrocities (such as members of the In-min-bo-an-seong (People’s Safety Agency) and the more political Kuk-ga-bo-wi-bu (National Security Agency)).[29] The recently established UN Commission of Inquiry, though, may discover this evidence (see below).

IV. Current Investigations Into Alleged Violations Of International Law 

A. UN Sanctions

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) may impose sanctions on a state that does not comply with international laws regarding state sovereignty and then becomes out of compliance with a UNSC resolution. “Member States can sanction the DPRK by ‘complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.’”^[30] North Korea has already undergone this process, however for reasons other than human rights violations. On multiple occasions, economic sanctions have been imposed upon the country as a result of North Korea’s unwillingness to disengage its nuclear armament program.[31] These sanctions reduced North Korea’s ability to receive foreign aid, such as food and oil, which drastically hurt its civilian population. While North Korea has not been persuaded by these sanctions, however, the UNSC has the authority to impose harsher penalties and even call for military intervention in North Korea.

B. Commission of Inquiry (COI)

Despite North Korea’s adamant objection to outside criticism of its human rights practices, the UN recently took an unprecedented, affirmative step toward investigating alleged human rights abuses. On March 21, 2013, the UN Human Rights Council (OHCHR) voted unanimously to establish a North Korea Commission of Inquiry (COI).[32] Although the UN has looked at North Korea in the past, it has mainly focused on North Korea’s nuclear weapons proliferations. This time, however, the ‘international community’ (more specifically, the European Union and Japan, the nations who brought the resolution before the OHCHR) has clearly shown its concern for potential human rights abuses in North Korea. The resolution, A/HRC/22/L.19, also extended the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in North Korea for one year.[33]           

What is a commission of inquiry? The UN Special Rapporteur on torture, Juan E. Méndez, stated in a report to the UN Human Rights Council,

“Commissions of inquiry are strong and flexible mechanisms that can yield ample benefits for governments, victim communities and the wider public, but they do not relieve States of their legal obligations to investigate and prosecute torture, and to provide effective remedies to victims of past violations, including reparation for the harm suffered and to prevent its reoccurrence.”[34]

According to a Geneva Academy conference on commissions of inquiry, there are two different kinds, national and international.[35] A COI investigates potential violations of international human rights law and/or humanitarian law. It does not appear that there is a standard construction to COIs, but recently a COI was established for the potential atrocities in Syria. A commission is supposed to investigate alleged violations of law, gather evidence, and issue a report(s), all in a fair and unbiased manner.

In this case, the North Korea COI will be an international tool used to investigate the human rights situation in North Korea. The COI is comprised of three members (it may include up to ten), including UN special rapporteur on North Korean human rights, Marzuki Darusman.[36] The COI is established for one year, but there is always the possibility of extension. The North Korea COI has to provide an “oral update to the Council at its twenty-fourth session and to the General Assembly at its sixty-eight session, and a written report to the Council at its twenty-fifth session.”[37]

What will the COI look at? The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) explains that the COI’s mandate is “to ‘investigate all systematic, widespread and grave violations of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.’” The COI will investigate the “use of torture and labour camps against political prisoners and repatriated citizens,” the ‘violation of the right to food, the violations associated with prison camps, torture and inhuman treatment, arbitrary detention, discrimination, violations of freedom of expression, violations of the right to life, violations of freedom of movement, and enforced disappearances.’”[38]

Predictably, the North Korean regime is hostile to the mandate of the COI. In fact, “North Korean Ambassador So Se Pyong rejected the resolution as ‘an instrument that serves the political purposes of the hostile forces in their attempt to discredit the image of the DPRK,’” and said, “‘[a]s we stated time and again, those human rights abuses mentioned in the resolution do not exist in our country.’”[39]          

How can the COI investigate since it is unlikely North Korea will cooperate? The crucial question for the COI is whether it can obtain reliable evidence of human rights abuses. The COI is established to investigate, but if North Korea obstructs the investigation (which it will) by blocking the commission’s entry into North Korea, then it is reasonable to believe the COI will not gather as much evidence about potential abuses by the Kim regime. As the Geneva Academy points out, “[a]n important task of any commission of inquiry is to analyse facts on the ground with regard to applicable law. Thus, it is crucial that a commission can independently and freely conduct investigations on the ground to establish the facts for itself.”

However, the work of the COI is not impossible if it is denied entry to North Korea. After all, as Dr. John Park pointed out recently, the roughly 24,000 North Korean defectors in South Korea are a relatively untouched information resource.[40] Ideally, the COI will have the cooperation of the South Korean government and North Korean defectors in order to search for the truth about what the Kim regime’s alleged acts of atrocities.

V. Conclusion

Although much of our world order is predicated on a common understanding of the priority of state sovereignty, a concept both necessary and disastrous at times to global functioning, we must stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings in North Korea who are the victims of deeply troubling atrocities. The Kim regime should not be allowed to continue to infringe upon the lives of the innocent in the name of sovereignty.

As discussed, the Kim regime’s systematic, widespread, and grave violations of human rights make the leaders liable for crimes against humanity and genocide. As a result and at minimum, Kim Jong Un should be held accountable by the international community for these egregious actions. While currently it is highly unlikely that Kim will be held accountable, the international community should continue to investigate Kim’s actions with a future case before the ICC in mind. When North Korea collapses and the state shifts from Kim’s control to a democracy, victims of atrocities should be able to expect that Kim will not receive impunity.

[T]he historic moment of truth, the defining moment in pan-Korean policy, will come when the Korean people are faced with the task of resolving once and for all – for the sake of the rule of law, moral values, psychological closure and posterity – the multifarious crimes against humanity committed by the Kim Jong-il regime.[41]

1) North Korea Imposes Term of 15 Years on American

2) United States Calls on North Korea to Free American

Name: Kenneth Bae

Kenneth Bae (Yonhap, via Reuters)

Convicted of: “Hostile acts” against the North Korean government

Details: According to the NY Times, South Korean human rights advocates said that Mr. Bae “ran tours to North Korea but also was interested in helping orphans there. They said security officials in the North may have been offended by pictures of orphans that Mr. Bae had taken and stored in his computer.”

Unfortunately, North Korean prisons are not your ordinary prisons. As with many things in North Korea, prisons are uniquely horrific. Here’s a bit about these prisons (I blogged about prisons, aka “gulags,” earlier):

Recently, a BBC reporter traveled to North Korea under the guise of a school-sponsored educational trip in order to obtain more information about North Korea.[1] The reporter made a short video documenting his trip and also interviewed defectors. He asked a defector, who wished to remain anonymous, about life in the gulags. “How did they bury the dead in the winter when the ground was cold?” The defector responded, “No, we don’t bury them. We leave the dead bodies in a warehouse until April. We bury them in April. When we go to bury them, they’re already rotten and totally decomposed. So, they are shoveled like rubbish and buried.”[2] The defector further recounted that there are roughly 70-80 bodies in one hole, and that the camps are getting bigger, not smaller.[3]

These gulags, where political prisoners are starved, tortured, and worked to death, have accounted for over 1 million deaths.[4] This figure does not factor in recent intelligence and aerial satellite imagery that shows that the gulags in North Korea are far larger than previously known. Amnesty International estimates conservatively that Kim’s gulags now imprison at least 200,000 people for political reasons. David Hawk’s 2012 and 2003 reports call for the dismantlement of these prisons.[5]

Hopefully North Korea keeps with its trend of eventually releasing American prisoners, as no one should have to endure the cruel and inhumane punishment that Mr. Bae certainly faces while in a North Korean gulag.

OHCHR logo

What is a commission of inquiry?

I had to take a look. So far, here’s the basic idea based on some quick research: According to a Geneva Academy conference on commissions of inquiry, there are two different kinds, national and international.[3] (In this case, the NK COI will be an international tool used to investigate human rights situations.) A COI investigates potential violations of international human rights law and/or humanitarian law. It does not appear that there’s a standard construction to COIs, but recently a COI was established for the potential atrocities being committed in Syria. A commission is supposed to investigate alleged violations of law, gather evidence, and issue a report(s), all in a fair and unbiased manner. The NK COI is comprised of three members (but may include up to ten people later on), including UN special rapporteur on North Korean human rights, Marzuki Darusman.[4] The COI is established for one year, but there is always the possibility of it being extended. The NK COI has to provide an “oral update to the Council at its twenty-fourth session and to the General Assembly at its sixty-eight session, and a written report to the Council at its twenty-fifth session.”[5]

The UN Special Rapporteur on torture, Juan E. Méndez, shed some more light on COIs. He stated in a report to the UN Human Rights Council, “‘Commissions of inquiry are strong and flexible mechanisms that can yield ample benefits for governments, victim communities and the wider public, but they do not relieve States of their legal obligations to investigate and prosecute torture, and to provide effective remedies to victims of past violations, including reparation for the harm suffered and to prevent its reoccurrence.’”[6]

Certainly, a COI is not meant to replace NK’s duty to not violate the rights of its own people. But this assumes NK actually believes its people are being denied rights, which it clearly does not. In fact, “North Korean Ambassador So Se Pyong rejected the resolution as ‘an instrument that serves the political purposes of the hostile forces in their attempt to discredit the image of the DPRK,’ and said, “‘[a]s we stated time and again, those human rights abuses mentioned in the resolution do not exist in our country.’”[7]

What will the COI look at specifically?

Luckily for me, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) already explained this quite nicely:

“As defined by the resolution on North Korea, the Commission of Inquiry will have a mandate to “investigate all systematic, widespread and grave violations of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.’ The resolution made particular note of ‘the use of torture and labour camps against political prisoners and repatriated citizens of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” and ‘the unresolved questions of international concern relating to abductions of nationals of other states.’ The resolution empowers the commission to undertake a one-year investigation into the ‘violation of the right to food, the violations associated with prison camps, torture and inhuman treatment, arbitrary detention, discrimination, violations of freedom of expression, violations of the right to life, violations of freedom of movement, and enforced disappearances, including in the form of abductions of nationals of other states, with a view to ensuring full accountability, in particular where these violations may amount to crimes against humanity.’”[8]

I need to dive into the specifics of the resolution still, but I believe some of this language is from the Rome Statute, which is the international treaty that established the International Criminal Court. Under Article 7(1) of the Rome Statute, “‘crime against humanity’ means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

(a)     Murder;

(b)     Extermination;

(c)     Enslavement;

(d)     Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

(e)     Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;

(f)     Torture;

(g)     Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity; 
(h)     Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;

(i)     Enforced disappearance of persons;

(j)     The crime of apartheid;

(k)     Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.[9]

And just for good measure, and because the argument has been made that the Kim regime has committed genocide, here’s Article 6 of the Rome Statute:

For the purpose of this Statute, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a)     Killing members of the group;

(b)     Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c)     Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d)     Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e)     Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

How can the COI investigate since it is unlikely NK will cooperate?

I think this is the crucial question right now. The COI is established to investigate, but if NK stands in the way (which it will) and does not let the commission into NK, then it stands to reason that the COI will not gather as much evidence about potential abuses by the Kim regime. As the Geneva Academy points out, “[a]n important task of any commission of inquiry is to analyse facts on the ground with regard to applicable law. Thus, it is crucial that a commission can independently and freely conduct investigations on the ground to establish the facts for itself.”

I hope that this will not inhibit the work of the COI too drastically though. After all, as Dr. John Park pointed out recently, the roughly 24,000 NK defectors in South Korea are a relatively untouched information resource. My hope is that the COI will have the cooperation of the South Korean government and the NK defectors in order to search for the truth about what the Kim regime is doing to the people unlucky enough to live north of the 38^th Parallel.

I recently spoke to a South Korean who said that gulags are likely considered the best example of crimes (against humanity) by the North Korean State from the perspective of South Koreans. This is because gulags are the most visible showing of atrocities against North Korea’s own people. I think this is understandable, don’t you? It seems that throughout history people need to see abuses before they can really start to understand them. North Korea’s tight control on information and limited foreign access makes it very difficult for the majority of the world to see, and therefore understand and care about, the incredibly egregious human rights violations and, arguably, crimes against humanity being committed by the Kim Regime.

North Korea: “The Last Worst Place On Earth”[1]

North Korean Defector Draws Gruesome Pictures Of Life In The Gulag
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/north-korean-gulag-concentration-camp-pictures-2012-6?op=1#ixzz2NKnVXrZ5

Although Kim Jong Il’s regime is marked by serious and prolific human rights abuses, it has not attracted the attention of the international community as much as other parts of the world. Kim’s regime is surrounded by a state-sponsored veil of secrecy which makes it harder for the international community to document and respond to his abhorrent behavior. Recently, that veil has been slightly lifted by intrepid journalists and defectors allowing brief glimpses into the lives of North Koreans suffering under Kim’s vast oppression. The evidence indicates Kim Jong Il’s policies have caused the death of millions of his own people through deplorable human rights violations.

One of the most egregious violations of the Kim Jong Il regime has been the establishment of gulags, in which political prisoners are enslaved for any perceived threat against Kim’s regime. Defectors have told their stories and political prisons have appeared on satellite imagery – this evidence tells awful stories. For instance, the gulags, where political prisoners are starved, tortured, and worked to death, have accounted for over 1 million deaths.[2] This figure does not factor in recent intelligence and aerial satellite imagery that shows that the gulags in the DPRK are far larger than previously known. Amnesty International estimates conservatively that Kim’s gulags now imprison at least 200,000 people.[3] Recently, a newspaper article retold the account of a former political prisoner in DPRK’s increasingly-populated gulags. The prisoner said that due to the rampant starvation, prisoners were happy when one of them died because it meant more food for the others. He recounted having to eat rats and corn kernels from animal feces as well.^[4] Another newspaper article tells of a prisoner’s tragic upbringing in a gulag:

“Shin Dong-hyuk was born in a prison camp in North Korea. ‘Guilt-by-association’ (with his parents) meant that he faced a lifetime of imprisonment. He was tortured along with his father. He was forced to watch the execution of his mother and his brother. He witnessed the deaths of many children under the impossible demands of forced labor.”[5]

Shin’s story is, unfortunately, just one person’s account of life under Kim. There are so many more examples in spite of Kim’s control.

Additionally, reports tie the population growth in the political gulags with the possibility that Kim Jong Il may be turning over the regime to his youngest son, Kim Jong-un. Sam Zarifi, Amnesty International’s Asia Pacific director, stated, “‘As North Korea seems to be moving towards a new leader in Kim Jong-un and a period of political instability, the big worry is that the prison camps appear to be growing in size.’”^[6]

The gulags are not the only place where human rights violations take place. Kim is accused of starving his own people and using international food donations to bolster the strength of his army. He restricts travel, denies free speech, the right to practice religion. Recently, Amnesty International reported Kim is responsible for the criminal abduction of 180,000 people.[7]

The Plight of Iran’s Baha’is

by KAMIAR ALAEI

01 Jun 2012

Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2012/06/comment-the-plight-of-irans-bahais.html#ixzz1waHsiFHs

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2012/06/comment-the-plight-of-irans-bahais.html

(The following is an article on Riaz Sobhani written – for more details - http://www.iranian.com/main/2012/may/riaz-sobhani-prisoner-day)

Every year, May 3rd is a date which celebrates the fundamental principles of press freedom; to evaluate press freedom around the world, to defend the media from attacks on their independence and to pay tribute to journalists who have lost their lives in the exercise of their profession.

3 May was proclaimed World Press Freedom Day the UN General Assembly in 1993 following a Recommendation adopted at the twenty-sixth session of UNESCO’s General Conference in 1991.

It serves as an occasion to inform citizens of violations of press freedom – a reminder that in dozens of countries around the world, publications are censored, fined, suspended and closed down, while journalists, editors and publishers are harassed, attacked, detained and even murdered.

It is a date to encourage and develop initiatives in favour of press freedom, and to assess the state of press freedom worldwide.

It serves as a reminder to governments of the need to respect their commitment to press freedom and is also a day of reflection among media professionals about issues of press freedom and professional ethics. Just as importantly, World Press Freedom Day is a day of support for media which are targets for the restraint, or abolition, of press freedom. It is also a day of remembrance for those journalists who lost their lives in the exercise of their profession.*

*http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/flagship-project-activities/world-press-freedom-day/about-the-day/

ANGELS OF IRAN | LOVE AND FREEDOM: THE LIFE OF REZA FANI YAZDI from Education Under Fire on Vimeo.

At the beginning of April, Iranians everywhere celebrate the festival of Sizdah-Bidar, a time for picnics and family get-togethers. But for over 500 Iranians the idea of a picnic with their families is unlikely to be realised. Instead, they are part of a new ‘family’, a family of hundreds of prisoners of conscience that languish in Iran’s prisons.

These people are not criminals. They are people like Masoud Delijani, a school-teacher and Christian convert who has been sentenced to three years in prison on the charge of having faith in Christianity, holding church meetings in his home, evengelising Muslims and unspecified ‘actions against national security.’ (1)

Or Nasrin Soutoudeh, a human rights lawyer and mother of two young children who was arrested in 2010. In January 2011, Nasrin was sentenced to 11 years in prison with a 20 year ban on practising her profession. The charges against Nasrin are that she has been ‘acting against national security’, ‘colluding and propagating against the Islamic Republic of Iran’, and “membership in the Defenders of Human Rights Center.’ Nobel Peace Prize winner, Shirin Ebadi has stated, “Ms Soutoudeh is one of the last remaining courageous human rights lawyers who has accepted all risks for defending the victims of human rights violations in Iran.”

Then there’s 31 year old student and women’s rights activist, Bahareh Hedayat – she’s been in prison since December 2009 and has been sentenced to almost ten years in prison.

In March 2012, the Harald Edelstam Foundation named Bahareh as the recipient of the Edelstam Prize, an award given by the Swedish Edelstam Foundation for outstanding contributions and exceptional courage in standing up for one’s beliefs in defense of human rights. Unfortunately, Bahareh will not be able to accept her prize in person on April 16^th, in Stockholm.

Along with these – and hundreds of other prisoners of conscience – there are the seven Baha’i leaders. Prior to their arrests in 2008, the seven were members of an ad hoc national-level group which attended to the spiritual and social needs of Iran’s Baha’i community. They are Fariba Kamalabadi, Jamaloddin Khanjani, Afif Naeimi, Saeid Rezaie, Mahvash Sabet, Behrouz Tavakkoli, and Vahid Tizfahm. Ms. Sabet was detained on 5 March 2008. Her six colleagues were arrested in early morning raids on their homes on 14 May 2008.

Some 20 months after being held without charge in Tehran’s Evin prison, a trial began on 12 January 2010. It consisted of six brief court sessions, all devoid of due legal process. The seven were charged with, among other things, espionage, propaganda against the Islamic republic, the establishment of an illegal administration – charges that were all rejected completely and categorically by the defendants. To no avail.

They were each sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.  Shirin Ebadi, who defended the seven Baha’i leaders, stated publicly that her clients’ prosecution was “riddled with irregularities.”  Already in prison for 10,000 days, and with no prospect of release until 2028, Ms. Ebadi has described the sentences her clients received as life sentences – and all because they belong to a religious minority.

These seven Baha’is are in prison but, unrecognised as citizens by the Constitution of Iran, all Iranian Baha’is are in constant danger. The Canadian senator Romeó Dallaire’s recent analysis of the situation makes chilling reading. Noting the disturbing similarities between Rwanda and the escalating persecution of Iran’s Baha’is, he sees it as nothing less than a “slow-motion rehearsal for genocide”. Dr Heiner Bielefeldt, the UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion and belief, recently described it as among the most “extreme manifestations of religious intolerance and persecution” in the world today.

Iran’s state machinery now attacks Baha’is at every level.  Their leadership has been dismantled, access to higher education is denied, and business licences are revoked.  Baha’i-owned shops are sealed or burned to the ground, cemeteries are desecrated, homes are raided and property is confiscated.  More than 500 have been arrested since 2004.  Even their efforts to educate their own youth were declared illegal – a tactic specifically designed to render the whole community’s existence unviable.

This April, though, these seven Baha’is and hundreds of other prisoners of conscience have one very important thing in common as they suffer torture and deprivation at Sidaz-Bidar this year – they are not criminals and yet they are in prison. They have done nothing except practice their own beliefs and work for the betterment of Iranian society and yet they now survive in cramped, difficult conditions, their situation representative of a deep and growing human rights crisis in Iran.

On Sunday last – in an initiative coordinated by human rights group United4Iran – large images of Nasrin Soutoudeh, Bahareh Hedayat and the Baha’i seven were displayed on mobile billboards and in other settings in some 12 major cities around the world.

“Those of us with the ability to speak out need to be the voices of those who have been silenced,” said Firuzeh Mahmoudi, director and founder of the human rights organisation, United4Iran. “We hope this action will bring worldwide attention to the plight of the seven Baha’i leaders, and also remind us of all other prisoners of conscience who remain behind bars and who need our unwavering support on their behalf.”

It is high time for Iran’s leaders to be called to account for their actions. To be prevailed upon to release these people whose only crime is working for the well being of Iranian society. If Dallaire’s predictions come true and these human rights abuses escalate into genocide for the Baha’i – and other – communities in Iran we will not be able to say we didn’t know this time. Allowing the human rights of Iranian citizens to be so viciously disregarded will, ultimately, not just be an indictment of Iran and its regime but also of the world’s inability to avert yet another human rights catastrophe.

(1) According to Mohabat News.

(http://www.iranhumanrights.org/2012/04/houshmandzadeh) 

Imprisoned journalist Ehsan Houshmand, who suffers from serious ear pain as a result of beatings he received during his interrogation, is currently being threatened with his wife’s arrest if he publicizes information about his case and condition, his wife told the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran in an interview.

“In his last contact which took place on 25 March, Ehsan was under more intense pressure than he had been previously and he was regularly told to relay specific sentences to us, to the point that I felt that the goal of this call was not to wish a happy new year, but rather to tell us that he is under pressure in prison for our interviews outside. Pointing out that I was aware his interrogator was hearing my voice, I said that we have no other recourse but to inform [the press] about his situation, so that perhaps we can hear news from him in prison. I said that under the circumstances, these interviews are inevitable,” Nahid Kouhshekaf, Houshmand’s wife, told the Campaign.

According to Houshmand’s wife, despite his transfer, Houshmand is still deprived of the right to regular telephone calls and visitations. “During his call he expressed concern for me and it’s probable that they have also threatened him with my arrest because Ehsan constantly emphasized that I should be more cautious for the sake of the kids,” said Nahid Kouhshekaf.

Ehsan Houshmand, a journalist who reports on social issues, is a National-Religious activist and an ethnic issues researcher. On 7 January 2012 authorities arrested him and transferred him to Evin Prison. He was held in solitary confinement but was transferred and is currently in a cell with two prisoners in Security Ward 209.

Kouhshekaf said that her husband has only had one visit with his family in three months, during which he was very thin and depressed. “On 15 March we were finally allowed to see him after three months. Ehsan has become very thin and weary. The pressure during solitary was completely clear in his tone and body; he was very depressed and kept kissing the glass for my daughter and his mother. Unfortunately, he has serious ear pain because of the beatings during his interrogation. The prison doctor that examined him confirmed that his ear pain is due to the beatings.”

Houshmand’s wife also spoke with the Campaign about his charges. “Ehsan’s charges were mainly [based on] his interviews, for example the one with Mr. Hashemi Rafsanjani, and emails and contacts with his friends outside the country. But Ehsan hasn’t had a lot of contact with his friends abroad! I don’t understand their insistence to exaggerate this case … With whatever he told us in that meeting, Ehsan wanted to show us that the reason for his being in prison is so that he accepts the charges,” Kouhshekaf said, adding that he does not accept any of his charges.

Nahid Kouhshekaf told the Campaign that two days after the 25 March telephone call, she went with her children and her husband’s 80-year-old ailing father to the Moghaddas Court Complex, and tried to obtain a visit. She was told that Ehsan’s interrogator did not allow him to have visits. She pointed out that during the New Year’s holidays courts are shut down and nobody is responsive to the requests of prisoners families. “There was only a shift judge on duty who said he couldn’t do anything for political prisoners,” she said.

Jalila al-Salman

It was 1.30 am on March 29 this year when a group of armed men broke into the family home of Jalila al-Salman in the Bahraini capital of Manama.

Some were wearing balaclavas and carrying machine guns. Others had batons.

There were at least 15 of them, ransacking the house, shouting at three terrified children whom they found in the bedrooms upstairs.

They barged into another bedroom where a woman was sleeping. “Don’t be afraid, we are the police!” – one of the men shouted as he held her by the neck, pressing a gun to her head.

You would be forgiven for thinking this was a raid on the house of an international terrorist when, in fact, they were after a female teacher.

“I was just in my nightdress. I had nothing to cover myself. I was on my bed and I thought I was dreaming. I could not believe what was going on.

“There were so many men inside that you could not catch a glimpse of the carpet on the floor. I heard a helicopter above my house.”

Al-Salman is still struggling to comprehend what has happened to her in the last six months – until then she was just the vice-president of the Teachers’ Association and a mother of three children under 12.

“They took me outside where there were over 15 cars parked. They wouldn’t let me say goodbye to my children. I was put on a minibus.

“As we were driving away, they told me to look outside the window as I would never see the outside world again. They hit me and called me horrible names. Names I can’t bring myself to repeat.”

Al-Salman is one of the symbols of repression of the Bahraini regime. Her crime – taking part in the recent non-violent protests at the Pearl Roundabout in Manama.

The protesters had had enough of a country run like a private company. Bahrain has had the same prime minister for 42 years and a large majority of the government and the judiciary belong to the ruling Sunni Al Khalifa family.

They are calling for an end to discrimination against Shias and a fairly elected government with genuine power.

Although parliamentary elections were held on September 24, only 13 nominally independent candidates participated. The opposition boycotted it.

On the night of her arrest the army men and the police were doing the rounds, collecting her colleagues from their beds, dragging them apart from their screaming families.

Al-Salman says that the teachers only went to the Roundabout on the sixth day, Sunday 20 March, after some of the protestors had already been injured and killed. As Bahraini citizens, they refused to accept that kind of treatment.

She is keen to stress that it was only after the King himself had appeared on TV saying that everyone had the right to express themselves peacefully that they decided to go.

“We told our union members to stand outside schools as a sign of support to our brothers. That was our message. The Ministry of Education refused to talk to us and we only communicated through statements.”

Initially she was taken to the CID (Criminal Investigation Directorate) and kept there for 10 days. She was questioned twice during that time and made to sign statements which not only did she not write, she was not even allowed to read.

“I was in solitary confinement, it was very, very dirty. The walls were covered in dried blood. There was a hook hanging off the ceiling. There were no windows. I was forced to stand for almost all of the time.

“Every five minutes someone would come inside my cell. I was not allowed to lie down or even to go to the toilet or to have water. Because of that I had to be treated for kidney problems.

“The food they gave me was full of hairs, sand and dirt. I am on medication for high blood pressure and they only allowed me to take it on the fifth day.

“By that time I was in a really bad state and I was fainting during questioning. Still, I was never allowed to sit down.”

She was also beaten, threatened with rape and denied access to a lawyer.

“During a questioning, one of the men who was wearing a mask, held a gun against my head and tried to take off his trousers.

“He threatened to rape me and said that they were given a permission to do whatever was necessary to get the statement they wanted.”

“I told them I didn’t do anything and could not confess to anything. But they said I would ‘see something I hadn’t seen before’ they threatened to rape me.

“I just couldn’t let anyone touch me, so I had to say what they wanted. They were stopping and starting the recording all the time, telling me exactly what to say next. I only saw my lawyer for five minutes during my first hearing.”

In an attempt to appear cooperative with international demands for much greater respect for human rights, King Hamad established the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI) earlier this year. Its role is to investigate the events in Bahrain and present its findings in October.

Following a visit by the Commission to the women’s prison, Al-Salman and a fellow prisoner were released on bail.

Nabeel Rajab, president of the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights, is very sceptical about the trustworthiness of the Commission. He sees it mostly as an attempt of the ruling elite to wash their hands of their dirty work.

“Maybe the government is trying to find the way out by appointing this commission. King is doing it to isolate himself from responsibility. Because many Bahrainis see him as responsible for crimes against humanity here.

“The commission might come with recommendation to release the prisoners because, as we know, they were all tried unfairly and illegally.

“This commission is not going to solve the political crisis, we need a proper solution, a dialogue which will bring people together from all sides. At the moment there is a lack of trust.”

Bahrainis have also lost their belief in the support of Western democracies for their revolution.

With the US announcing a plan to sell $53 million worth of arms to Bahrain and the UK inviting their representatives to the London arms fair, it is not surprising that these governments are perceived as having double-standards when it comes to foreign policy.

“When people started the revolution on February 14, myself included,” says Rajab, “they thought that the UK government, as a long lasting ally of Bahrain, would take the same position they had with Libya or Iran when it comes to human rights.

“But we are shocked to see them ignore our revolution. Even worse, supporting our government by selling them arms.

“They obviously have their strategic interests which rest with the oppressive ruling families in the region, rather than with any democratic movement.”

While government-sponsored violence is still raging, ordinary people like Al-Salman are paying a huge price for their bravery.

On September 25 she was sentenced to three years in prison by a military court. At the moment she is still at home. Having spent five months behind bars earlier this year, she is terrified that her horrific ordeal will soon start again.

I ask her whether she would leave Bahrain with her family, if she could. She is adamant that her place is in her country.

All she wants, she says is for “everyone to be equal. In my heart I believe that we are all one family.”

The other night our Papua New Guinean neighbour M was walking home from one of the nicer hotels in town and was robbed of his clothes, shoes, glasses and wallet by a group of locals just outside of the hotel. Why? Because he’s gay. Is it obvious? He doesn’t smoke, chew betel nut, dresses very smartly and takes care of himself. So probably. He ran back down to the hotel to ask the security guards for help. A car of police men parked nearby saw the commotion and came over to see what the problem was. M told them what had happened, asked the security guards to support him as they’d witnessed the whole thing but they said that they’d seen nothing. The local guys said that they robbed him because he was coming on to them…likely? No. The security guards then stood by and watched as the police beat M with sticks. Three of them beat him to the ground, dragged him through dog shit and then carried on beating him. Why? Because he’s gay.

What can we do about it? Apparently not much. Another neighbour T works with Save the Children on a project with sex workers and men who have sex with men (MSM) two greatly marginalised populations here in PNG. He himself says that there’s nothing we can do. The whole police institution is corrupt and few major crimes are investigated unless a bribe is paid. Many reports exist about both men and women going to police stations for help and suffering police brutality through beatings or rape, or both. The details are here in this report written by Amnesty International (page 19, section 4.4 details abuses by the police against girls, women and men). A small local incident has no chance of raising even an eyebrow. No human rights organisations seem to exist here despite Amnesty International’s report. The local media aren’t interested and nor it seems are the international media. If there is something that can be done then it is not widely known, even among the ‘expert community’.

While sometimes living here feels like living in paradise it doesn’t take long for the harsh realities of life to smack you in the face, pick you up and shake you around and then dump you back on the ground feeling extraneous and helpless.

Last year I wrote an assignment about the ‘Landscape of Intimate Partner Violence in Port Moresby’. I haven’t written academically for at least six years so please forgive its short fallings but, if you’re interested to know more then you can read it here.

You may need a gin to get you through…