and "probably" was in Syria. One internally displaced Palestinian woman who lives just outside Shatilla refugee camp in Beirut engaged in this frustrating exercise after her twenty-one-year-old son was taken from his apartment in the Wata Musaitbeh section of the city early one morning in 1995. She said that Lebanese dressed in civilian clothes, who identified themselves as “investigators,” came to the door and asked for her son, who was sleeping. "They took him from the bed,” she said. The family's subsequent inquiries at Lebanese police stations, prisons and courts yielded no information about his whereabouts: The police said they knew nothing about him. The courts and the prisons told us they had no records A Lebanese family described how one of their immediate relatives was taken into Syrian custody in 1996. The family was able to confirm, through an unofficial Syrian intermediary, that the relative was being held in Syria, but requests for help placed with "influential” Lebanese were turned down because the case was “sensitive,” they said.“ A Lebanese who was taken from his home in Beirut in 1993 and held in Syrian custody in Lebanon for eight days recounted how, during his "disappearance," Lebanese authorities told his lawyer that they had no information concerning his whereabouts. His lawyer added that, after his client's release, "the police only took his testimony about what happened" but did not investigate the circumstances of the "disappearance." According to the victim, "even doctors were afraid” to document the injuries that he had sustained from torture while in Syrian custody." The Price of Fear Some families of the "disappeared" have been victims of extortion by Syrian security forces. In the absence of effective governmental mechanisms to make known the whereabouts of their relatives, and if they are even dead or alive, families understandably become desperate for information. They have paid money to Syrian security forces - either directly or through intermediaries — in often-fruitless attempts to secure information. “Sometimes families give money to Syrian officers, but receive no information," said a Palestinian from a refugee camp where "disappearances❞ occurred as recently as July 1996. In some cases, detentions have been informally acknowledged and family members have been allowed to visit relatives held in Syria, although it is unclear if in all cases they must pay money to Syrian security forces in order to do so. These reports of extortion are consistent with other information obtained by Human Rights Watch in 1995 and 1996 concerning corruption and a breakdown of discipline within Syria's security forces in both Syria and Lebanon. For example, Military Intelligence officers in Damascus informed one Syrian political activist in 1996 that he would be freed in exchange for a cash sum. This activist told us that he paid the money and was released. In another 1996 case, a Lebanese family told us about the demand for a large sum as a condition for the release of a relative who had been abducted and was subsequently detained in Syria.” In both cases, the detainees had been arbitrarily arrested and were not formally charged with an offense. 53 Interview, Beirut, August 1995. 54 Interview, Beirut, August 1996. 56 Interview, Beirut, August 1996. - Human Rights Watch/Middle East 21 May 1997, Vol. 9, No. 3 (E) INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS " “No circumstances whatsoever, whether a threat of war, a state of war, internal political instability International human rights law guarantees to everyone the right to liberty and security of person. Article 9(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which both Syria and Lebanon have ratified, states in its pertinent part: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedures as are established by law." Syrian security forces in Lebanon, by abducting non-Syrian nationals in Lebanon and then not acknowledging that these individuals are in Syrian custody, have flouted international human rights standards with impunity. International standards impose responsibilities upon both Lebanon and Syria with respect to "disappearances" that occur in Lebanon, and both states are obligated to investigate and prosecute individuals who have perpetrated "disappearances." Article 14 of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance states: Any person alleged to have perpetrated an act of enforced disappearance in a particular State shall, Responsibilities of the Syrian Government Article 9 of the ICCPR requires the government of Syria to maintain various safeguards against arbitrary and unlawful arrest. These include providing information at the time of arrest about the reasons for the arrest, and promptly informing persons arrested of any charges. Moreover, anyone “arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or release."58 The rights set forth in the ICCPR are applicable whether persons are taken into Syrian custody on Lebanese or Syrian soil. In cases where Syrian security forces have detained foreign nationals or stateless Palestinians on Lebanese soil and then transferred these individuals to Syrian territory, possibly illegally and arbitrarily, the Syrian government is bound by the requirements and guarantees set forth in the ICCPR. The Human Rights Committee has found that agents of a state should be held responsible for violations of civil and political rights that have been carried out in the territory of another state. The Committee wrote: Article 2(1) of the [ICCPR] places an obligation upon a State party to respect and to ensure rights 58 Article 9(3). "1. Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person In line with this, it would be unconscionable to so interpret the responsibility under article 2 of the The Syrian government is also under an obligation, pursuant to Article 2(3) of the ICCPR, to provide effective remedies to non-Syrian nationals who have been detained in Syria following arbitrary arrest on Lebanese soil. These remedies include immediate release, permission to leave Syria, and compensation for the human rights violations that these individuals have suffered. The Syrian government must also take steps to ensure that similar violations do not occur in the future. Responsibilities of the Lebanese Government The U.N. Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances noted in its 1997 report to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights that the Lebanese government has a "commitment under articles 13 and 14 of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance to investigate thoroughly all cases of enforced disappearance and to bring the perpetrators to justice." Article 13 spells out the obligation to carry out independent and effective investigations of “disappearances," and to ensure that complainants are not subjected to "any ill-treatment, intimidation or reprisal." Article 14, quoted above, obligates states to prosecute and bring to justice all persons found responsible for acts of enforced disappearance. The Working Group also wrote that "while taking into account the legitimacy of derogating from some human rights commitments, in accordance with international law, in times of public emergency," it "wishes to remind the [Lebanese] Government that, under article 7, no circumstances whatsoever may be invoked to justify enforced disappearances." #161 The Lebanese government clearly has ceded certain police powers to Syrian intelligence forces inside Lebanon - in practice if not also by some secret agreement. By providing an effective guarantee of impunity for human rights abuses under this arrangement, the Lebanese authorities must bear a measure of direct responsibility for these abuses. Lebanese complicity in abuses by Syrian forces sometimes goes beyond official acquiescence and becomes direct collaboration with Syrian forces in carrying out reported “disappearances.” To end complicity in torture, "disappearance," and other abuses by Syrian forces in Lebanon, it is incumbent upon Lebanese authorities to establish enforceable procedures under which Syrian forces present and operating in Lebanon can be held fully accountable for their actions under both Lebanese and international law. Lebanese authorities should begin to address this problem by ending immediately their silence about abuses being committed by Syrian forces on Lebanese territory, and by carrying out independent and effective investigations of "disappearances" in such a manner as to bring the perpetrators to justice. 59 Views of the Human Rights Committee Under Article 5(4) of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in Saldías de López v. Uruguay concerning Communication No. R.12/52, 6 June 1979. 60 U.N. Commission on Human Rights, 53rd Session, Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, 13 December 1996, E/CN.4/1997/34, p. 42. 61 Ibid. Article 7 of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances states: "No circumstances whatsoever, whether a threat of war, a state of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked to justify enforced disappearances." Human Rights Watch/Middle East 23 May 1997, Vol. 9, No. 3 (E) HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH/MIDDLE EAST HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH/MIDDLE EAST REPORT, COPYRIGHT © HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH; ISSN: 1080-6199 APPENDIX A: Letter to Ambassador Riad Tabbarah from Human Rights Watch, January 13, 1997 2 6 8 8 9 13 15 16 17 18 21 22 25 28 RIGHTS 485 FIFTH AVENUE 1522 K STREET, NW, #910 33 ISUNGTON HIGH STREET 15 RUE VAN CAMPENHOUT WEB SITE: http://www.hrw.org gopher://gopher.humanrights.org:5000 LISTSERV ADDRESS: To subscribe to the SUMMARY Lebanon's airwaves had long been unregulated, with scores of unlicensed private broadcasters that ranged in political diversity from the radio station of the Lebanese Communist Party to the television station of Hizballah. One prominent Lebanese government official who requested anonymity told Human Rights Watch that the broadcasting community included fifty-two television stations and over 120 radio stations for a population of three million. "Before the [civil] war in Lebanon, we had only one official television and radio station. Then we had seventeen years of chaos. During this period, every militia and semi-militia started broadcasting," he said. Some of the stations grew to become well-established, multimillion-dollar enterprises, but all of them remained unlicensed because there were no laws or administrative mechanisms for obtaining licenses. "The war was on the streets, and now it's on the air. The [media] had to be reorganized," the official remarked. The first step in the process of reorganization was the enactment of a broadcasting law in 1994. The law recognized, commendably, the freedom of the audiovisual media and “the pluralistic nature of the expression of ideas and opinions." It also ended the state's legal monopoly of the airwaves, and paved the way for the licensing of privately owned radio and television stations. Because the government sought to reduce the large number of existing stations,' any licensing process was bound to be controversial. The state had to allocate limited frequency bands for radio stations and television channels among the large number of existing, competing private broadcasters. It thus was particularly important that the licensing process be equitable and transparent, with decision making power in the hands of independent regulators untainted by political interests. In addition, Human Rights Watch interprets Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Lebanon is a party, to require that the state exercise regulatory power in a manner that ensures freedom of expression for broadcasters and listening audiences alike, including the right to disseminate and receive information, ideas and opinions from a diversity of sources. The implementation of the broadcasting law prompted sustained public protest in Lebanon. In September 1996, the cabinet (also known as the council of ministers) granted broadcasting licenses to four television stations, all of them reportedly linked directly or indirectly to leading government officials and pro-Syrian political figures. Television stations that were notably critical of government policies were not licensed. The cabinet's decision was made more controversial because one of the licensed stations, parliament speaker Nabih Berri's National Broadcasting Network (NBN), was not yet on the air. The cabinet also licensed eleven FM radio stations, but only three of the stations were authorized to broadcast news and political programs, one of them NBN radio, like its television counterpart not yet operational. No privately owned stations were licensed to broadcast on the AM radio band. Government officials defended the cabinet's decisions, stating that the licensed stations were those that had submitted the strongest applications and were the most viable financially. But Mohammed Obeid, general director of the ministry of information, conceded in an interview with The Washington Post that the selection of the stations to be licensed was, in part, a “political decision." Critics had a different view, voicing concern that media pluralism - the dissemination of a diversity of information, ideas and opinions - —was about to disappear in Lebanon. They charged that members of the pro-Syrian political establishment in Lebanon had "licensed themselves” and denied licenses to stations that were critical of the Hariri government and Syria's dominant role in Lebanese affairs. A lawsuit challenging the licensing decisions, filed with the Council of State on behalf of some stations that were not licensed, claimed that since 1993 the objective of those in power had been "to pass a multimillion-dollar deal for themselves and to silence the opposition." The lawsuit noted that families and close political associates of leading government officials would reap enormous financial gain from the annual advertising revenues of their licensed stations. 'Assessment of the technical capacity of Lebanon's airwaves is beyond the scope of this report and the expertise of Human Rights Watch. Human Rights Watch/Middle East 2 March 1997, Vol. 9, No.1 (E) |