This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/environment/andes-to-the-amazon/2014/jun/29/peru-licence-to-kill-environmental-protestors

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Peru now has a ‘licence to kill’ environmental protesters Peru now has a ‘licence to kill’ environmental protesters
(about 2 months later)
Some of the Some of the recent media coverage about the fact that more than 50 people in Peru – the vast majority of them indigenous – are on trial following protests and fatal conflict in the Amazon over five years ago missed a crucial point. Yes, the hearings are finally going ahead and the charges are widely held to be trumped-up, but what about the government functionaries who apparently gave the riot police the order to attack the protestors, the police themselves, and – following Wikileaks’ revelations of cables in which the US ambassador in Lima criticized the Peruvian government’s “reluctance to use force” and wrote there could be “implications for the recently implemented Peru-US FTA” if the protests continued – the role of the US government?
recent media coverage about the fact that more than 50 people in Peru – the vast majority The conflict broke out in northern Peru after mainly indigenous Awajúns and Wampis had been peacefully protesting a series of new laws which were supposedly emitted to comply with a trade agreement between Peru and the US and which made it easier, among other things, for extractive industries to exploit natural resources in their territories. Following a blockade of a highway near a town called Bagua – and an agreement that the protestors would break up and go home, reached the day before – early on 5 June the police moved to clear it and started shooting. In the ensuing conflict, 10 police officers, five indigenous people and five non-indigenous civilians were killed, more than 200 injured – at least 80 of whom were shot – and, elsewhere in the Bagua region, a further 11 police officers were killed after being taken hostage.
of them indigenous – are on trial following protests and fatal conflict in “So far only protesters have been brought to trial,” said Amnesty International in a statement marking five years since the conflict and pointing out that human rights lawyers have said there is no serious evidence linking the accused to the crimes they are being prosecuted for – which include homicide and rebellion. “[S]o far little progress has been made to determine the responsibility of the security forces. Likewise, no progress has been made to investigate the political authorities who gave the orders to launch the police operation.”
the Amazon over five years ago missed a crucial point. Yes, the hearings are finally going ahead and the charges are Does this desperate failure of justice not effectively constitute a “licence to kill” for the police? Maybe, maybe not, but whatever the answer Peru has now formalised that licence by emitting a law that, as the Dublin-based NGO Front Line Defenders (FLD) puts it, grants:
widely held to be trumped-up, but what about the government functionaries who . . . members of the armed forces and the national police exemption from criminal responsibility if they cause injury or death, including through the use of guns or other weapons, while on duty. Human rights groups, both nationally and internationally, the Human Rights Ombudsman (Defensoria del Pueblo) as well as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights all expressed deep concern about the law. In the words of the [Lima-based] Instituto Libertad y Democracia [IDL], the law equates, in practice, to a “licence to kill.”
apparently gave the riot police the order to attack the protestors, the police That law, no. 30151, was promulgated in January this year and is, according to the IDL’s Juan José Quispe, a modification of existing legislation passed by the previous government. The modification consists of replacing three words – “en forma reglamentaria” – with another five – “u otro medio de defensa” – which Quispe says means that any soldier or police officer can now kill or injure a civilian without needing to use his or her weapon “according to regulations”, or by using something other than his or her weapon.
themselves, and – following Wikileaks’ revelations of cables in which the US ambassador “We continue considering this law as one that grants the armed forces as well as the national police a licence to kill,” Quispe told the Guardian. “It permits a high degree of impunity. During the repression of social protests, police officers and soldiers who cause injuries or deaths will now be exempt from criminal responsibility.”
in Lima criticized the Peruvian government’s “reluctance to use force” and Quispe says that the exemption will also apply to police or soldiers who, in the fight against narco-terrorism in particular, accidentally kill civilians.
wrote there could be “implications for the recently implemented Peru-US FTA” if “It’s a dangerous law and constitutes a threat to everyone,” he says. “It permits the use of weapons by contravening existing law and international parameters such as the United Nations’ Principles. It gives soldiers and police officers a carte blanche to commit crimes with impunity.”
the protests continued – the role of the US government? The controversial law was highlighted by the FLD in a report published this month titled “Environmental Rights Defenders at Risk in Peru.” What that report makes clear is that if you’re Peruvian and you publicly express concern about the environmental and social impacts of mining operations you can expect the following: death threats, rape threats, physical and electronic surveillance, smears and stigmatization by national mainstream media, police acting as “private security” for mining companies, confiscation or theft of equipment, “excessive use of force by police” during protests, arrest, or detention, and prosecution on charges of “rebellion, terrorism, violence, usurpation, trespassing, disobedience or resistance to an official order, obstructing public officers, abduction, outrage to national symbols, criminal damage, causing injury, coercion, disturbance or other public order offences.”
The conflict While the FLD’s report acknowledges that the “vast majority” of court proceedings have ended in acquittals or with the charges dropped, it argues that the “extraordinary use” of lawsuits constitutes an “abusive use of the judicial system” and impedes “the work of the [accused], affecting their reputation and furthering the view – often upheld by national media – that they are violent extremists. This is especially the case when accusations of terrorism, rebellion or violence are levied.” It states that almost 400 people currently face court proceedings, and cites one man as an example, Milton Sanchez Cubas, who has faced roughly 50 but never been convicted.
broke out in northern Peru after mainly indigenous Awajúns and Wampis had been The FLD’s report ends with a serious of recommendations to Peru’s government, including that the “licence to kill” law is repealed.
peacefully protesting a series of new laws which were supposedly emitted to “All documented instances of intimidation, death threats, physical attacks, surveillance, stigmatisation, smear campaigns, and judicial harassment appear to be directly related to legitimate and peaceful work,” it states, “in particular in supporting. . . local communities opposed to mining projects and their impact on their environment, territory and livelihood.”
comply with a trade agreement between Peru and the US and which made it
easier, among other things, for extractive industries to exploit natural
resources in their territories. Following a blockade of a highway near a town
called Bagua – and an agreement that the protestors would break up and go home,
reached the day before – early on 5 June the police moved to clear it and
started shooting. In the ensuing conflict, 10 police officers, five indigenous
people and five non-indigenous civilians were killed, more than 200 injured –
at least 80 of whom were shot – and, elsewhere in the Bagua region, a further 11 police officers
were killed after being taken hostage.
“So far
only protesters have been brought to trial,” said Amnesty International in a
statement marking five years since the conflict and pointing out that human
rights lawyers have said there is no serious evidence linking the accused to
the crimes they are being prosecuted for – which include homicide and rebellion. “[S]o far little
progress has been made to determine the responsibility of the security forces.
Likewise, no progress has been made to investigate the political authorities
who gave the orders to launch the police operation.”
Does this desperate
failure of justice not effectively constitute a “licence to kill” for the
police? Maybe, maybe not, but whatever the answer Peru has now formalised that
licence by emitting a law that, as the Dublin-based NGO Front Line Defenders (FLD) puts it,
grants:
. . . members of the armed forces and the
national police exemption from criminal responsibility if they cause injury or
death, including through the use of guns or other weapons, while on duty. Human
rights groups, both nationally and internationally, the Human Rights Ombudsman
(Defensoria del Pueblo) as well as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
all expressed deep concern about the law. In the words of the [Lima-based] Instituto
Libertad y Democracia [IDL], the law equates, in practice, to a “licence to
kill.”
That law,
no. 30151, was promulgated in January this year and is, according to the IDL’s
Juan José Quispe, a modification of existing legislation passed by the previous
government. The modification consists of replacing three words – “en forma reglamentaria” – with another
five – “u otro medio de defensa” –
which Quispe says means that any soldier or police officer can now kill or
injure a civilian without needing to use his or her weapon “according to
regulations”, or by using something other than his or her weapon.
“We
continue considering this law as one that grants the armed forces as well as
the national police a licence to kill,” Quispe told the Guardian. “It permits a
high degree of impunity. During the repression of social protests, police
officers and soldiers who cause injuries or deaths will now be exempt from
criminal responsibility.”
Quispe says
that the exemption will also apply to police or soldiers who, in the fight
against narco-terrorism in particular, accidentally kill civilians.
“It’s a
dangerous law and constitutes a threat to everyone,” he says. “It permits the
use of weapons by contravening existing law and international parameters such
as the United Nations’ Principles. It gives soldiers and police officers a carte blanche to commit crimes with
impunity.”
The
controversial law was highlighted by the FLD in a report published this month titled “Environmental
Rights Defenders at Risk in Peru.” What that report makes clear is that if
you’re Peruvian and you publicly express concern about the environmental and
social impacts of mining operations you can expect the following: death threats, rape
threats, physical and electronic surveillance, smears and stigmatization by
national mainstream media, police acting as “private security” for mining
companies, confiscation or theft of equipment, “excessive use of force by
police” during protests, arrest, or detention, and prosecution on charges of “rebellion,
terrorism, violence, usurpation, trespassing, disobedience or resistance to an
official order, obstructing public officers, abduction, outrage to national
symbols, criminal damage, causing injury, coercion, disturbance or other public
order offences.”
While the FLD’s
report acknowledges that the “vast majority” of court proceedings have ended in
acquittals or with the charges dropped, it argues that the “extraordinary use”
of lawsuits constitutes an “abusive use of the judicial system” and impedes “the
work of the [accused], affecting their reputation and furthering the view –
often upheld by national media – that they are violent extremists. This is
especially the case when accusations of terrorism, rebellion or violence are
levied.” It states that almost 400 people currently face court proceedings, and
cites one man as an example, Milton Sanchez Cubas, who has faced roughly 50 but
never been convicted.
The FLD’s
report ends with a serious of recommendations to Peru’s government, including
that the “licence to kill” law is repealed.
“All
documented instances of intimidation, death threats, physical attacks,
surveillance, stigmatisation, smear campaigns, and judicial harassment appear
to be directly related to legitimate and peaceful work,” it states, “in
particular in supporting. . . local communities opposed to mining projects and
their impact on their environment, territory and livelihood.”