Re: Amnesty International
Dave: Thanks very much indeed - you got the one I had fleetingly seen. Lou: Thanks for the review on AI on Palestine. Cheers thanks again, H Not to myself: must not lose URLS's, must not lose usLrp's. must not.. Re: Amnesty International by dave dorkin 26 November 2003 01:09 UTC Thread Index I would be grateful for assistance: Recently there
Re: Amnesty International
Hari Kumar wrote: Dave: Thanks very much indeed - you got the one I had fleetingly seen. Lou: Thanks for the review on AI on Palestine. Cheers thanks again, H Not to myself: must not lose URLS's, must not lose usLrp's. must not.. Here is something brand-new: http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles9/DeRooij_AI.htm -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Amnesty International
I would be grateful for assistance: Recently there was somewhere or other an article analyzing the stances that Amnesty has taken, showing its' marked preference for pro USA positions. Does anyone recall this where it might be found? My goggling being less than Pugliesian in its over-whelming-ness, has been unsuccessful in locating said. Thanks for any help, Cheers, Hari Kumar
Re: Amnesty International
I would be grateful for assistance: Recently there was somewhere or other an article analyzing the stances that Amnesty has taken, showing its' marked preference for pro USA positions. Does anyone recall this where it might be found? My goggling being less than Pugliesian in its over-whelming-ness, has been unsuccessful in locating said. Thanks for any help, Cheers, Hari Kumar http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/fascism_and_war/AmnestyInternational.htm http://www.counterpunch.org/rooij1031.html Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Amnesty International
I would be grateful for assistance: Recently there was somewhere or other an article analyzing the stances that Amnesty has taken, showing its' marked preference for pro USA positions. Cheers, Hari Kumar You might try this: www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/credib/2003/1306interview.htm Is Amnesty International Biased? Dennis Bernstein Dr. Francis Boyle Discuss the Politics of Human Rights CovertAction June 13, 2002 Editor's Note It has often been said that Amnesty International's agenda tends to fit nicely with the political needs of the United States and Great Britain. Around the world, supporters of the Nicaraguan people's struggle for self-determination were outraged by the timing of a 1986 Amnesty report critical of the Sandinista government, which helped Reagan push another Contra Aid appropriation through a reluctant congress, at exactly the moment when the anti-Contra movement was beginning to get serious political traction. With regard to South Africa's apartheid regime, AI was critical of the human rights record of the South African government. However, as you will see below, AI never condemned apartheid per se. By the time Amnesty endorsed the Hill Knowlton nursery tale concerning Kuwaiti infants pulled from incubators by Iraqi soldiers, many otherwise sympathetic observers of Amnesty's work became increasingly alarmed. [This was the manufactured (false) incident used to start the first Gulf War -- JW] More than a decade of grassroots organization within Amnesty's membership base finally succeeded just two years ago in moving the organization to take a position critical of the genocidal sanctions against the people of Iraq, sanctions which have killed approximately a million and a half Iraqis, one third of them children. According to Dr. Boyle, this delay was political, and it clearly served the interests of the U.S. and Britain, the two governments on the Security Council preventing the lifting of the sanctions. A recent search of the internet shows that AI Venezuela very quickly took up the U.S. line by charging President Chavez with crimes against humanity for the bloodshed during the recent failed coup attempt against his administration. Amnesty's performance on the April 2002 massacre at Jenin is another blot on its frequently laudable record. As our readers are aware, the United Nations attempted to investigate the Jenin massacre, but was prevented from doing so by Sharon and Bush. The announcement on May 3, 2002 by Human Rights Watch of no massacre at Jenin effectively killed the story, although there was a lot of argument about what constitutes a massacre. No such arguments were heard when a suicide bomber turned a Passover dinner into a tragedy. This magazine will cover the topic of Human Rights Watch in a future issue. For this issue, we were fortunate to be forwarded the transcript of a June 13th [2002] interview with Dr. Francis A. Boyle, professor of International Law and former board member of Amnesty International. What follows is a shortened version of the transcript... __ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/
Paul de Rooij followup on Amnesty International
Paulo wrote: Hi I seek to contact Louis Proyect Louis recently wrote an open letter about AI's stance and quoted me. I agree with most of what was written in the letter except the interpretation of 'sitting on the fence' -- this would be the way AI would like to portray itself, i.e., pontificating from a pedestal. I concur with Louis, that their stance is anything but evenhanded. New article with ample further references to AI see: www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles6/DeRooij_Ambient-Death.htm (also on CounterPunch, but DV did a better formatting job). Keep up the good work Kind rgds Paul de Rooij London Thanks, Paul. I am forwarding this to the listservs where my piece first appeared. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Open letter to Amnesty International
(This is being sent to AI offices worldwide.) Dear Amnesty International, I strongly urge you to step back from your newly announced campaign to release the 75 US agents in Cuba. Associated Press reported on July 30 that your researcher Paige Wilhite has stated that They are prisoners of conscience and the Cuban government has to release them immediately and without conditions. To the contrary, they have broken Cuban laws prohibiting funding from foreign governments, a law found in any sovereign state, including democracies like the USA and Great Britain. To people of conscience on the left, this well-orchestrated campaign to isolate and punish Cuba economically is rather transparent. You have joined groups such as Reporters Without Borders, whose animosity to communism or state-owned media in 3rd world countries is driven more by bottom line considerations than freedom of expression it would seem. (42% of the budget of Reporter Without Borders is covered by the Commission of the European Union, a body which is fanatically pro-privatization.) While Amnesty International has a rather preening posture about being above politics, it has shown a rather dismaying tendency in the past to adapt to the foreign policy needs of the USA and Great Britain, where it seems to enjoy the greatest support both socially and economically. For example, when the Iraqi army was accused of ripping babies from hospital incubators in December 1990, Amnesty International told the Washington Post that We heard rumors of these deaths as early as August but only recently has there been substantial information on the extent of the killings. Not only were you spreading disinformation hatched by the infamous Hill Knowlton public relations firm, you were helping to launch the war against Iraq whose opening salvos relied on this lurid fabrication. Next you got involved in the Balkans--once again on behalf of US foreign policy. When you sponsored a 25 city tour in the USA for Jadranka Cigelj, Judith Miller (!) of the NY Times wrote glowingly about your efforts to raise awareness about how the Serbs were using rape as a political weapon--even quoting the wretched David Rieff, who has emerged as a frontline spokesman for humanitarian imperialist interventions. Unfortunately neither Judith Miller nor your public relations department spelled out the exact character of Cigelj's activism around the rape issue, nor her sordid political past. In Fool's Crusade, Diana Johnstone points out that Cigelj was a vice president of Croatian president Franjo Tudjman's ruling nationalist party, the Croatian Democratic Community (HDZ) and was in charge of the Zagreb office of the Croatia Information Center (CIC), a wartime propaganda agency funded by the same cryptofascist Croatian émigré groups that backed Tudjman. The primary source for reports of rape in Bosnia was Cigelj's CIC and associated women's groups, which sent 'piles of testimony to Western women and to the press'. She adds: The CIC benefited from a close connection with the 'International Gesellschaft fur Menschenrechte' (International Association for Human Rights, IGfM), a far right propaganda institute set up in 1981 as a continuation of the Association of Russian Solidarists, an expatriate group which worked for the Nazis and the Croatian fascist Ustashe regime during World War II. In the 1980s, this organization led a propaganda campaign against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, accusing them of running camps where opponents were tortured, raped, and murdered on a massive scale. Finally, an article by Paul De Rooij in the October 31, 2002 online edition of Counterpunch titled Amnesty International Israel: Say it isn't so! (www.counterpunch.org/rooij1031.html)takes you to task for trivializing Israeli violence and apolitical fence-sitting. He writes: Reading AI's reports doesn't reveal why there is a conflict in the area in the first place. The portrayal of violence is stripped of its context, and historical references are minimal. The fact that Palestinians have endured occupation, expulsion, and dispossession for many decades, the explanation of why the conflict persists, is nowhere highlighted in its reports. This posture eliminates the possibility of taking sides, and AI doesn't automatically side with the oppressed victims; instead, it assumes a warped sense of balance. It qualitatively equates the violence perpetrated by the IOF with Palestinian resistance. In attempting to be impartial, AI is oblivious to the history of ethnic cleansing that is the root cause. Israeli violence is qualitatively different than Palestinian violence; it is different than that found in other conflicts because it aims to expel the native population. Not that I would gainsay De Rooij's compelling argument, but I would quibble with one characterization. Instead of describing AI as fence-sitting, I would regard you--at least
From Amnesty International
Actually Iraq could very well claim that captured US troops are not governed by the Geneva Convention. Since the war is illegal they could very well have joined the US dept of inventive terminology and called them illegal combatants and put them in 7 by 8 ft containers. Cheers, Ken Hanly AI-index: AMR 51/045/2003 25/03/2003 Public 25 March 2003 AI Index: AMR 51/045/2003 http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/AMR510452003?Openof=COUNTRIES\USA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA International standards for all There are international standards that civilized regimes adhere to and then there are regimes like Saddam Hussein['s] US Secretary of Defence, 23 March 2003(1) On 23 March 2003, following the news that US soldiers had been captured by Iraqi forces during the US-led attack on Iraq, President George Bush said that we expect them to be treated humanely, just like we'll treat any prisoners of theirs that we capture humanely... If not, the people who mistreat the prisoners will be treated as war criminals.(2) Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld added that the Geneva Convention indicates that it's not permitted to photograph and embarrass or humiliate prisoners of war, and if they do happen to be American or coalition ground forces that have been captured, the Geneva Convention indicates how they should be treated.(3) His statement came after interviews with five captured US soldiers had been broadcast on Iraqi television.(4) On the same day, about 30 more detainees were flown from Afghanistan to the US Naval Base in Guantánamo Bay in Cuba. This brought to about 660 the number of foreign nationals held in the base.(5) They come from more than 40 countries. Most were taken into custody during the international armed conflict in Afghanistan. Some have been held in Guantánamo, without charge or trial, and without access to lawyers, relatives or the courts, for more than a year. Their treatment has flouted international standards. From the outset, the US Government refused to grant any of the Guantánamo detainees prisoner of war (POW) status or to have any disputed status determined by a competent tribunal as required under Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention. In April 2002, Amnesty International warned the US administration that its selective approach to the Geneva Conventions threatened to undermine the effectiveness of international humanitarian law protections for any US or other combatants captured in the future.(6) The organization received no reply to this or other concerns it raised about the detainees. On the 9 February 2002, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the most authoritative body on the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, revealed that there were divergent views between the United States and the ICRC on the procedures which apply on how to determine that the persons detained are not entitled to prisoner of war status.(7) The ICRC news release said that the organization would pursue its dialogue with the US Government on this issue. Nevertheless, to this day none of the Guantánamo detainees have been granted POW status or appeared before a tribunal competent to determine their status. The US has ignored not only the ICRC on this issue, but also the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. More recently, on 16 December 2002, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention noted that the authority which is competent to determine prisoner-of-war status is not the executive power, but the judicial power, as specified under article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention. When the first of the detainees arrived in Guantánamo in January 2002, the Pentagon released a photograph of the detainees in orange jumpsuits, kneeling before US soldiers, shackled, handcuffed, and wearing blacked-out goggles over their eyes and masks over their mouths and noses. The photograph shocked world opinion and led Secretary Rumsfeld to acknowledge that it was probably unfortunate that the picture had been released, at least without better captioning. He added: My recollection is that there's something in the Geneva Conventions about press people being around prisoners; that - and not taking pictures and not saying who they are and not exposing them to ridicule.(8) The USA's selective approach to the Geneva Conventions has been widely noted. For example, with US soldiers captured in Iraq and shown on Iraqi television to the anger of US officials, a Saudi Arabian newspaper, claiming to be receiving one million visitors a day on its website, wrote: Rumsfeld's newfound affection for the Geneva Convention is remarkable... The US does not believe that the prisoners now being held at Guantánamo Bay are prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention. Pictures of the men there, shackled and living in cages, were distributed by the Bush administration to the world's media.(9) Meanwhile the US continues to hold the Guantánamo detainees in very harsh
RE: From Amnesty International
Title: RE: [PEN-L:36142] From Amnesty International why can't the Iraqi government declare coalition prisoners to be unlawful combatants? oh yes, I forgot: it's might that makes right. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine stop the war now! -Original Message- From: k hanly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 9:09 AM To: pen Subject: [PEN-L:36142] From Amnesty International Actually Iraq could very well claim that captured US troops are not governed by the Geneva Convention. Since the war is illegal they could very well have joined the US dept of inventive terminology and called them illegal combatants and put them in 7 by 8 ft containers. Cheers, Ken Hanly AI-index: AMR 51/045/2003 25/03/2003 Public 25 March 2003 AI Index: AMR 51/045/2003 http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/AMR510452003?Open=COUNTRIES\USA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA International standards for all There are international standards that civilized regimes adhere to and then there are regimes like Saddam Hussein['s] US Secretary of Defence, 23 March 2003(1) On 23 March 2003, following the news that US soldiers had been captured by Iraqi forces during the US-led attack on Iraq, President George Bush said that we expect them to be treated humanely, just like we'll treat any prisoners of theirs that we capture humanely... If not, the people who mistreat the prisoners will be treated as war criminals.(2) Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld added that the Geneva Convention indicates that it's not permitted to photograph and embarrass or humiliate prisoners of war, and if they do happen to be American or coalition ground forces that have been captured, the Geneva Convention indicates how they should be treated.(3) His statement came after interviews with five captured US soldiers had been broadcast on Iraqi television.(4) On the same day, about 30 more detainees were flown from Afghanistan to the US Naval Base in Guantánamo Bay in Cuba. This brought to about 660 the number of foreign nationals held in the base.(5) They come from more than 40 countries. Most were taken into custody during the international armed conflict in Afghanistan. Some have been held in Guantánamo, without charge or trial, and without access to lawyers, relatives or the courts, for more than a year. Their treatment has flouted international standards. From the outset, the US Government refused to grant any of the Guantánamo detainees prisoner of war (POW) status or to have any disputed status determined by a competent tribunal as required under Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention. In April 2002, Amnesty International warned the US administration that its selective approach to the Geneva Conventions threatened to undermine the effectiveness of international humanitarian law protections for any US or other combatants captured in the future.(6) The organization received no reply to this or other concerns it raised about the detainees. On the 9 February 2002, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the most authoritative body on the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, revealed that there were divergent views between the United States and the ICRC on the procedures which apply on how to determine that the persons detained are not entitled to prisoner of war status.(7) The ICRC news release said that the organization would pursue its dialogue with the US Government on this issue. Nevertheless, to this day none of the Guantánamo detainees have been granted POW status or appeared before a tribunal competent to determine their status. The US has ignored not only the ICRC on this issue, but also the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. More recently, on 16 December 2002, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention noted that the authority which is competent to determine prisoner-of-war status is not the executive power, but the judicial power, as specified under article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention. When the first of the detainees arrived in Guantánamo in January 2002, the Pentagon released a photograph of the detainees in orange jumpsuits, kneeling before US soldiers, shackled, handcuffed, and wearing blacked-out goggles over their eyes and masks over their mouths and noses. The photograph shocked world opinion and led Secretary Rumsfeld to acknowledge that it was probably unfortunate that the picture had been released, at least without better captioning. He added: My recollection is that there's something in the Geneva Conventions about press people being around prisoners; that - and not taking pictures and not saying who they are and not exposing them to ridicule.(8) The USA's selective approach to the Geneva Conventions has been
Re: RE: From Amnesty International
"Devine, James" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: why can't the Iraqi government declare "coalition" prisoners to be unlawful combatants? oh yes, I forgot: it's might that makes right. Some people can't keep hold of the fundamentals. Our combatants are never unlawful. Our actions are never war crimes. You are an unpatriotic rotten doctor Commie rat! jksDo you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
RE: Re: RE: From Amnesty International
JKS writes: You are an unpatriotic rotten doctor Commie rat! how did you know? (BTW,JKSquotes from an old Bob Dylan song, "Motopsycho Nightmare.") JD
[PEN-L:11476] Amnesty International Report on the USA
Message: The Globe and Mail, Wednesday, September 22, 1999 Human-rights group lashes out at 'widespread' police brutality Most U.S. officers accused of abuses go unpunished, Amnesty says By Paul Koring Washington -- Police brutality, especially against members of racial and ethnic minorities, remains "persistent and widespread" across the United States, Amnesty International said yesterday. Some cases -- like that of Amadou Diallo, the unarmed and homeless West African immigrant who died in a fusillade of 41 shots fired by New York police officers -- garner the media spotlight and have prompted President Bill Clinton and others to promise a crackdown. But Amnesty said most police officers accused of abuses go unpunished and many instances of brutality go unreported. As yet another police brutality scandal rocked Los Angeles this week, involving accusations that officers shot and killed a handcuffed suspect while their superiors conspired in a cover-up, the Amnesty report said it was the little-known cases that often reflect unacceptable and illegal patterns of abuse. For instance, Amnesty said that it has documented "at least 70 people" who died after being subjected to so-called pepper spray "during arrest or while in custody." Although Amnesty concedes that there is no evidence directly linking pepper spray, which can cause gagging and choking and temporarily paralyze the larynx, with the deaths, the human-rights group said that the use of the spray was often associated with other forms of brutality. The use of hog-tying, known in police circles as Total Appendage Restraint Procedure, remains widespread although police in New York and Los Angeles have banned it. Along with other abnormal holds, including officers kneeling or standing on suspects' chests, it is linked to many deaths and injuries from "positional asphyxia." Some of the incidents cited by Amnesty are horrific. Lewis Rivera, a homeless man eating in a Miami shopping mall, was chased by half a dozen police officers last May. They sprayed him with pepper spray, kicked him, bound his hands and feet and then dragged him to a police car. He died within the hour in a police cell, the second homeless person to die in Miami police custody this year. In Kansas City last November, a 13-year-old black child was killed when four police officers opened fire after surrounding the pickup truck he was driving. All were cleared of criminal wrongdoing although a civil suit is pending. In February this year, a suicidal Los Angeles man, Ricardo Clos, died after being shot 38 times by Los Angeles police officers who responded to a call from the man's wife, who said he had cut himself in the neck. When police arrived, Mr. Clos threw the knife at them but missed. Amnesty said a disproportionate number of homeless and mentally ill individuals, as well as members of racial and ethnic minorities, are victims of police abuse and brutality ranging from verbal epithets to unwarranted searches to beatings and killings. There is no national reporting system, and police guidelines and oversight vary from state to state and municipality to municipality. The Clinton administration has only recently reacted to minorities' growing anger about their treatment by police. "The issue is national in scope," Attorney-General Janet Reno admitted last April. "For too many people, especially in minority communities, the trust that is so essential to effective policing does not exist because [they] believe that police have used excessive force, that law enforcement is too aggressive, that law enforcement is biased, disrespectful and unfair." Amnesty lauded Washington for vowing to tackle the problem and said that prosecutions against police for brutality, as well as corruption, are on the rise. Last year "the Justice Department is reported to have filed criminal charges against 74 officers for excessive force, . . . a 12-year-high." However, Amnesty said, "this still represents only a small proportion of the thousands of complaints of brutality" levelled each year. Many victims are believed to be too frightened to even file complaints. "Some say police misconduct is an inevitable byproduct of the crackdown on crime," President Clinton said in June. "I don't believe that's so; we don't have to choose between keeping safe and treating people right; . . . we can do both." Central to the problem is the lack of any national requirement that police forces even gather data or report on shootings, injuries and deaths in custody or other uses of force. In Los Angeles, where police brutality and corruption have been a recurring civic theme for decades, Mayor Richard Riordan vowed yesterday to "get to the bottom" of the latest allegations. At the same time, he begged Angelinos "not to let a few evil o
[PEN-L:7059] (Fwd) Urgent Action appeal from Amnesty International
Obviously we should bomb Mexico City! --- Forwarded Message Follows --- Date sent: Tue, 18 May 1999 14:42:41 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Sid Shniad [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Urgent Action appeal from Amnesty International Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 Subject: UA 111/99 Mexico From: Marilyn McKim [EMAIL PROTECTED] Essential accents for this email version: Acute (/) accent on a in Vazquez, a in Sanchez e in San Jose first e in Tellez second e in Rene, a in Juarez (Governor) I in Diaz, I in Garcia (Attorney General) e in Mexico PUBLIC AI Index: AMR 41/08/99 UA 111/99 Fear for safety/Extrajudicial execution 17 May 1999 MEXICO Francisca Santos Pablo (f), 33 Victoriana Vazquez Sanchez (f), 50 Community of Barrio Nuevo San Jose Killed: Antonio Mendoza Olivero, 12 Evaristo Albino Tellez, 27 Amnesty International is calling on the Mexican authorities to protect the entire Mixteca indigenous community of Barrio Nuevo San Jose, in Guerrero state, after members of the Mexican armed forces apparently summarily killed two men and raped two women from the community. According to reports on 21 April 1999, Evaristo Albino Tellez and Antonio Mendoza Olivero left Barrio Nuevo San Jose, part of the autonomous municipality of Rancho Nuevo Democracia, to harvest their crops. As they had not returned home the following day, Francisca Santos Pablo, Evaristo's sister in law, and Victoriana Vazquez Sanchez, Antonio's grandmother, went to look for them. Near their plots of land the women found a military. The women tried to run away, but report that the soldiers caught and raped them. Both women managed to return to Barrio Nuevo San Jose, and told community leaders what had happened. Because they feared further attacks, members of the community were only able to visit the site of the camp on 28 April 1999, once the soldiers had left. They apparently found bloodstained military gloves and sandals that belonged to either Antonio or Evaristo. On 27 April, members of the community attempted to report what had happened to both the State and National Commissions of Human Rights. The State Commission warned them not to pursue the case, which they interpreted as a threat. For two days a lower court judge refused to accept their request to obtain the equivalent of a writ of habeas corpus, demanding that both Antonio and Evaristo be presented before the authorities. On 7 May, a full 17 days after they had last been seen, the State Commission for Human Rights apparently informed Evaristo and Antonio's relatives that they had been killed by soldiers, who claim the two attacked them with guns. The Public Prosecutor's Office in Ometepec, Guerrero, where the army took the bodies, knew of the deaths long before the families and community members were told. When the families went to the Servicio Medico Forense (SEMFO), Forensic Medical Service, in Acapulco, Guerrero to retrieve the bodies, they found that Antonio had apparently died of blood loss from a single bullet wound to the leg. Amnesty International has received reports of increased troop movements near Barrio Nuevo San Jose since 8 May, increasing fears for the safety of the community and others living in the region. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Reports of violence by the Mexican security forces in Guerrero, including attacks on Mixteca activists campaigning for autonomy, date back to the Aguas Blancas massacre of June 1995, when 17 peasants were killed in an ambush set by state police and government officials. In a 1998 report the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights concluded that "the emergence of new dissident armed groups of various types has led not only to a resumption of measures of control by the security forces but also to the indiscriminate repression of social organizations and leaders". RECOMMENDED ACTION: Please send telegrams/faxes/airmail letters in Spanish or your own language: - asking the authorities to take adequate measures to guarantee the safety of Francisca Santos Pablo, Victoriana Vazquez Sanchez and all the Mixteca indigenous community of Barrio Nuevo San Jose; - calling on the Governor of Guerrero to open an independent and thorough investigation into the involvement of members of the armed forces in these events, suspend from duty those under investigation, make all results and prosecute those found responsible in a civil court; - calling on the authorities to clarify any irregularities in due process that occurred surrounding the notification, investigation and forensic procedures in this case; - reminding the Mexican authorities that in August 1998 the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities called on them to combat "the impunity of perpetrators of serious human ri
