IFOR speaks at the UN Human Rights Council on the right to conscientious objection in Ukraine

On December 18th 2020, the International Fellowship of Reconciliation - IFOR participated in the UN Human Rights Council "Oral presentation of the report on the situation of human rights in Ukraine".

UN Assistant Secretary-General Ilze Brands Kehris, head of the UN Human Rights Office in New York, presented the UN report, followed by statements of member States and NGOs. At this link you can find the OHCHR reporting on Ukraine 

IFOR took the floor and expressed concern regarding the right to conscientious objection in Ukraine and referred to the case of the pacifist journalist, Ruslan Kotsaba, who has already spent 524 days in jail for an anti-war video posted in 2015 and titled "I refuse to mobilize". Here you can watch his video.

He is currently under trial, again, accused of treason and obstructing military operations.

Here you can read the full intervention made by the IFOR's main representative at the UN in Geneva, Zaira Zafarana.

---

Human Rights Council
Geneva, 18th December 2020
Interactive Dialogue on the oral presentation of the report on the situation of human rights in Ukraine.
Oral statement delivered by the International Fellowship of Reconciliation1

International Fellowship of Reconciliation - IFOR thanks the High Commissioner and her office for the report (on the situation of human rights in Ukraine) and expresses concern about the ongoing violations of the right to conscientious objection to military service.

Alternative service in Ukraine has a punitive and discriminatory character and it is hardly accessible. There are information from the ground about the current case of about 24 Pentecostals2 conscientious objectors who are unable to start alternative service because there is not an available employment3.

Another item of concern is Bill 35534, regarding military service and registration, adopted by the parliament in the first reading. It introduces new measures which forecast a negative impact on the rights and freedom of citizens.

IFOR would like, finally, to draw the attention of the Members of this Council and of the High Commissioner to the case of Ukrainian journalist and pacifist Ruslan Kotsaba who is again under trial5 because of a video posted in 2015 to express opposition to the military mobilization for armed conflict in eastern Ukraine6. He has already spent over 500 days under arrest for his expression of anti-war thoughts and is accused again of treason and obstructing military operations.

As already highlighted by IFOR7, “freedom of thought, conscience and religion is a non-derogable right”, alike freedom of expression, (“and it continues to apply regardless of a situation of armed conflict”).

1 According to the meeting participation rules, the statement has been delivered by video-message.
2 In Hoshcha Raion of Rivne Oblast.
3 Employment has to be suitable to the restrictive legal regulations of alternative service.
4 It has been proposed by President of Ukraine and is titled "On the amendments to several legislative acts of Ukraine concerning improvement in some aspects of conducting military service and military registration".
5 In Kolomyia City District Court of Ivano-Frankivsk Region. The High Specialized Court on Civil and Criminal Cases in 2017 quashed the acquittal and ordered a retrial. Then several judges and local courts recused from the case; the court ordered to return formal accusation for further investigation, but the order was quashed by the appellate court; and now, judges Kalyniuk, Berkeshuk, and Veselov will examine 58 witnesses of the supposed political impact of Ruslan's video blog and pass their judgment.
6 Ruslan Kotsaba was arrested on 7th February 2015 in Ivano-Frankivsk, 130 km south-east of Lviv, after he posted a video describing the conflict as “the Donbas fratricidal civil war”. He also expressed opposition to military conscription of Ukrainians to take part in the conflict. He was then named as Amnesty International’s first Ukrainian prisoner of conscience in five years. He has already spent 524 days under arrest and was duly acquitted in 2016. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/04/ukraine-suspicious-deaths-need-credible-investigations/
7 Oral statements delivered by IFOR at the 45th session of the Human rights Council, on October 1st, during the ID with the High Commissioner on the findings of OHCHR report on the situation of human rights in Ukraine.

You can download this statement here. 

---

You can watch the registration of the above meeting of the UN Human rights Council here (IFOR intervention is at 1:07:29) 

IFOR STATEMENT ON THE U.S. RECOGNITION OF MOROCCAN SOVEREIGNTY OVER WESTERN SAHARA

On this day, December 14th 2020, which marks the 60th anniversary of the Declaration on the Granting of Independ-ence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, 1 IFOR is issuing a statement on the recent developments regarding the con-flict in Western Sahara.

STATEMENT ON THE U.S. RECOGNITION OF MOROCCAN SOVEREIGNTY OVER WESTERN SAHARA

The International Fellowship of Reconciliation (IFOR) was founded over 100 years ago, and at the heart of the fellowship is the steadfast belief in multilateralism as a way to engage within the international community.

On December 10th, President Donald Trump issued a proclamation stating that the United States will recognize Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara. 2 A departure from decades of U.S. policy, the move follows last month’s breakdown of the nearly 30-year ceasefire between Morocco and Western Sahara and the resumption of hostilities.

In 1991, the United Nations and the international community made a promise to the Saharawi people that a referendum would be organized, and that they freely and fairly would get to decide their own fate. 30 years later, that promise remains unfulfilled. Neither renewed fighting nor unilateral moves that disregard interna-tional law absolves the international community of this promise. On the contrary, it highlights the urgency of finally implementing the right to self-determination. Saharawi organizations have long sounded the alarm about the consequences of continued inaction and the eroding trust in the international community that fol-lows. 3

The initial reactions to the U.S. Administration’s announcement have been somewhat encouraging, with many countries denouncing the move. IFOR calls on all UN Member States to also act collectively in demonstrating their commitment to abide by international law and to be accountable for the implementation of funda-mental rights. In 2017, following the Trump administration’s announcement that the U.S. would recognize Je-rusalem as the capital of Israel – another example of unilateral action that disregarded international law– the UN General Assembly held an emergency special session and decisively backed a resolution that rejected the move. 4 Such action is again appropriate and necessary to reaffirm the primacy of international law.

With the current administration on its way out, it is also imperative that the new leadership in the U.S. act. IFOR urges President-Elect Biden to, immediately upon taking office, reverse the Trump administration’s de-cision and reaffirm the principles of international law, as the foundation for settling international conflicts, and multilateralism to strengthen international cooperation.

Further, IFOR calls once more for the UN Secretary-General António Guterres to immediately appoint a new UN Personal Envoy for Western Sahara 5. The vacancy at this position, and the continued wait of a credible path to a peaceful resolution, leaves the door open for the kind of negative developments seen in the last month.

---

1 General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/Independence.aspx

2 https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-recognizing-sovereignty-kingdom-morocco-western-sahara/

3 Open Letter to the UN Secretary General on the 45th Anniversary of the Western Sahara Conflict, released on November 14th by NOVA, a local nonviolent Saharawi youth organization. 4 General Assembly resolution 11995 of 21 December 2017, adopted at the 10th Emergency Special Session.

5 IFOR Statement on the current situation in Western Sahara, released on November 13th 2020. http://www.ifor.org/news/2020/11/13/ifor-statement-on-the-current-situation-in-western-sahara

You can download the statement by clicking here.

IFOR STATEMENT ON THE CURRENT SITUATION IN WESTERN SAHARA

STATEMENT ON THE CURRENT SITUATION IN WESTERN SAHARA 

Today, on November 13th 2020, several media outlets have reported that the Moroccan army launched an op eration near the border crossing at Guerguerat against a group of Saharawi protesters.1 The representatives of  the Saharawi people had previously stated that any such Moroccan action would be considered an aggression  to which they would respond, and that this would mean the end of the ceasefire agreement between the parties.2 While early reports are still unclear, the developments today represent a clear threat of an outbreak of a new  war. 

In 1991, the United Nations and the international community made a promise to the Saharawi people that a  referendum would be organized, and that they freely and fairly would get to decide their own fate. 30 years  later, that promise remains unfulfilled. Today’s events demonstrate that a continued status quo and continued  inaction is not sustainable and not acceptable.  

The International Fellowship of Reconciliation (IFOR) was founded over 100 years ago in response to the  horrors of the First World War. Since then, IFOR has taken a consistent stance against war and its preparation.  When people and organizations commit themselves to action, war and conflicts can be prevented and trans formed through nonviolent means.  

Such action is urgent and well overdue. The UN needs to take concrete steps to deescalate the current situation  and demonstrate a serious commitment to renewed negotiations. IFOR welcomes any efforts by the UN to  immediately seek an end to the current military escalation. These efforts must be intensified. Further,  IFOR calls upon the UN Secretary-General António Guterres to without delay appoint a new UN Per 

sonal Envoy for Western Sahara to demonstrate that continued status quo is not acceptable. The position  has been vacant for 18 months. With the vacancy, the main avenue for non-violent engagement between the  parties is closed and the peace process is at a standstill. The immediate appointment of a new Personal Envoy  is the very least that the UN can do to signal to those desiring a non-violent resolution to the conflict that such  a path is still possible. The consequence of continued stalling has been made clear today.  

IFOR also calls on the governments in the region and around the world to contribute to a peaceful  solution of the Western Sahara conflict and the implementation of the fundamental rights of the people  living on those territories. The UN Member States must act in accordance with the UN Charter3and demon strate that continued military escalation is unacceptable. The outbreak of a new war in the region would con stitute a grave risk for people’s lives and livelihoods. The Covid-19 Pandemic has put severe strains on an  already difficult situation and would further complicate any humanitarian and other relief efforts that would  follow a war. It is imperative that this is avoided and that a credible path to a peaceful resolution is established. 

---

Notes

1. For example, Al-Jazeera. Morocco troops launch operation in Western Sahara border zone. Retrieved November 13, 2020.  https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/11/13/morocco-launches-operation-in-western-sahara-border-zone

2. Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic Ministry of Information. Press Release November 9, 2020.  

3. In particular, Article 1 of the UN Charter: “The purposes of the UN is to maintain international peace and security, and to that end:  to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression  or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international  law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace”.

---

You can donwload the whole statement here.

Webinar on conscientious objection to military service in Turkey

Update, the webinar has been moved to Saturday 21st November at 3pm CET

View fullsize

Sat 21st NOV 2020 - 15:00

Date and time: November 21, 2020, 3pm CET

Conscientious Objection to Military Service in Turkey

This autumn the Conscientious Objection Association (Vicdani Ret Derneği) in Istanbul has launched a new project. The association would like to start a campaign and lobby work to gather international support for pushing the human right to conscientious objection in Turkey. The project also includes research and documentation of the particularly difficult situation of draft evaders and conscientious objectors (COs).

In Turkey, the right to conscientious objection is not recognised and COs face a lifetime persecution, with repeated charges. Alongside hundreds of thousands of draft evaders, conscientious objectors face “civil death”, which means they cannot work legally with social security, travel freely, vote in elections or stand for an office, as well as being charged with multiple fines for not attending the military. In other words, they are robbed off their civil rights. The situation hasn’t changed despite multiple decisions by the European Court for Human Rights prosecuting Turkey for its treatment of COs.

We invite you to participate in a webinar where we will discuss:

• The general situation of conscientious objectors in Turkey today,

• The project of the Conscientious Objection Association,

• How to develop and strengthen the campaign for COs.

Please register here (no later than 5th November): https://wri-irg.org/en/story/2020/registration-form-conscientious-objec…

This webinar is organised by Connection e.V., War Resisters’ International, Vicdani Ret Derneği, European Bureau for Conscientious Objection, International Fellowship of Reconciliation

IFOR reports to the 38th session of the UPR on the right to conscientious objection to military service in Singapore

IFOR prepared a report on the right to conscientious objection to military service in Singapore. and submitted it to the 38th session Universal Periodic Review of the Human Rights Council.

The session will take place in May 2021 and it will include the review of human rights in Singapore.

The main issue in this Country, related to this topic, is the fact that there is no recognition of the right to conscientious objection to military service in law and practice and thus objectors are prosecuted and detained.

The report submitted by IFOR addressed the non-recognition of the right to conscientious objection, persecution of conscientious objectors, underage recruitment and restrictions on civil society (with particular attention to freedom of opinion and expression, right to peaceful assembly, freedom of association).

Regarding the rights of the child, the document points out that

"Under the Voluntary Early Enlistment Scheme (“VEES”), children who have reached the age of 16 years and 6 months may be voluntarily recruited into the Singapore Armed Forces. Such voluntary recruitment is subject to documentary proof of age, the written consent of a parent or legal guardian, and the fully informed consent of the recruit."

The submission also includes suggested recommendations to change the status quo and ensure human rights.

You can download the complete Report here

You can find more details on the previews UPR of Singapore here

---

The Universal Periodic Review is a State-driven process, which provides the opportunity for each State to present what actions they have taken to improve the human rights situation in their country and to fulfil their human rights obligations; the State under review will also report on the implementation of the previously accepted recommendations. UN Member States have the possibility to ask questions and make recommendations to the State under review. UPR Working Group consists of the 47 members of the Council, however any member state can take part in the discussion.
The review is based on information provided by the interested State, independent human rights experts and other stakeholders such as NGOs.
NGOs reports and proposed recommendations can be referred to by any of the States taking part in the interactive discussion during the review; it is therefore of vital importance to engage at the UPR and address specific issues which can be therefore part of the dialogue with the country under review.
IFOR focuses in particular on issues related to conscientious objection and to the militarization of society. 

IFOR is currently running a particular conscientious objection project, funded by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust (JRCT), a grant-making Quaker trust. Among the main aims there are research work and redaction of thematic country-based reports to be submitted to the UN for the regular State reviews on human rights.

The right to refuse to kill, although it is a human right, it is not recognized in all countries and many objectors are persecuted.

IFOR is committed to support this right and make a lasting change in society, for peace. JRCT recognizes that "change can take many years to achieve and is willing to take the long view, and to take the risks".

IFOR participates in a public statement regarding ECtHR judgment on Russian CO case

ECtHR judgement on Russian CO case disregards 53 years of international human rights standards

On the 7th of September 2020 the Grand Chamber panel of the European Court of Human Rights rejected the request to refer the case of Dyagilev v. Russia (no. 49972/16) to the Grand Chamber, thus rendering the judgement of 10 March 2020 final. In this judgement, by majority of four (4) to three (3), the European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), found that there has been no violation of article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights in the case of conscientious objector (CO) Maksim Andreyevich Dyagilev, whose application for CO status and alternative civilian service had been dismissed by a military recruitment commission, and subsequently by courts. 

In this judgement, a small majority of judges found that the military recruitment commission “satisfies the prima facie requirement of independence” despite the fact that three out of seven of its members are representatives of the Ministry of Defence. 

In this ECtHR judgement a slim majority disregards all other relevant international and regional human rights standards set by numerous UN and European institutions for more than half a century. 

First of all, in this case the majority of ECtHR judges appear to ignore that “no court and no committee can examine a person’s conscience”, and that “in order to be recognized as a conscientious objector, a declaration setting out the individual's motives should suffice in order to obtain the status of conscientious objector”, as European Parliament’s resolutions have repeatedly stated for over 30 years.i 

Furthermore, the ECtHR disregards the fact that both the UN Human Rights Council, ii and its predecessor, the then UN Commission on Human Rights, iii have, since 1998, welcomed the fact that some States accept claims of conscientious objection as valid without inquiry. In this case, not only was Dyagilev’s claim not accepted without inquiry, but, as pointed out in the dissenting opinion of 3 judges, the “assessment was based on an overly burdensome standard of proof”. 

In this judgement the ECtHR appears to ignore the international and regional human rights standards concerning any applications for conscientious objector status. 

In 1967 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, decided that: “Where the decision regarding the recognition of the right of conscientious objection is taken in the first instance by an administrative authority, the decision-taking body shall be entirely separate from the military authorities and its composition shall guarantee maximum independence and impartiality.”iv [emphasis added] 

Similarly, the then UN Special Rapporteur on religious intolerance, set the relevant standard as long ago as 1986: “The decision concerning their status should be made, when possible, by an impartial tribunal set up for that purpose or by a regular civilian court, with the application of all the legal safeguards provided for in international human rights instruments. There should always be a right to appeal to an independent, civilian judicial body. The decision-making body should be entirely separate from the military authorities and the conscientious objector should be granted a hearing, and be entitled to legal representation and to call relevant witnesses.”v [emphasis added] The same standards continue to be cited today by the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief as the role is named now.vi 

It is obvious that a military recruitment committee with any representatives of the Ministry of Defence, let alone three (3) out of seven (7) members, is not “entirely” separate from the military authorities. Furthermore, insofar it is the military members and not the civilian ones which raise questions of independence and impartiality, as it appears to be accepted by the ECtHR [see Papavasilakis v. Greece, no. 66899/14], a composition which would guarantee “maximum” independence and impartiality should have been one with the minimum [i.e. zero] participation of military members. 

Most importantly, in this case the ECtHR does not take into account the recommendations of the UN Human Rights Committee which, in 2009, urged Russia to “consider placing the assessment of applications for conscientious objector status entirely under the control of civilian authorities.”vii [emphasis added] 

The OHCHR has also adopted a similar standard noting that: “Independent and impartial decision-making bodies should determine whether a conscientious objection to military service is genuinely held in a specific case. Such bodies should be placed under the full control of civilian authorities.”viii 

It is worth noting that this ECtHR judgement, which appears to accept a minority of military members in the bodies examining applications for CO status, contradicts its own rationale on whether even a single member may affect the independence and impartiality of a body. For example, in the case of Canevi and Others v. Turkey, no. 40395/98, which is not related to conscientious objectors, the ECtHR found a violation of Article 6.1 of the European Convention of Human Rights (right to fair trial), because of the participation of a single military member in a tribunal. If even a single (1) military officer affects the impartiality and independence of a tribunal in a case which has nothing to do with the army it is absolutely clear that the same would be true when the issue at stake is directly related to the army as it involves a conscientious objector opposing the army and the military service. 

In conclusion, this year’s ECtHR judgement in the Dyagilev v. Russia case contradicts longstanding international and regional human rights standards concerning the recognition of COs, as well as its’ own broader rationale on independence and impartiality. In any case, the ECtHR may be responsible for the European Convention for Human Rights, but its judgement does not preclude the possibility for Dyagilev himself, as well as other conscientious objectors in similar position, to seek justice at a different level, such the UN Human Rights Committee, for violation of a different treaty, the International Covenant on Civil and Politic Rights. 

This ECtHR ruling, concerning a single case with specific characteristics, adopted by a majority of just one judge, and not examined by the Grand Chamber does not set a general precedent for Russia and cannot annul the growing jurisprudence on the right to conscientious objection to military service. 

Statement published on October 29th 2020 by 

Connection e.V., EBCO-European Bureau for Conscientious Objection, 

IFOR-International Fellowship Of Reconciliation, WRI-War Resisters’ International. 

---

i European Parliament, Resolution on conscientious objection and alternative service, (Α3-15/89), [known as Schmidbauer Resolution], as published in the Official Journal of the European Communities C291, 13 October 1989, para. Α (page 123) and para. 4 (page 124). See also: European Parliament, Resolution on conscientious objection, (1-546/82), [known as Macciocchi Resolution], 7 February 1983, as published in the Official Journal of the European Communities C 68, 14 March 1983, para. 3 (page 15). 

ii UN Human Rights Council, Resolution 24/17 (A/HRC/RES/24/17), 8 October 2013, para. 7. Available at http://undocs.org/A/HRC/RES/24/17. 

iii UN Commission on Human Rights, Resolution 1998/77, Conscientious objection to military service, 22 April 1998, (E/CN.4/RES/1998/77), para. 2. 

iv Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Resolution 337 (1967), Right of conscientious objection, para. b2. 

v Report submitted by Mr. Angelo Vidal d Almeida Ribeiro, Special Rapporteur appointed in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 1986/20 of 10 March 1986 (E/CN.4/1992/52), 18 December 1991, para. 185. http://undocs.org/E/CN.4/1992/52. 

vi Rapporteur’s Digest on Freedom of Religion or Belief, p. 45. https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Religion/RapporteursDigestFreedomReligionBelief.pdf. 

vii UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of the Russian Federation, (CCPR/C/RUS/CO/6), 24 November 2009, para. 23. Available at http://undocs.org/CCPR/C/RUS/CO/6. 

viii OHCHR, Approaches and challenges with regard to application procedures for obtaining the status of conscientious objector to military service in accordance with human rights standards, 24 May 2019, para. 60, (g). Available at: http://undocs.org/A/HRC/41/23.

You can download this statement here.

IFOR speaks at the UN on memorialization and non-recurrence and refers to the murder of Aamaud Arvery and to the ‘Citizens Arrest Repeal Bill’

On September 17th the Main representative of IFOR delivered an oral statement at the 45th session of the Human Rights Council, during the interactive dialogue with the UN Special Rapporteur on truth and justice and spoke on the reconciliation process, memorialization and non-recurrence referring to systemic racism and the murder of Ahmaud Arbery.

In June 2020, the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted a resolution entitled "The promotion and protection of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of Africans and people of African descent," which makes the following request, among others:

"Requests the High Commissioner for Human Rights, with the assistance of relevant Special Mandate Holders, to prepare a report on systemic racism, violations of international human rights law against Africans and people of African descent by law enforcement agencies, especially those incidents that resulted in the death of George Floyd and other Africans and people of African descent, to contribute to accountability and redress for victims . . . ."

-June 19, 2020 resolution at paragraph 3.-

As a first step, the Center for Jubilee, Reconciliation, and Healing of Coastal Georgia (Jubilee) and the Georgia chapter of the Fellowship of Reconciliation USA (FOR USA), the USA branch of the International Fellowship of Reconciliation (IFOR), prepared reports. The Jubilee and FOR USA reports were for consideration by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, upon the occasion of the report entitled "Memorialization processes in the context of serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law: the fifth pillar of transitional justice" addressing, among other things, transitional justice with respect to past crimes committed "by a repressive regime." 

Under the rubric of memorialization, the Jubilee and FOR USA reports describe a Community Remembrance Project, with Equal Justice Initiative of Montgomery, Alabama, to remember all the lynchings in Glynn County, Georgia (where Mr. Arbery was murdered) and, possibly, other nearby counties.

Concerning the guarantee of non-recurrence, the reports describe efforts to abolish citizen's arrest in the State of Georgia and in jurisdictions throughout the United States, including Georgia State Representative Carl Scott Gilliard’s State of Georgia House Bill 1203.

These reports by the Center for Jubilee and FOR USA then became the basis for comments by the IFOR’s Main Representative in Geneva, Ms. Zaira Zafarana, in dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, a transcript of which follows.

---

Human Rights Council, 45th Session
Geneva, 17th September 2020
Item 3: Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence
Oral statement delivered by the International Fellowship of Reconciliation.

Vice President,

The International Fellowship of Reconciliation - IFOR thanks the Special Rapporteur for his report and agrees on the “crucial role played by memorialization processes to respond adequately to past crimes and prevent their recurrence.” [1]

One of the key principles of nonviolence is: learn from the past. Reconciliation is based on truth and justice; thus the recognition of human rights violations and the voices of the victims play a key role in the construction of memory.

Transitional justice and memorialization processes can help to understand and assess human rights violations  and soothe wounds to heal, foster responsible social dialogue, and reinforce the rule of law. This will also address the underlying roots of the conflict, such as inequalities and discrimination, to prevent the resurgence of violence and to build long-lasting peace.

Enabling society to regain trust and initiating a process of reconciliation need a surgical action on unemployment, distrust, phobia, violence and hatred [that have become endemic].

Systemic racism is sustained by a serious deficiency in the process of memorialization which limits guarantee of non-recurrence.

On June 5, 2020 Georgia State Representatives [2] co-sponsored the ‘Citizens Arrest Repeal Bill’; this 1863 law has allowed U.S. private citizens, [persons who are not law-enforcement officials,] to use this policy to discriminate against African Americans. The murder of Ahmaud Arbery[3] is one case.

IFOR shares the SR’s concern on “a toxic political culture”[4] and welcomes His recommendations to bring about a  Culture of Peace.

Thank you.

[1] https://undocs.org/A/HRC/45/45.

[2] Carl Scott Gilliard, Roger Bruce, Don Hogan, William Bodie and Gerald Green.

[3] On February 23rd 2020, in Glynn County, State of Georgia, USA.

[4] https://undocs.org/A/HRC/45/45..

You can download the original statement here.

You can watch the recording of the session here. IFOR's statement is at 01:50:21

---

Case of the murder of Ahmaud Arbery and the Georgia’s citizen’s arrest law

Ahmaud Arbery was on a jog in the early afternoon of Sunday, February 23, 2020, in the Satilla Shores neighborhood of Glynn County, Georgia, USA. Members of the Satilla Shores citizen patrol, including recently retired law enforcement personnel, began pursuing Mr. Arbery with their pickup trucks and guns, including a gun issued by the Glynn County Police Department. Mr. Arbery was chased and terrorized throughout the neighborhood and ultimately shot to death in a public street.

Mr. Arbery was unarmed, wearing a t-shirt and jogging shorts. Glynn County Police Department officers came to the scene of the killing, but no arrests were made. For weeks thereafter, no arrests were made. Eventually, a State of Georgia prosecutor reached back to Georgia’s citizen’s arrest law, first enacted in the slavery era soon after President Lincoln had issued the final Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, to determine that the Satilla Shores citizen patrol’s killing of Mr. Arbery had been a justifiable homicide.

More info about the research and work on this issue by the USA branch of IFOR is available here.

IFOR REPORTS ON MILITARY RECRUITMENT AND CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION IN AUSTRIA AND GEORGIA, FOR THE UPCOMING 37TH UPR.

The Universal Periodic Review is a State-driven process, which provides the opportunity for each State to present what actions they have taken to improve the human rights situation in their country and to fulfil their human rights obligations; the State under review will also report on the implementation of the previously accepted recommendations. UN Member States have the possibility to ask questions and make recommendations to the State under review. UPR Working Group consists of the 47 members of the Council, however any member state can take part in the discussion.

The review is based on information provided by the interested State, independent human rights experts and other stakeholders such as NGOs.

NGOs reports and proposed recommendations can be referred to by any of the States taking part in the interactive discussion during the review; it is therefore of vital importance to engage at the UPR and address specific issues which can be therefore part of the dialogue with the country under review.

IFOR focuses in particular on issues related to conscientious objection and to the militarization of society. 

New reports have been prepared for the upcoming 37th session of the UPR and both focusses on military recruitment and conscientious objection.

The submission concerning Austria raises, in particular the concern about the recruitment of 17-years old, contrary to international standards. The one on Georgia  outlines the discrepancy between the duration of alternative service and that of military service, and about the independence of the bodies which assess conscientious objector claims; additionally there are concerns about the subjection of children of school age to military, including firearms, training.

Read the full text of the report submitted on Austria here and on Georgia here .

The 37th UPR session will take place in January 2021; NGOs will have the opportunity to directly engage at the pre-session scheduled for the end of this year.

More info about the previous UPR of Austria are available here and about Georgia here.

IFOR welcomes you to its "INTRODUCTION TO THE UN" 2020 program -21st to 25th September-

INTRODUCTION TO THE UN program

September 21st-25th 2020

The International Fellowship of Reconciliation (IFOR) would like to invite you to participate to the second edition of the special program aimed to provide an opportunity to come and see the work of IFOR at the United Nations in Geneva and experience first-hand engagement within UN system.

The program will last one week, from Monday September 21st  to Friday 25th 2020. It will run during the 45th session of the UN Human Rights Council. 

Participants will learn more about IFOR work on conscientious objection at the UN, find out how civil society can fully engage at the UN  and network.

We contemplate a group of about ten people, which can move about together between meetings without causing massive disruption and is also small enough to share reflections communally between formal meetings.

Have a look at the first edition here. Unfortunately, this year, due to the current situation concerning covid-19, the running of the program could be subject to changes accordingly to the possible developments of the ongoing pandemic.

PROGRAMME

The detailed program will be sent to the participants prior to the start of the program.

Arrival to Geneva on Monday 21st, International Peace Day!; program will start at 2pm with the collection of the UN badges and with a preliminary orientation session.

During the week the participants will attend to working sessions of the Human Rights Council -which include plenary meetings, negotiations of resolutions, side events-, assist in the drafting and delivering of oral statements, participate in informal meetings with partner NGOs, engage in advocacy initiatives. 

The program will conclude on Friday 25th at lunch time. 

Every day participants will have the possibility to meet together to exchange on the experience and deepen topics and procedures of interest with IFOR UN representatives.

*The programme will be detailed and updated with collateral proposals as needed. 

ACCOMMODATION AND TRAVEL

IFOR has pre-arranged a double room accommodation with half board at the John Knox Centre which is located near the Palais des Nations, in Geneva. These costs (accommodation + breakfast + dinner) will be covered by IFOR through the Otto per Mille fund of the Waldensian Church. All participants will receive a free pass for local public transportation for the entire period.

Other costs shall be met by the participants and their organizations. We suggest a total of about 150 Swiss francs for basic local needs.

As to the traveling costs, thanks to the Waldensian grant we have a limited solidarity fund available for participants in need. 

HOW TO APPLY

To apply you need to fill in the online form here    

Deadline for application is JULY 24TH 2020.
The confirmation of the application will be notified to the candidates by JULY 31ST.

If necessary, we will give preference to: 

a) those who are prepared to commit for the entire week

b) persons with a direct connection with IFOR

c) young people.

For further information you are welcome to contact Zaira Zafarana, coordinator of the program, at zaira.zafarana@ifor.org

NOTE: Given the current situation of the pandemic the program will run accordingly to the actual situation and safety measures in place. An ultimate confirmation, regarding the running of the program, will be given to the participants by August 19th.

Looking forward to having you in Geneva!