Posts Tagged ‘Paramilitär’

Irak: USA erhöhen die Zahl paramilitärischer Truppen

Freitag, Juli 23rd, 2010

“Iraq Withdrawal? Obama and Clinton Expanding US Paramilitary Force in Iraq

By Jeremy Scahill

UPDATE: In Iraq today, three private security contractors were killed in a rocket attack on Baghdad’s Green Zone. All of them were employees of Triple Canopy, the security company hired by the Obama administration to take over much of Blackwater’s work in Iraq. Another fifteen people were wounded in the attack. The dead included two Ugandans and a Peruvian. The attack highlights the inevitable consequences of an emerging Obama administration policy wherein more contractors are going to be deployed to Iraq and many of them will be so-called third country nationals like those killed in today’s attack. The coming surge in contractors in Iraq is being done under the auspices of the State Department’s diplomatic security division, which was massively expanded under the Bush administration paving the way for the Department’s almost total reliance on private contractors for security in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

As a candidate for president, Senator Hillary Clinton vowed to ban the use of private security contractors, which she referred to as mercenaries. ‘These private security contractors have been reckless and have compromised our mission in Iraq,’ Clinton said in February 2008. ‘The time to show these contractors the door is long past due.’ Clinton was one of only two senators to sponsor legislation to ban these companies. Fast forward to the present and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is presiding over what is shaping up to be a radical expansion of a private, US-funded paramilitary force that will operate in Iraq for the foreseeable future–the very type of force Clinton once claimed she opposed.

The State Department is asking Congress to approve funds to more than double the number of private security contractors in Iraq with a State Department official testifying in June at a hearing of the Wartime Contracting Commission that the Department wants ‘between 6,000 and 7,000 security contractors.’ The Department also has asked the Pentagon for twenty-four Blackhawk helicopters, fifty Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected (MRAP) vehicles and other military equipment. ‘After the departure of U.S. Forces [from Iraq], we will continue to have a critical need for logistical and life support of a magnitude and scale of complexity that is unprecedented in the history of the Department of State,’ wrote Patrick Kennedy, under secretary of state for management, in an April letter to the Pentagon. ‘And to keep our people secure, Diplomatic Security requires certain items of equipment that are only available from the military.’

What is unfolding is the face of President Obama’s scaled-down, rebranded mini-occupation of Iraq. Under the terms of the Status of Forces agreement, all US forces are supposed to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011. Using private forces is a backdoor way of continuing a substantial US presence under the cover of ‘diplomatic security.’ The kind of paramilitary force that Obama and Clinton are trying to build in Iraq is, in large part, a byproduct of the monstrous colonial fortress the United States calls its embassy in Baghdad and other facilities the US will maintain throughout Iraq after the ‘withdrawal.’ The State Department plans to operate five ‘Enduring Presence Posts’ at current US military bases in Basrah, Diyala, Erbil, Kirkuk and Ninewa. The State Department has indicated that more sites may be created in the future, which would increase the demand for private forces. The US embassy in Baghdad is the size of Vatican City, comprised of twenty-one buildings on a 104-acres of land on the Tigris River.

In making their case to Congress and the Defense Department for the expansion of a private paramilitary force in Iraq, State Department officials have developed what they call a ‘lost functionality’ list of fourteen security-related tasks that the military currently perform in Iraq that would become the responsibility of the State Department as US forces draw down. Among these are: recovering killed and wounded personnel, downed aircraft or damaged vehicles, convoy security and threat intelligence. The department also foresees a need to run a tactical operations center that would dispatch of armed response teams. Ambassador Kennedy said that without military equipment and an expansion of personnel, ‘the security of [State] personnel in Iraq will be degraded significantly and we can expect increased casualties.’

For years, companies operating in the private security/defense logistics industry have predicted an increased reliance on contractors in Iraq that would accompany a draw-down of official US forces. What is clear from the current State Department plan for Iraq is that the United States is going to have armed forces in the country for the foreseeable future. The only question is, How many will be there as uniformed soldiers and how many will be private paramilitaries?”


(Quelle: The Nation.)

USA: Bekanntem Journalisten aus Kolumbien Einreise-Visa verweigert

Mittwoch, Juli 14th, 2010

“Colombian journalist denied a U.S. visa

By Mark Schapiro

One of Colombia’s foremost journalists, Hollman Morris, has been denied a visa by the U.S. State Department to pursue a year as a Nieman fellow at Harvard University.

The visa denial comes after several years of highly critical reporting on the ties of Colombian President Alvaro Uribe’s administration to right-wing paramilitary squads. He and his brother, Juan Pablo, a producer, created a television show, Contravia, which airs on Bogota’s independent television channel. CIR interviewed them last year by Skype from their studio in Bogota about their reporting, in which over the course of several years they revealed the largely untold story of massacres and human rights abuses by the paramilitaries. Partly as a result of Morris’ reporting, one-third of the members of Colombia’s Congress has been under investigation for having financial ties to the paramilitary units.

In February, Morris discovered he was under surveillance by Colombia’s intelligence service, the DAS—a revelation that spurred an independent prosecutor’s ongoing investigation. The unearthed DAS documents have been collected and published by the Center for International Policy. At least a dozen DAS agents are now awaiting trial for the illegal surveillance, according to the Associated Press.

In March last year, attorneys with the Committee for a Free Press in Colombia publicly complained to the Inter American Press Association of the Organization of American States about the government’s harassment of Morris and other journalists. The OAS followed with a statement highly critical of the government’s threats against Morris and other journalists.

Morris has been widely recognized for his work—including by the Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas. CIR helped him obtain an invitation to the Global Investigative Journalism Network conference in Geneva last April, but he was prevented from traveling to Switzerland at that time due to the eruption of the Icelandic volcano.

The outgoing Uribe administration has accused Morris of being part of the “intellectual bloc” of the left-wing FARC guerrillas, who have been on the other side of the Colombian civil war for much of the past two decades. President George W. Bush placed the FARC on the U.S. terrorist list, which empowers the government to deny those on the list travel to the United States as well as other privileges. The Uribe administration’s charges against Morris are based on having found email correspondence between Morris and a FARC commander suggesting that Morris played an intermediary role in trying to negotiate the release of former Colombian presidential candidate Ingrid Bettencourt. The government also accuses him of being inexplicably present at a FARC redoubt where the guerrillas turned four hostages over to the Colombian military. Morris denies all the charges. He told CIR that he was present at the hostage release on a journalistic assignment for the Latin American History Channel.

Just over a week after Morris was informed of the visa denial, he was honored at the Universidead Javieriena, one of Colombia’s leading universities for his journalistic courage in the face of death threats and government harassment.

Watch the CIR interview with the Morris brothers:


Quelle: Center For Investigative Reporting.)


Siehe auch:

Menschenrechtler sieht keine Verbesserung

Kolumbien: Die Rolle der USA im seit 40 Jahren andauernden Konflikt

Freitag, Juli 2nd, 2010

MADRE Talking Points: The Role of the US in Colombia’s Conflict

Posted on: Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Keywords: Colombia, Latin America and Caribbean

The Conflict in a Nutshell

  • For over 40 years, Colombians have endured an armed conflict over their country’s highly concentrated sources of natural wealth, especially land.
  • In the mid-1960s, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) arose as a peasant movement demanding land redistribution and social reform from the government.
  • Since the 1990s, the conflict has been a three-way war: the FARC is battling the government; the government is fighting to eliminate the FARC; and brutal paramilitary groups function symbiotically with the government and Army to protect the interests of powerful elites.
  • Instead of battling one another directly, Colombia’s armed groups usually attack civilians suspected of siding with their enemy. The main victims of the conflict are women and families, hundreds of thousands of whom have been assaulted, displaced from their homes or killed.

The Government


  • The FARC is a guerrilla force estimated to number between 15,000 and 20,000 recruits that controls large territories in Colombia. Its demands revolve around issues of social welfare, economic development, agrarian and judiciary reform and reorganization of the military. However, the FARC’s overall political platform is murky. Some progressives charge that the organization has no coherent program other than to perpetuate its own existence.
  • Although the FARC has a strong support base in some areas, it lacks credibility because of its brutal tactics, including massacres of civilians. In 1999, three US-based activists, including former MADRE staff member and Indigenous rights activist Ingrid Washinawatok, were tortured and killed by FARC combatants.

The Paramilitaries

  • Colombia’s paramilitary groups use extreme violence to protect the interests of elites, including US-based corporations, large landowners and drug traffickers.
  • Because paramilitaries are not formally linked to the state, the government avoids accountability for their violence. Yet the paramilitaries operate with the tacit approval and sometimes open support of the military.
  • The government claims that paramilitary groups have significantly demobilized since an agreement in 2003 with the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC), a major coalition of paramilitaries. Yet, they continue to be responsible for the murder of civilians and other human rights violations.
  • Amnesty International has also reported that the Colombian government continues to use former paramilitaries in its own operations, regardless of a ban on such activity.

How Has the Conflict Impacted Women and Families in Colombia?

What Has Been the Role of the US in Colombia’s Conflict?

  • The rise of paramilitarism in Colombia can be traced directly to the United States. According to declassified State Department documents, a 1962 US Special Forces mission to Bogotá advised the Colombian military to use “paramilitary terror” against “communist proponents” (defined as virtually anyone who challenged the status quo).
  • During the Kennedy Administration, the US began giving weapons and training to the Colombian military. This policy marked the onset of the “National Security Doctrine,” which the US eventually instilled across Latin America. The strategy uses the military to wage war on the domestic population as a means of safeguarding elite interests.
  • Under the guise of the war on terror, the Bush Administration began funding operations against leftist guerillas directly, rather than channeling funding through counternarcotics missions. Since then—and for the first time since the 1980s—the US has waged a direct counterinsurgency effort in Latin America, giving weapons, training and money to a government that relies on paramilitary death squads.

The Vicious Cycle of Neoliberalism & Armed Conflict

  • The root causes of Colombia’s conflict—poverty and inequality—have been exacerbated since the 1990s, when the US began demanding neo-liberal economic reforms including wage suppression, debt servicing and public sector budget cuts.
  • In the 1990s, the US insisted that the Colombian government stop subsidizing agriculture (although the US and Europe maintain this lucrative practice for themselves).
  • Without government subsidies, millions of small farmers were unable to compete with large-scale agribusiness and were driven off their lands.
  • Displaced farmers generally have four options: join the guerrillas or paramilitaries; move into the jungle to cultivate coca (the one crop that promises a profit); become poorly-paid laborers on large plantations or in urban factories, or migrate to the urban slums to join the “informal economy.”
  • The same economic policies that concentrate land ownership in the hands of a few drive people to join the armed conflict and the drug trade. The forced displacement of Colombians by the armed conflict also creates a labor force for the factories and plantations created by neo-liberal policies.

Obama’s Colombia Policy

  • Over the past decade, the US has lost much of its influence over countries surrounding Colombia, as progressive social movements gave rise to left-leaning governments in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Brazil.
  • In response, the Obama Administration is shoring up relations with Colombia. In 2009, Colombia leased seven new military bases to the US, in a move that angered human rights activists in both countries.
  • The Pentagon said the bases are needed to “expand expeditionary warfare capability” and counter threats from “anti-U.S. governments,” presumably those in South America that are demanding sovereignty, autonomy and independence from US demands.
  • Enhancing US military capability in Colombia is linked to two other US policies in that country: Plan Colombia and the US-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

Plan Colombia

  • First authorized under the Clinton Administration, Plan Colombia is a multi-billion dollar aid package whose stated aim is to wipe out the drug trade and cocoa production in southern Colombia.
  • The failure of the ‘war on drugs” has been amply documented. Yet, Plan Colombia persists because of its usefulness to funding counter-insurgency efforts (more than 75 percent of the funding goes to the Colombia military) and protecting US business interests in Colombia.
  • For example, in 2003, US military aid to Colombia included $98 million to train Colombian soldiers to guard the 480-mile Cano Limon pipeline, which belongs to US-based Occidental Petroleum. The FARC, which opposes foreign exploitation of oil, has repeatedly attacked the pipeline.
  • Oil is Colombia’s most lucrative export, bringing in roughly $10 billion in 2009. Indigenous Peoples who have opposed oil exploration on their lands have been killed by paramilitaries said to be in the service of oil companies. Tens of thousands of Indigenous Colombians have been displaced from their ancestral lands, which are now controlled by oil companies including Occidental and BP.

The US-Colombia Free Trade Agreement

  • The US-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) was first signed in 2006 and ratified by the Colombian Congress in 2007. However, the US Congress has not ratified it, responding to pressure from human rights advocates who point to continuing violence against labor and trade unionists, among other human rights violations.
  • Since 1991, more than 2,200 trade unionists have been killed, mostly by paramilitaries. Meanwhile, the FTA does not require Colombia to meet international labor standards; it merely calls on the government to adhere to its own weak labor laws.
  • The passage of the FTA would worsen rural poverty and hunger. The deal prevents Colombia from subsidizing its own farmers, while large-scale US agribusiness continues to enjoy billions in subsidies. Many of Colombia’s small-holder farmers are women and Indigenous Peoples, who would be unable to compete with subsidized imports and deprived of their livelihoods.

For more information, read the MADRE factsheet “The US-Colombia Unfair Trade Agreement.”

How Can We Support Peace and Justice in Colombia?

  • MADRE works in partnership with the organization Taller de Vida to offer support to women and youth who have been displaced from their homes by the conflict or conscripted into armed groups.
  • MADRE demands a more just US policy towards Colombia. We believe that instead of fueling Colombia’s war, the United States should act as part of the international community to support a negotiated settlement to the conflict, one that addresses the poverty and inequality at the root of Colombia’s crisis.

(Quelle: Madre.)

Mexiko: Polizei und Paramilitärs bedrohen Hilfskonvoi

Mittwoch, Juni 9th, 2010

“Staat und Milizen gegen Helfer

Polizei und Paramilitärs blockieren in Südmexiko einen Konvoi humanitärer Aktivisten

Von Philipp Gerber

Oaxaca. Ein Konvoi mit 40 Tonnen Lebensmitteln und medizinischen Hilfsgütern wurde am Dienstagabend im südmexikanischen Bundesstaat Oaxaca gewaltsam aufgehalten. Die Helfer hatten versucht in die von Paramilitärs der Organisation UBISORT eingeschlossene Gemeinde San Juan Copala zu gelangen. Dort hatten die der ehemaligen Staatspartei PRI nahe stehenden Milizen vor wenigen Wochen zwei Aktivisten, eine Mexikanerin und einen Finnen, erschossen. (…)”



Siehe auch:


Kolumbien: Leitete Bruder des Präsidenten eine Todesschwadron?

Mittwoch, Mai 26th, 2010


By Patrick Vanderpool

BOGOTA, Colombia – According to a retired Colombian police major, President Alvaro Uribe’s younger brother, Santiago Uribe, commanded a death squad in the early 1990s that killed nearly fifty people, including petty thieves, suspected guerillas, and their sympathizers. Santiago Uribe allegedly led the right-wing group from the Uribe family’s cattle ranch in the Antioquia state municipality.

Although there is little evidence to support the allegations, the ex-officer, Major Juan Carlos Meneses, stated that Santiago Uribe claimed that Alvaro Uribe, a senator at the time, was aware of the illegal militia.  When recently asked about his knowledge of the death squad after the report was first published in the Washington Post, Alvaro Uribe’s stated “I don’t read international newspapers.”

These accusations are coming shortly before the highly contested May 30 presidential election involving Alvaro Uribe’s former defense minister, Juan Carlos Santos.  Alvaro Uribe’s interior minister, Fabio Valencia, has suggested that Meneses’ comments are politically motivated to discredit Santos’ candidacy; a claim which Meneses denies.

Meneses claims that he attended meetings with Santiago Uribe where the group would decide who would be killed.  Additionally, Meneses claimed that Santiago Uribe paid him approximately $700 monthly for a four month period so that Meneses would allow the death squad to operate in the area where Meneses was the top law enforcement officer.  Meneses claims to have personally witnessed at least fifteen men armed with semi-automatic firearms participating in obstacle course training on the Uribe family ranch.

Alvaro Uribe was elected Colombia’s President in 2002 and has since been given significant financial assistance from the U.S. to defeat leftist rebels in the country.  While president, Alvaro Uribe has been criticized by international humanitarian groups for suspected human rights violations.  These violations include Colombian soldiers allegedly murdering more than 1,000 citizens under the guise that they were rebels.

Colombian law enforcement officials have investigated the death squad claims on at least two occasions and have not discovered enough evidence to prosecute Alvaro Uribe; however, Meneses’ claims may be enough to reopen the case.  Meneses claims that he and his family have been forced to leave Colombia and seek asylum in Venezuela after receiving written and telephoned death threats because of the accusations against Santiago and Alvaro Uribe.

Santiago Uribe has been unavailable for comment; however, he denied the allegations in a previous interview with the Washington Post.

For more information, please see:

CBS News –Ex-cop Claims Uribe’s Brother Led Death Squad-  24 May 2010

Time -Ex-cop: Alvaro Uribe’s Brother Led Death Squad-24 May 2010

Colombia Reports – Uribe’s brother led paramilitary death squad – 23 May 2010″

(Quelle: Impunity Watch.)

Kolumbien: Kampagne für die Menschenrechte

Dienstag, Mai 25th, 2010

“Während in aktuellen Umfragen überraschend der Kandidat der Grünen Partei für die Präsidentschaftswahlen am 30. Mai 2010, Antanas Mockus, voran liegt, fällt die kolumbianische Regierung weiterhin durch menschenrechtliche und demokratiepolitische Skandale auf. Nun wurde eine internationale Kampagne ins Leben gerufen, die die prekäre Lage der MenschenrechtsverteidigerInnen in Kolumbien thematisiert.

Verteidigung der Menschenrechte in Kolumbien

Die Erfolge der militärischen Strategie gegen die FARC-Guerilla im Namen der Politik der „demokratischen Sicherheit‟ von Präsident Uribe verblassen angesichts der kontinuierlichen Missachtung der Menschenrechte und der Demokratie durch staatliche Institutionen: die engen Verbindungen der Uribe nahestehenden Parteien zu den – trotz offiziell erklärter „Demobilisierung‟ – nach wie vor aktiven Paramilitärs; die Einschüchterung und Bedrohung der Wählerschaft bei den vergangenen Kongresswahlen; der Skandal um die „Falsos Positivos‟ – die Ermordung von ZivilistInnen durch das Militär, um die Quote im Anti-Guerilla-Kampf zu verbessern; eine Bespitzelungsaffäre und aktuell das Bekanntwerden einer Initiative des kolumbianischen Geheimdienstes zur Diffamierung der Menschenrechtsbewegung auf internationaler Ebene. Juan Manuel Santos, der Wunschkandidat von Präsident Uribe für dessen Nachfolge – nachdem Uribe selbst verfassungsmäßig kein drittes Mal mehr antreten darf – gerät zunehmend in die Kritik, da der Skandal um die „Falsos Positivos‟ in seine Amtszeit als Verteidigungsminister fällt.

Das Engagement für die Menschenrechte birgt in Kolumbien seit jeher Risiken für Leben und Gesundheit – in letzter Zeit wird außerdem deutlich, dass die Regierung gewillt ist, ein solches Engagement verstärkt mit dem Strafrecht zu verfolgen und damit zu erschweren. Neben den Drohungen und Angriffen durch paramilitärische Terrorgruppen wurde jetzt bekannt, dass der direkt dem Präsidenten unterstehende Inlandsgeheimdienst DAS jahrelang die Aktivitäten von Menschenrechtsorganisationen, Anwaltskanzleien, JournalistInnen und RichterInnen überwachte – mit dem Ziel, deren Arbeit zu behindern. Nach Informationen der kolumbianischen Wochenzeitung Semana hatte die „Operation Amazonas‘ des DAS zum Ziel, den Einfluss von Oppositionellen zu „neutralisieren‟, die auf internationaler Ebene die prekäre Lage der Menschenrechte verurteilen. Zu diesem Zweck wurden bereits seit 2006 PolitikerInnen, JournalistInnen und MenschenrechtsverteidigerInnen der Zusammenarbeit mit den kolumbianischen Guerilla-Organisationen beschuldigt. Ins Visier des DAS war u.a. auch der Interamerikanische Menschenrechtsgerichtshof gekommen, dem insbesondere dann eine wichtige Rolle zukommt, wenn die Justiz innerhalb eines Landes korrupt ist oder aus anderen Gründen bei Menschenrechtsfällen versagt. Mit den Überwachungsaktionen durch den DAS sollte für einen „Prestigeverlust‘ des Gerichtes gesorgt werden. Die Bespitzelungen reichten dabei sogar bis nach Europa, so wurde ein Büro des DAS in Europa eröffnet, das die Aktivitäten von „Regierungsfeinden‟ beobachten und dokumentieren sollte – u.a. wurde auf diesem Weg versucht, Einfluss auf den Menschenrechtsausschuss des Europäischen Parlamentes zu nehmen (taz, 27.04.2010).

Die kolumbianischen MenschenrechtsverteidigerInnen werden seit einigen Jahren verstärkt mit Gerichtsprozessen betraut, bei denen hohe Haftstrafen im Raum stehen, da sie in der Regel beschuldigt werden, mit der Guerilla zusammenzuarbeiten. Zwar enden die Prozesse überwiegend mit Freisprüchen, doch ist der Schaden trotzdem enorm, denn erstens bedeuten allein die Anklagen einen Imageverlust und zweitens binden sie einen Großteil der Energien, die ansonsten für die Menschenrechtsarbeit eingesetzt werden könnte. Hinzu kommt, dass diese Prozesse von einer Staatsanwaltschaft geleitet werden, die ihren Sitz in Militäreinrichtungen hat, weshalb ihr wohl kaum Unabhängigkeit bescheinigt werden kann, zumal es häufig Militärangehörige sind, die ins Visier der Kritik der Menschenrechtsbewegung geraten. Auch kommt es häufig zu Unregelmäßigkeiten und Widersprüchen bei den Prozessen, so kommt die US-amerikanische Organisation Human Rights First „zu dem Schluss, dass immer wieder Zeugen auftreten, die als demobilisierte ehemalige Kämpfer illegaler Gruppen Vergünstigungen für ihre Aussagen erhalten und sich vielfach in Widersprüche verstricken oder die Angeklagten gar nicht identifizieren können‟. (

Die Kampagne

Vor diesem Hintergrund wurde am 14. April 2010 in Berlin die Kampagne „Für das Recht auf die Verteidigung der Menschenrechte in Kolumbien‟ von dem kolumbianischen Rechtsanwalt Alirio Uribe und dem Verein kolko vorgestellt. Bislang haben 300 Organisationen aus 23 Ländern die Empfehlungen der Kampagne unterzeichnet. (

Anwalt Uribe berichtete auf einer Pressekonferenz über die dramatische Situation, in der sich MenschenrechtsverteidigerInnen in Kolumbien befinden: „In den letzten Jahren gab es mehr als 70 Angriffe und Drohungen gegen unser Anwaltskollektiv, man hat sogar Personen mit bewaffneten Fahrzeugen attackiert. Einer Anwältin unseres Büros hat man eine enthauptete, blutbefleckte Puppe geschickt, mit der Drohung, ihre Tochter zu töten. Heute haben wir festgestellt, dass hinter all dem der Geheimdienst steckte.‟ Und weiter Alirio Uribe: „Wenn wir jetzt eine Kampagne zu unserer eigenen Verteidigung führen müssen, zeigt das, wie schwierig die Lage ist‟. (,,5469162.html)

Die Eckpunkte der an die kolumbianische Regierung gerichteten Empfehlungen der Kampagne sind:

• Beendigung der Straflosigkeit bei Gewalt gegen MenschenrechtsverteidigerInnen: Untersuchung aller Fälle von Verfolgung und Gewalt gegen VerteidigerInnen der Menschenrechte und ihrer Angehörigen; Verhandlung dieser Fälle vor einem zivilen und keinem Militärgericht; Abzug der Staatsanwaltschaft aus den Militärstützpunkten.

• Beendigung von Missbrauch durch staatliche Geheimdienste: Transparenz der gesammelten Geheimdienstinformationen; keine Überwachung aufgrund von legitimen Menschenrechtsaktivitäten; staatliche Überprüfung der Geheimdienstberichte; Ermittlungen gegen die für illegale Abhörmaßnahmen verantwortlichen BeamtInnen.

• Beendigung der systematischen Stigmatisierung: öffentliche Anerkennung der Bedeutung der Menschenrechtsarbeit durch die Regierung und Beendigung der Diskreditierung und Angriffe; Disziplinarstrafen gegen BeamtInnen, die die Menschenrechte verletzen sowie präventive Fortbildung.

• Beendigung unbegründeter strafrechtlicher Verfolgung: Einrichtung einer koordinierenden Sonderabteilung bei der Staatsanwaltschaft, die die rechtsstaatlichen Standards der Ermittlungen gegen MenschenrechtsverteidigerInnen überprüft und die Verfahren gegebenenfalls einstellt; strafrechtliche Konsequenzen für StaatsanwältInnen und andere BeamtInnen, die illegale Ermittlungen anstellten; Zurückweisung von unglaubwürdigen ZeugInnen, etwa ehemaligen KombatantInnen.

• Strukturelle Verbesserung des Schutzprogramms für gefährdete Personen: Überprüfung des Schutzprogramms in direkter Absprache mit den Betroffenen; eigene Abteilung im Justiz- und Innenministerium; die Garantie, dass LeibwächterInnen oder FahrerInnen keine Beziehungen zu den bewaffneten Gruppen unterhalten; sofortiger und zeitweiliger Schutz für Einzelpersonen und Organisationen bis deren Sicherheitslage geprüft ist; keine Beauftragung von privaten Sicherheitsdiensten mit dem Schutz von gefährdeten Personen; ausreichende finanzielle Mittel für die Sicherheitsmaßnahmen. (

Beitrag bearbeitet von Alexander Stoff, 12.5.2010


(Quelle: OneWorld News.)