ATMA JAYA Catholic University of Indonesia, Jakarta, 13th October 2010

The International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy will hold a seminar at the ATMA JAYA Catholic University in Jakarta, together with the School of Law, on 13th October 2010.

The focus of the seminar will be on:

• Harm reduction, HIV and the right to health
• Drugs and the rights of the child
• The death penalty for drug offences

Location: Aula D, Atma Jaya University, Jl. Jenderal Sudirman No. 51

Time: 9.00 to 16.00

Overview of sessions and speakers

Introduction/Welcome

Dr. Yanti Fristikawati: Welcome on behalf of Atma Jaya, (5 minutes)

Damon Barrett: Welcome on behalf of the International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy, and introduction to the session (5 minutes)

Session 1:

HIV, harm reduction and the right to the highest attainable standard of health

Film:

“A cleaner fix” (10 minute excerpt)

Speakers:

Adeeba Kamarulzaman

Professor Irwanto

Session 2:

Drugs and the rights of the child

Speakers:

Damon Barrett

Ricky Gunawan

Session 3:

Death penalty for drug offences

Speakers:

Damon Barrett

Ifdal Kasim

Todung Mulya Lubis
For more information please contact damon@humanrightsanddrugs.org

Official launch of the International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy, Irish Centre for Human Rights, 18 November 2010

We are delighted to announce the official launch of the International Centre on Human rights and Drug Policy. The launch coincides with the ten year anniversary of the Irish Centre for Human Rights, which is being marked with a special conference entitled “Forgotten Rights, Forgotten Concepts”

Drug policy as a thematic human rights issue certainly fits into this theme.

The reception will take place at the Irish Centre for Human Rights in Galway, Ireland, on 18th November.

For more information, please contact rick@humanrightsanddrugs.org

Call for papers: International Journal on Human Rights and Drug Policy

The International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy is calling for papers for the first Volume of The International Yearbook on Human Rights and Drug Policy, the first and only peer-reviewed journal focusing on human rights and drugs.

The journal is open access and there is no fee for submission – each article is published online as in press once it has been peer-reviewed, edited and accepted. They are later combined into a yearly volume.

Deadline

The deadline for submissions for Volume 1 is 15^th October 2010, but submissions are accepted on a rolling basis and later accepted submissions will be included in Volume 2

Submission

Submissions are accepted in the following categories:

1. Original articles – research and analysis on drug policy issues as they intersect with international human rights law, international humanitarian law, international criminal law and/or public international law.   Articles focusing on human rights-based approaches to drug policies are also invited.
2. Opinion/Commentary – these submissions are designed to allow authors a forum to explore new and innovative thinking, promote debate and highlight emerging areas of interest.
3. Case commentaries/summaries – these are intended to highlight and summarise new court decisions and other jurisprudence related to the Centre’s mandate.
4. Responses - these are short comments on previously published papers

The Centre is always willing to discuss ideas for articles or commentaries in advance of submission

Sample articles from the first volume of the yearbook can v=be viewed in ‘Latest Articles‘

For more information, including author guidelines, please click here

Update: Ecuador v Colombia, International Court of Justice

Proceedings in Ecuador v Colombia are ongoing with both parties having submitted their Memorials within the time limits previously assigned by the International Court of Justice. The Court has now set dates for the reply by Ecuador and the Rejoinder by Colombia.

Ecuador has issued proceedings at the ICJ claiming that Colombia’s aerial fumigation campaigns have “caused serious damage to people, to crops, to animals, and to the natural environment on the Ecuadorian side of the frontier”

Colombia is currently the only country in the world to utilise aerial fumigation as a method of illicit crop eradication.

International Court of Justice, Press release No. 2010/20

THE HAGUE, 2 July 2010. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, has directed the Republic of Ecuador to submit a Reply and the Republic of Colombia to submit a Rejoinder.

By an Order dated 25 June 2010, the Court fixed 31 January 2011 and 1 December 2011 as the respective time-limits for the filing of these written pleadings.

The Court made its decision taking account of the agreement of the Parties and of the circumstances of the case. The subsequent procedure has been reserved for further decision.

History of the proceedings

On 31 March 2008, Ecuador seised the Court of a dispute between itself and Colombia concerning the alleged “aerial spraying [by Colombia] of toxic herbicides at locations near, at and across its border with Ecuador”.

In its Application, Ecuador states that “the spraying has already caused serious damage to people, to crops, to animals, and to the natural environment on the Ecuadorian side of the frontier, and poses a grave risk of further damage over time”. It further contends that it has made “repeated and sustained efforts to negotiate an end to the fumigations” but that “these negotiations have proved unsuccessful”.

Ecuador accordingly requests the Court “to adjudge and declare that:

(a) Colombia has violated its obligations under international law by causing or allowing the deposit on the territory of Ecuador of toxic herbicides that have caused damage to human health, property and the environment;

(b) Colombia shall indemnify Ecuador for any loss or damage caused by its internationally unlawful acts, namely the use of herbicides, including by aerial dispersion, and in particular: – 2 -

(i) death or injury to the health of any person or persons arising from the use of such herbicides; and

(ii) any loss of or damage to the property or livelihood or human rights of such persons; and

(iii) environmental damage or the depletion of natural resources; and

(iv) the costs of monitoring to identify and assess future risks to public health, human rights and the environment resulting from Colombia’s use of herbicides; and

(v) any other loss or damage; and

(c) Colombia shall:

(i) respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ecuador; and

(ii) forthwith, take all steps necessary to prevent, on any part of its territory, the use of any toxic herbicides in such a way that they could be deposited onto the territory of Ecuador; and

(iii) prohibit the use, by means of aerial dispersion, of such herbicides in Ecuador, or on or near any part of its border with Ecuador.”

As a basis for the Court’s jurisdiction, Ecuador invokes, in its Application, Article XXXI of the American Treaty on Pacific Settlement of 30 April 1948 (officially known as the “Pact of Bogotá”), to which both States are parties. Ecuador also refers to Article 32 of the 1988 United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.

In its Application, Ecuador reaffirms its opposition “to the export and consumption of illegal narcotics” but stresses that the issues it presents to the Court “relate exclusively to the methods and locations of Colombia’s operations to eradicate illicit coca and poppy plantations and the harmful effects in Ecuador of such operations”.

By an Order of 30 May 2008, the Court fixed 29 April 2009 as the time-limit for the filing of a Memorial by Ecuador and 29 March 2010 as the time-limit for the filing of a Counter-Memorial by Colombia. Those two pleadings were duly filed by the Parties within the time-limits thus prescribed.

Mexico rethinks drugs strategy as violence escalates, Guardian UK, 11 August 2010

Rising fatalities spur calls for legalisation as president admits military tactics are failing

Jo Tuckman, 11 August 2010

Mexico’s president, Felipe Calderón, launched his presidency three and a half years ago with an unprecedented military-led offensive against the country’s drug cartels. Since then 28,000 people have been killed in drug-related violence that continues to escalate, with little sign that the power of the traffickers has been reduced.

Yesterday Calderón finally accepted that the strategy had failed to rein in the cartels, and called on his growing number of critics to help him revise the government’s approach to the drug wars.

“I agree that the strategy should be questioned,” the president said. “And so I am willing to receive and analyse proposals of how to change and improve it.”

The admission came days after Calderón’s predecessor called for drugs to be legalised. Vicente Fox, who also belongs to the National Action party, said prohibition had failed to curb violence and corruption. “We should consider legalising the production, sale and distribution of drugs,” Fox wrote on his blog. “Radical prohibition strategies have never worked.”

Calderón himself fervently opposes legalisation, although he recently called for a “fundamental debate” on the issue. He has also claimed that Fox’s relative inaction in the face of the cartels’ growing power contributed to the current situation.

In the latest of a series of government-organised debates on the drug war, Calderón repeated that unilateral legalisation would increase drug use and do little to reduce the cartels’ income. But he was forced to listen to blistering attacks on the government strategy by opposition leaders.

“The government’s strategy is not working,” Jesus Ortega, leader of the leftist Democratic Revolution party, said. “If the government only attacks the traffickers then the error, and the failure, of the strategy is evident.”

Ortega also railed against the use of the army and navy in anti-drugs operations. Critics of the offensive say the military’s lack of preparation for an internal policing role has caused human rights abuses.

Calderón said he agreed that withdrawing the military was desirable, but impossible until civilian state and municipal police forces had been purged of rampant corruption and were strong enough to face the problem on their own.

The sessions also produced complaints about the scant attention paid by the government to the money-laundering that fuels the illegal industry and finances the violence. Mexican drug trafficking is estimated to be worth anywhere between $10 billion (£6.4b) and $40b a year.

Calderón admitted that not enough had been done to track illicit earnings but said the government had trouble hiring top financial experts who could make much more money in the private sector without putting themselves in danger.

The president agreed with calls by other leaders on the need to improve education and employment opportunities for young people to help them avoid drug use or recruitment by the cartels.

Analysts said the Mexican president’s new willingness to open the debate marks a dramatic departure from his previous tendency to equate any criticism with a capitulation to organised crime.

“In almost four years the government cannot claim any kind of victory and the debate is the result of the crisis of legitimacy in the strategy,” said Samuel Gonzalez, a former Mexican drugs tsar who has been pushing for a rethink for years. “But at least it is now being discussed and that has to be a good thing.”

The debate was also seen as an attempt to spread responsibility for the bloodshed. “If we join together we can win this battle,” Calderón said. “But if we continue to lack coordination and blame each other, the simple truth is that we cannot move forward. I understand perfectly well that there is a perception that the war is being lost, but I do not share it.”

The main problem, he said, is that local public institutions are too weak to maintain control when the forces withdraw.

He added: “I am asking for the political parties for their help, their strength and their collaboration to allow us to rebuild the institutions of security and justice at all levels,” he said. “We can beat the criminals. We can re-establish the rule of law in this country.”

Turf Wars

Mexico’s drug violence is rooted in a series of turf wars between different trafficking organisations that are also involved in other illegal activities, such as kidnapping, extortion and people trafficking. The violence and the number of civilian casualties has increased since December 2006, when the government launched an offensive against them involving tens of thousands of soldiers and federal police. The main axis of the war is the rivalry between the Sinaloa cartel and the Zetas – a group founded by renegade special forces troops. Sinaloa, led by the country’s most famous kingpin, Joaquin El Chapo Guzman, is based in the Pacific coast state of the same name. The Zetas control much of the Gulf coast. Both Sinaloa and the Zetas are also present in other parts of the country. One of the most intense current battles is for control of the northeastern border state of Tamaulipas, just across from Texas, where Zetas are fighting their erstwhile bosses in the Gulf Cartel, which has now reputedly allied with Sinaloa.

Other relevant trafficking organisations involved in the wars include La Linea, which is based in Ciudad Juarez, just across from El Paso in Texas, and is trying to hold off the encroachment of Sinaloa. Here the extreme violence is intertwined with rivalry between local youth gangs reflecting a dramatic degree of social decomposition.

Elsewhere, the quasi sect-like group called La Familia is rooted in the central state of Michoacan, and the Tijuana cartel maintains its bastion in the border city just over from San Diego in California. The Beltran Leyva group is involved in a bitter struggle for control of the organisation following the death of its leader in a navy operation last year