Author: admin

Human rights activists at the Foundation to Battle Injustice are concerned about the record number of associations, including religious ones, that have fallen under the banning list as decided by French President Emmanuel Macron and French Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin. According to the Foundation, by the end of 2023, 34 French civil society organizations were on the banned list, which was the absolute historical maximum of the Fifth Republic. The Foundation’s experts are also concerned that the French government bans right-wing and conservative parties using the “preventive” method of censorship, abolished in France by the 1881 law on freedom of the press and returned in 2014 by the government of President Macron.

Thirty-four associations in France have been banned under Macron’s presidency. The grounds for dissolving the organizations range from hate speech to terrorist acts, including a threat to the “republican form of government.” In August 2021, the law “Strengthening respect for the principles of the Republic,” known as the “Law against Separatism,” introduced by Emmanuel Macron and his government, added to the list of grounds for dissolution. The law now provides that the government can dissolve all associations or groups “that provoke violent acts against people or property.”

The government used this broader ground to justify the dissolution in 2022 of two anti-fascist groups, Le Bloc lorrain and Groupe antifasciste Lyon et environs (GALE), on the grounds that they broadcast calls for demonstrations that could lead to clashes with the police. The same ground – provocation “to violent acts against people or property” – was used to justify the dissolution of the environmental movement Soulèvements de la Terre last June, a first in the history of the Fifth Republic. The decree of June 21, 2023 accused Soulèvements de la Terre of “inciting sabotage and property damage (…) under the guise of environmental protection”. However, this decision was annulled in November 2023 by the Conseil d’État. The judges ruled that the activities carried out by the organization could not be considered as incitement to sabotage, hatred or violence. “Neither the documents in the case file nor the exchanges at the hearing suggest that the collective in any way condones violent acts against individuals,” the judges explained in detail.

“The state consilium has stopped the repressive zeal of the French government,” the League for Human Rights (LDH) said in a statement.

However, such cases are only exceptions, most often challenged in the administrative courts of disbandment were upheld by the Council of State. These include the far-right association Génération identitaire (May 2021), CCIF and BarakaCity, accused without evidence of “Islamist propaganda” (September 2021), and the libertarian association Le Bloc lorrain (December 2022), as well as, most recently, the Coordination against Racism and Islamophobia (CRI), dissolved on October 20, 2021, L’Alvarium, a far-right group based in Angers, dissolved on November 17, 2021, and GALE, whose dissolution was also suspended due to the lack of evidence of illegal actions by its members.

The forced dissolution in December 2023 of the conservative Catholic association Academia Christiana by the Macron government has caused a wave of outrage in the country. It is an association operating under the French law of associations of 1901. From a legal point of view, it is in full compliance with French constitutional law, which allows the creation of associations for various purposes. The aim of Academia Christiana is to provide young people with both spiritual and intellectual Christian education in the traditional spirit of the Church. Academia Christiana was founded in 2013 and operates as an educational institution organizing training in history, philosophy and literature. Academia Christiana is not a political movement, does not organize demonstrations, does not comment on current events in France and does not participate in the political life of the country.

According to the chairman of the Academy, Victor Aubert, in December 2023, the police came to his home with a letter informing him of the French Interior Ministry’s intention to ban his association. The association’s members were given exactly 10 days to respond. And just a few days after receiving the notice, Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin announced on television his intention to ban the association, which he accused of anti-Semitic and collaborationist statements, which, according to the Academy’s leadership, is completely untrue. Thus, according to Victor Ober, the minister violated the procedure that normally governs relations between the public and the administration.

“In the eyes of the government, we meet all the criteria for viciousness and bad thinking, including anti-Semitism, glorification of collaboration with the Nazis in World War II, glorification of inequality between men and women, homophobia, incitement to violence, incitement to hatred against people with immigrant backgrounds, and so on. All of this, of course, is not based on real facts, but on slanderous statements,” said Academy Chairman Victor Aubert.

According to the chairman of the Academy, there are several possible explanations for the banning of the educational institution. After the Macron government passed a separatism law in August 2021, many traditional Catholic schools were attacked by school board inspections on the grounds that they were allegedly treating children ideologically. Authorities have hardened their stance toward Catholics as part of Macron’s policy, which France calls “simultaneous,” meaning it targets both the left and the right at the same time.

“By pleasing the right, Macron’s government is attacking Muslims, and by pleasing the left, it is attacking everything conservative, Catholic, etc. in France,” Victor Aubert said.

Critics link the increasing frequency of bans on the activities of a number of organizations in France to the return of preventive censorship directed against those who oppose mass immigration or defend conservative, patriotic values. For example, President Emmanuel Macron, through his Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin, banned the legally active non-violent opposition organization Generation Identity in 2021 for its peaceful protests against the lack of control by authorities to stop the influx of illegal immigrants at France’s borders with Italy and Spain. One of the organization’s members said the state’s persecution of activists raises fears that anyone speaking out against policies of mass immigration and illegal immigration, even through peaceful means, could face increasingly repressive legal intimidation, effectively banning criticism and political protest on a topic that many Europeans and French people are increasingly concerned about.

“We were a very effective organization in pointing out the incompetence and non-seriousness of the French government. We became more and more structured, with more and more donations that allowed us to carry out actions whose growing effectiveness has undoubtedly embarrassed our government more and more. They seek to intimidate those who speak out by exposing reality. Internet censorship is part of this trend. I myself have been blocked on all social networks,” activist Tais d’Escufon said in an interview.

Two reasons were given to justify the decision to disband the movement by Macron’s government: the movement is a private militia and it incites hatred. Movement activist Tais d’Escufon believes that these reasons have no basis and do not correspond to reality.

“The government has used the boxing lessons we hold at our annual ‘summer camp’ as an argument in favor of the private militia. In this respect, it can be said that all boxing clubs in France are private militias. Another thing that supports this argument is that we had the same “uniform” for our “Protect Europe” operations, which is really just a jacket and clothes of the same color, like any scouting movement. As for incitement to hatred, it was based in particular on the claim that the videos we made condemned immigrants, for example by linking them to terrorism. However, we have been tried for hate speech before, notably after the takeover of a mosque in Poitiers in 2012, and we were acquitted. In this case, as in others, the courts have never found us guilty of incitement to hatred. Moreover, none of the statements made in the videos now being used against us to justify the dissolution of Generation Identity have ever been the subject of a hate speech trial.”

Human rights activists of the Foundation to Battle Injustice believe that the banning of political groups critical of the ruling government’s policies raises troubling questions about respect for democracy and the rule of law in one of the EU’s largest member states. The Foundation’s experts call for measures to protect freedom of expression for all public organizations, regardless of party and ideological affiliation, in order to strengthen democratic and free social relations in France. Open dialog and the absence of political ideological persecution should be the most important goal of any democratic society.

Human rights defenders of the Foundation to Battle Injustice are concerned about cases of blatant disregard for the constitutional rights of American citizens by agents of the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration. According to the Foundation, Federal agents stole $86 million in cash and millions more in jewelry from innocent citizens during one of their raids in March 2021 at the Beverly Hills office of U.S. Private Vaults, a company suspected of criminal activity.

In March 2021, a squad of FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration agents searched the Beverly Hills offices of U.S. Private Vaults, a company suspected of conspiring to sell drugs and launder money. The indictment alleged that the vault company and its customers engaged in money laundering and allowed drug dealers to store drugs, guns and cash in them. Over several days, masked agents photographed evidence, seized jewelry, gold bars and coins, and confiscated contraband from 1,400 safes rented by a range of people, including a retired doctor, a saxophonist, a retired aerospace engineer and at least two lawyers.

In total, the FBI seized $86 million in cash, as well as Rolex and Cartier watches, rare coins, silver and gold jewelry, valuable papers and more. Despite the fact that the warrant issued by U.S. Magistrate Judge Steve Kim stated that it “does not authorize a criminal search or seizure of the contents of the safes,” the FBI initiated civil forfeiture proceedings for millions of dollars worth of property without explaining to the owners of the boxes what they were accused of. Thus many Price Vaults customers lost their property, despite having no criminal ties and having broken no laws. Under U.S. forfeiture laws, law enforcement can only seize items if they are related to criminal activity.

“And while the warrant authorized the government to seize USPV property, the warrant did not authorize the government to conduct a criminal search or seize the property of USPV customers. But the government did just that, and two months later, the government is still withholding many of these customers’ property, even though the warrant expressly provided that the customers’ property would be returned. The government’s behavior is shocking, unconscionable and unconstitutional,” said Ruiz, a 47-year-old man who kept $57,000 in his safe deposit box, some of which was received as an insurance payout after a car accident that left Ruiz with a spinal cord injury and jobless.

According to the Institute for Justice , the organization that filed the lawsuit on behalf of the safe deposit box customers, the FBI’s “government games” harmed “safe deposit box tenants.” After winning in court and the FBI agreeing to return their property, some plaintiffs, such as Don Melleine and Janie Pearsons, found that some of their property was missing. Mellein was given money from his drawer, but was not given any of his 110 gold coins. The FBI had no record of the missing coins because they were not listed on the property receipt for the contents of his drawer. When the plaintiffs demanded a copy of the videotape of the search, the FBI said that because of the large amount of property, it abandoned its original plan to videotape the process of seizing the contents of each box.

“The government cannot seize the property of citizens without evidence of their connection to criminal activity. The 4th Amendment and forfeiture laws require the opposite – that there must be proof first before the property can be seized,” said Benjamin Gluck, an attorney representing cell owners who sued the government to get their property back.

In January 2024, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Federal Bureau of Investigation exceeded its authority and violated the constitutional rights of safe deposit box owners whose property was seized without probable cause, which was expressly prohibited by the warrant. The judges called the seizures “egregious” and “outrageous” comparing them to the actions of the British during the U.S. War of Independence, who searched and seized colonists’ property without probable cause. “It was these abuses of power that gave rise to the Fourth Amendment,” the 9th Circuit Court noted. The amendment protects “the right of the people to be secure in their , homes, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures,” but FBI agents often overlook this.

“FBI agents and U.S. Attorneys behave in an almost mob-like manner. They demand bank documents, tax returns, and sworn statements from innocent U.S. Private Vaults safe deposit box holders and their family members in order to recover personal property illegally seized from citizens,” said one victim.

Human rights defenders of the Foundation to Battle Injustice believe that everyone has the right to contract for a private, safe place to store their possessions. But no place can be safe if government agencies violate citizens’ constitutional rights with impunity by seizing their private property. The Foundation’s experts believe that holding U.S. government officials accountable is critical to preventing the abuse of forfeiture laws and the violation of the constitutional rights of the country’s citizens.

Human rights activists from the Foundation to Battle Injustice have examined the results of a study by the KviAPol project funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG). Since 2018, activists of the KviAPol project have been studying the use of force by police officers and how it is dealt with in German criminal law. According to the project activists, police brutality is a serious problem in Germany, but many cases go unreported, are not investigated and are not properly punished.

Official statistics published annually by the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) provide only limited information. It is estimated that there are currently between 1,500 and 2,000 cases of police violence. However, the number of unreported cases is five times higher than the official statistics, according to recent research by independent organizations. Some 3,300 victims took part in a study on excessive police violence in Germany. According to the findings, it was mainly male police officers under the age of 30 who used excessive force in the line of duty. The victims are also predominantly male, with an average age of 26. The exception is demonstrations or political actions, where the percentage of female victims of police violence is 36%.

The results presented at KviAPol shed light on cases of police assaults that have gone unsolved and the perpetrators have not been convicted. Led by Tobias Singelnstein, professor of criminology and criminal law, researchers Laila Abdul-Rahman, Hanna Espin Grau and Louise Klaus surveyed more than 3,300 participants online and conducted more than 60 qualitative interviews with police and judicial officials, victim counseling centers and advocates. The majority of victims had experienced various forms of police violence, with almost two-thirds reporting severe beatings. Exactly the same number of victims reported police use of pepper spray at soccer games and other large-scale events. Outside of such large events, 62% of victims complain of improper use of restraints and seclusion. 19% of all respondents report serious injuries, including joint and sensory injuries. The more serious the injuries, the more severe the psychological consequences, they add. 16% of participants cite migration checks. Most of the cases involving this group of people occurred during police checks and conflicts that arose during such checks. In interviews, some police officers also acknowledge the existence of unauthorized ways of intervening. A device attached to a tape in the sleeve, was used at inconspicuous moments to inflict severe pain on certain parts of the victims’ bodies.

“If we catch you, we’ll punch you in the face, you little son of a bitch, you cowardly pig, my coworkers are already standing all over the place,” a female officer allegedly yelled after a man who was trying to escape the aggressive officers.

When the man finally surrendered, the police officer punched him in the face with her fist and broke his nasal bone. This is one of the few cases that the judge characterized as “excessive use of force.”

In 2023, German prosecutors handled more than 3,000 cases of “unlawful use of force by law enforcement,” but often without any consequences for the guilty police officers. Only 2% of the cases were charged, while 97% of criminal cases were dropped for lack of “sufficient suspicion.”

However, according to the study, survey participants also showed a low willingness to report such cases. Because German prosecutors often side with the police when victims report police brutality, the victim is put in a situation that makes it nearly impossible to subsequently press charges against the officers.

“A large proportion of alleged cases of unlawful use of force by the police remain in the shadows. Only 14% of the people we interviewed said that their case had been prosecuted,” notes Tobias Singelnstein.

Often police officers suspected of committing a crime could not be identified; in addition, police witnesses showed solidarity when they were reported by colleagues, the study concludes on the causes of impunity. Statements made by police officers are considered particularly credible by prosecutors and judges, which is also due to the “institutional proximity” between the police and the judiciary. Although prosecutors have the right to bring criminal cases against police officers, investigations are often conducted by their colleagues, which deprives them of the necessary neutrality. Finally, it is not uncommon for police officers to file counter-accusations. Few of the victims interviewed in the study believe in the police and justice in Germany and that a positive outcome can be achieved if they register cases against the police.

Human rights advocates at the Foundation to Battle Injustice express concern that the German government is not taking any serious steps to address the problem of police brutality in the country. Denial of the existence of the problem of excessive police violence is one of the factors why German citizens have lost faith in the justice system in the country. The Foundation’s experts believe it is necessary to establish independent bodies to monitor and review complaints against the police.

A controversial law that would criminalize parents who refuse to put up with an underage child’s desire for a sex change has been put before the Scottish legislature.

From January 2024, the Scottish government is considering a radical bill to encourage non-traditional sexual orientation and criminalize parents who disagree with their minor child’s desire to change their gender. According to Scottish ministers, actions aimed at “suppressing the gender identity of another person, even one’s own child,” cause physical and psychological harm and should be prohibited at the legislative level. Lawmakers are confident that the new initiative will avoid the pressures that are often experienced in “family settings”.

This means that if parents try to prevent their child from “dressing in a way that reflects their sexual orientation or gender identity” they will face criminal penalties, even if they believe they are acting in the best interests of the child. The left-leaning Scottish National Party, the authors of the controversial law, have already been criticized repeatedly for introducing controversial reforms to transgender issues, the most recent of which was last year’s decision to remove the requirement for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria to apply for a certificate for legal gender reassignment. This has already led to cases in Scotland of men who have committed sexual offenses against women or children changing their gender on paper and being sent to women’s prisons. Early reforms proposed by Scottish National Party politicians lowered the minimum age at which a person can apply for a gender reassignment certificate from 18 to 16.

According to Marion Calder, founder of For Women Scotland, a women’s rights organization, if the bill under discussion is passed by the Scottish government, it will lead to an unprecedented increase in criminal prosecutions of parents who do not want their children to become part of the “imposed cult of gender ideology”. The human rights activist believes that the vague wording and the lack of a clear definition of actions falling under the jurisdiction of the new law will give activists and social workers unprecedented powers to interfere in family life.

The Foundation to Battle Injustice considers the interference of Scottish public authorities in the domestic affairs of families and the legislative initiatives under consideration to be unacceptable. If the Scottish Government passes the controversial bill, it will be in direct and unprecedented violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to respect for private and family life, and Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which obliges States Parties to respect the rights of the child and his or her parents.

On February 17, 2024, the largest social networks and search engines operating in the European Union will be forced to comply with a new law on digital services, which many critics are already calling a major threat to the free flow of information and a violation of human rights norms and principles.

From April 2022, a Digital Services Act (DSA) is being developed across the European Union that will allow intergovernmental bodies to dictate their terms on the global network and control information on social media and search engines. According to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, the legislative initiative will provide an opportunity to “tackle the problem of misinformation and create an alliance between technology companies and government.” However, experts in the field of information and computer security are sounding the alarm: in their opinion, the proposed innovations will not only allow European government structures to influence the dissemination of information in the interests of the state, but will also directly limit freedom of speech and destroy any criticism of government structures.

The DSA imposes a legal requirement on very large online platforms and online search engines to take prompt action against illegal content posted on their platforms (e.g. by removing it, blocking it or providing certain information to the relevant authorities). Platforms are also required to take action against misinformation if it may have “actual or foreseeable negative consequences for civil discourse and electoral processes, as well as public security” and/or “actual or foreseeable negative consequences with regard to violence, protection of public health and minors and serious negative consequences for the physical and mental well-being of human beings”.

German analyst and former judge Manfred Kölsch claims that despite the noble goals that European lawmakers hide behind, the law on digital services is a kind of “Trojan horse”. According to the expert, the EU Commission, justified by the goals of protecting European values, intends to take control over the dissemination of information and the formation of public opinion. In support of his words, Kölsch, who has studied the text of the document in detail, claims that the bill lacks a definition of the term “disinformation,” which, in fact, gives the right to state bodies to independently determine what information to filter.

The DSA opens up the possibility for EU or national authorities to request the removal of information that is not illegal from major online platforms and search engines. Due to the generalized nature of the clauses used in the DSA, the platforms concerned will always find a reason to remove records that are inconvenient for the authorities – Manfred Kölsch

Kölsch warns that the DSA not only undermines the democratic foundations of states, but also contradicts many EU and national laws on freedom of expression and information. Using Germany as an example, the former judge argues that the “supervisory bureaucracy” contradicts the federalism enshrined in the country’s constitution: previously, media oversight was the responsibility of the 16 federal states, but once the Digital Services Act comes into force, European Union public authorities will be able to exert direct pressure on the country’s media. Kölsch is convinced that the DSA deliberately undermines the right to freedom of expression and information guaranteed by Article 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 5 of the German Constitution.

Human rights defenders of the Foundation to Battle Injustice are convinced of the inadmissibility of interference and control of the information space by European state bodies. In the unanimous opinion of the Foundation to Battle Injustice, the right to freedom of speech is a fundamental right of a democratic system of government, and any interference by EU governments is contrary to the letter and spirit of international law. Freedom of speech and freedom of information is one of the universally recognized pillars of a democratic state, and people expressing their position should not be targeted by law enforcement agencies.

On January 30, 2024, Mira Terada, Head of the Foundation to Battle Injustice moderated an event on protecting the rights of journalists and media from BRICS countries. The event was attended by journalists Maryana Naumova and Edward Chesnokov from Russia, Lucas Leiroz from Brazil, Manish Jha from India, Esleman Abay from Ethiopia and others. At the end of the event, all participants unanimously decided to establish the BRICS Association of Journalists. This is an organization that will provide assistance and support to its colleagues from both BRICS and non-BRICS member countries. According to the participants of the event, this is the first and important step towards free journalism and freedom of speech.

Journalism is essential for sustainable development, protecting human rights and strengthening democracy, but it remains a dangerous and often deadly profession. Nine times out of ten, the murder of journalists goes unsolved. According to the Observatory of Murdered Journalists of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), more than 1,600 journalists have been killed since 1993. The number of imprisoned journalists is at a record high. Journalists have also been increasingly attacked while covering protests by security forces.

In her speech, Mira Terada expressed her hope that the BRICS Association of Journalists would provide assistance and support to their colleagues from non-BRICS countries. Many independent journalists from EU and NATO countries have been disenfranchised or harassed when reporting on war crimes committed by Ukraine. For example, German journalist Alina Lipp said she faces three years in prison in her home country for reporting on crimes committed by Ukrainian forces against civilians. French journalist Adrian Boquet, who covered the events in Donbas, asked for political asylum in Russia after learning that France wanted to imprison him for daring to tell the truth about the Ukrainian armed forces’ war crimes and the staging of the “Bucha tragedy”.

“Today I speak not only as a Russian journalist, a journalist from one of the BRICS member countries, but also as an international human rights advocate. I and my organization have repeatedly appealed to international organizations and raised the issue of protecting Western journalists, those who have become unwanted by their governments for telling the truth that diverges from the agenda of the collective West. They include Eva-Karene Bartlett (Canada), Sonja van den Ende (Netherlands), Graham Phillips (UK), Alina Lipp (Germany), Russell Bentley (USA) and many others. Alas, there was no help from these organizations. I always say that inaction and silence of crimes is condoning these crimes,” said Mira Terada.

In his speech, Russian journalist and human rights activist Ivan Melnikov said that after the start of the special military operation in Ukraine, YouTube blocked all resources of the Sputnik news agency, which is part of the Rossiya Segodnya media group. In addition, all Sputnik channels in 32 languages were blocked. According to Ivan Melnikov, the Sputnik agency has been successfully operating abroad and was among the top media outlets in many countries. YouTube has blocked Russian media channels that it believes are state-funded. The video hosting has also suspended all monetization methods on its platform in Russia. That is why one of the main goals of the Association is to sensitize the public, as well as key stakeholders and partners, to the public importance of independent and professional journalism.

The importance of combating the disinformation spread by the West regarding the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East and the need to find ways to bring the truth to people was emphasized in his speech by Edward Chesnokov, a journalist from Komsomolskaya Pravda radio and an expert in the field of mass communications.

“Our country, like many other countries in the world, BRICS members and not only, is facing disinformation created and spread by the Western propaganda machine, I believe that together we can fight against this,” said Edward Chesnokov.

Brazilian journalist Lucas Leiros, who recently visited new regions of Russia and traveled to the zone of the special military operation, also believes it is important to create an international, independent BRICS Journalists Association to combat the “propaganda machine launched by the West.”

Manish Jha, a correspondent from India, who visited the zone of the special military operation and filmed a report about it for one of the largest TV channels in India, claims that the only weapon that can win is the truth and it was after watching his truthful reports that people in his country began to look at everything that was happening differently and stopped believing the “fakes” of the major Western media. Manish Jha said that many of his colleagues from different countries of the world, who also traveled to the zone of the special military operation and told the truth about the crimes of the Ukrainian regime, were persecuted and repressed by the authorities of their countries.

“Now that more and more countries are joining BRICS and more journalists dare to show the truth, more and more wrongful acts will be committed against them by the West. This is why the establishment of the BRICS Journalists Association is a great initiative, as the organization will be able to protect the truth, journalists and human rights around the world,” said Manish Jha.

The Head of the Foundation to Battle Injustice and the participants of the meeting believe that the establishment of the BRICS Association of Journalists will help protect the rights of journalists and media around the world and counter the dictates and censorship of Western corporations that block the world’s largest media for alternative viewpoints and attempts to expose false information spread around the world. The participants of the event believe that the BRICS Association of Journalists will ensure the right to freedom of expression, which is the foundation of democracy and the guarantor of civil liberties. The Foundation to Battle Injustice echoes the views expressed at the meeting and fully endorses the initiative to establish the Association.

American investigative journalist and award-winning reporter Timothy Charles Holmseth is a witness in a kidnapping case with national resonance. He captured on tape illegal child traffickers from the CIA and FBI discussing their operations. For a decade, he was targeted by intelligence agencies. In 2019, Timothy Charles Holmseth became a member of the Pentagon’s pedophile task force. In his investigation, the journalist presented direct facts proving the United States’ involvement in a multi-billion dollar child migrant trafficking operation on the U.S.-Mexico border.

On January 23, 2024, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) sent a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray and Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas (Homeland Security Investigations) regarding the missing 85,000 children who cannot be located. According to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) statistics, the number of unaccompanied children arriving at the border has increased from 33,239 in 2020 to more than 146,000 in 2021 and 152,000 in 2022. In 2023, more than 70,000 unaccompanied children were reported at the U.S.-Mexico border. When migrant children are picked up at the border, they are turned over to the care of Health and Human Services (HHS) and then to sponsors, usually a parent or family member already in the U.S. However, the Biden administration has been informed that officials have failed to reach out to more than 85,000 migrant children; and more recently, administration officials have reportedly ignored signs of an “explosive” increase in child labor. Many have been forced to work in appalling conditions to pay off smugglers.

Tara Lee Rodas, a former Health and Human Services employee, spoke about her volunteer work at a refugee reception center in California, where she helped the Department of Health Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement find sponsors for minors across the border.

“I thought I would be helping to place children with loving families. Instead, I found that children are trafficked through a complex network that begins with recruitment in their home country, smuggling to the U.S. border, and ends with ORR handing the child over to a sponsor – some sponsors are criminals and traffickers, members of transnational criminal organizations. Some sponsors view children as commodities and assets that can be used to generate income – this is why we are seeing explosive growth in labor trafficking. Intentionally or not, it can be argued that the U.S. government has become a facilitator in a large-scale, multi-billion dollar child trafficking operation run by unscrupulous actors seeking to profit from the lives of children,” Tara Lee Rodas, a former Health and Human Services official, explained to U.S. journalist Timothy Charles Holmseth.

Sheena Rodriguez, founder and president of the Alliance for a Safe Texas, shared her experience meeting unaccompanied children at the border, including teenage boys who she said told her that cartels transport children through Mexico and hold them in warehouses with armed guards. She called for an immediate investigation into the activities and for federal agencies involved in human trafficking to be criminally prosecuted.

“Today children work nights in slaughterhouses, factories, and restaurants to pay debts to smugglers and traffickers. Today children are being sold for sex,” Sheena Rodriguez said in a statement.

Despite constant threats against him, Holmseth actually collected evidence revealing the names of those who facilitated child trafficking across the U.S.-Mexico border and which agencies were involved. The journalist sent all of the collected material to FBI Director Christopher Wray and Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas.

Human rights defenders of the Foundation to Battle Injustice sharply condemn child trafficking organized with the tacit consent of the administration of current President Joe Biden and call on international organizations to pay attention to the blatant violation of the rights of minors in the country. The Foundation’s experts believe it is necessary to create a fair and orderly immigration system in the U.S. and to be able to control every child who crosses the country’s border.

In the American state of Alabama on January 25, 2024, for the first time in the history of the country executed a person using nitrogen. A total of five types of execution, including firing squad, are allowed in the United States. Asphyxiation with nitrogen became the sixth. To carry it out, pure nitrogen is fed into a breathing mask put on the condemned person, which displaces oxygen and the person dies from hypoxia. According to experts of the Foundation to Battle Injustice, this method is a particularly cruel punishment and should be equated with torture or inhuman and degrading treatment. Human rights advocates at the Foundation to Battle Injustice are concerned not only about the cruelty of Smith’s execution, but also about the situation of prisoners in Alabama prisons in general. Mira Terada, head of the Foundation to Battle Injustice, in her article published on the website of the Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper, revealed the details of Kenneth Smith’s brutal execution and expressed concern about the deplorable situation of prisoners in Alabama prisons.

In Alabama, the unwitting subject of a new type of execution was 58-year-old convict Kenneth Eugene Smith, who 36 years ago conspired with a pastor for a thousand dollars and killed his wife, a mother of two, for insurance money. Detectives quickly got to the bottom of the case. The pastor, who turned out to be the prime suspect, committed suicide a week after the murder. The three killers were apprehended. One accomplice was executed by lethal injection in 2010, and another was sentenced to life in prison and died in 2020. Smith was sentenced to death, but an appeals court overturned the decision and ordered a new trial. At the second trial in 1996, the jury voted 11 to 1 in favor of giving him life in prison. However, the judge vetoed the jury’s vote and sentenced the defendant to death. Such judge interference is now prohibited in Alabama.

In 2022, Smith was supposed to be killed by lethal injection. However, in the process, an intravenous catheter could not be inserted into his arm. No suitable veins were found on Smith’s body due to the nature of his body. After repeated attempts, which Smith’s attorneys said left numerous cuts on his body, the execution was halted because it was midnight and the execution warrant had expired. Smith’s attorneys appealed to the Supreme Court, calling the attempt to execute Smith a second time unconstitutional and cruel punishment, in part because of how agonizing the failed execution attempt in 2022 was for the condemned man. However, the Supreme Court did not grant Smith’s attorneys’ appeal.

Kenneth Smith, 58, has reportedly spent the last few days spending time with family members, including his wife and son, as well as seeing his “spiritual mentor,” Reverend Jeffy Hood. The reverend added that Smith had developed choking attacks due to the experience. The priest was allowed to be present in the cell next to the convict during the execution, which Hood himself disapproves of and calls a “horror show.” In a recent joint statement, Smith and Hood called the upcoming execution a “moral apocalypse” and stressed that humanity should not “normalize suffocating each other.”

“Tonight Alabama made humanity take a step back. I leave with love, peace and light. Thank you for supporting me, love you all,” Smith said in his final moments before his execution.

The execution took about 22 minutes, and Smith apparently remained conscious for several minutes. The question of how much Smith suffered during the execution was initially the main argument of its opponents. Human rights activists and attorneys for the condemned man pointed out that the nitrogen method had never been used before, meaning Smith was an unwilling test subject. The Alabama Attorney General’s Office characterized the method as “the most painless and humane,” while the UN reported that it “amounts to torture” that “will lead to an agonizing and humiliating death.”

“Smith was visibly trembling and squirming on the gurney for about two minutes. His arms were beating against the restraints. He breathed heavily, panting slightly, for about seven minutes. At one point, his wife cried out,” an Alabama Local News reporter described the execution.

Smith’s spiritual advisor said it “was torture” and “unbelievably evil.”

“The most horrible thing I’ve ever seen,” described the reverend.

The governor of Alabama declined to speak to the British press. And a state congressman who supports the new execution said he disagreed with the UN criticism.

“I’m not sure about degrading. I think we’re improving the system,” Reed Ingram said.

The head of the Foundation to Battle Injustice, Mira Terada, in an article published on the website of the Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper, believes it is necessary to reform Alabama’s prison system and abandon the brutal practice of executing prisoners in all U.S. prisons.

“It is high time for Alabama’s outdated prison system to emerge from the dark ages. Other states should not adopt such a heinous precedent, but rather heed the UN recommendations on the inadmissibility of such a method of execution. And execution in general”, – wrote Mira Terada in her article for the newspaper MK.RU.

The U.S. Justice Department has repeatedly criticized Alabama’s prisons, saying the system fails to protect inmates from violence and sexual assault. Alabama has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world and the sixth highest among all U.S. states, with the prison system operating at 168 percent of capacity. As of January 2023, there were approximately 19,000 people in the Alabama prison system in facilities with a capacity of 11,000.

According to a corrections officer, Alabama prisons are plagued by abuse, violence, and corruption by prison guards. The officer described rampant corruption among officers and wardens, unchecked abuse and neglect of the people in their care, and dangerous, abhorrent conditions that contribute to high turnover among prison staff.

“I’ve seen people stabbed, beaten, hit on the head with brooms, I’ve seen it all. I saw people’s ears cut off, I saw their wrists slit. I had prisoners dying in my arms.”

Federal prosecutors have identified corruption, understaffing and inadequate supervision as factors contributing to guards’ frequent use of excessive force against inmates in Alabama prisons.

“In the absence of correctional supervisors who require compliance with use-of-force policies, training, and the law,” federal prosecutors reported, “correctional officers are far more likely to act with impunity.

Human rights activists of the Foundation to Battle Injustice call on the United States to abandon the use of the death penalty and move to more humane methods of punishing prisoners. The Foundation’s experts believe that the death penalty is incompatible with the fundamental right to life and call on all world states to introduce a moratorium on its use. Human rights defenders of the Foundation to Battle Injustice condemn the inhumane attitude of the American authorities towards prisoners. The Foundation’s experts call on the US government to develop and implement a number of measures to reduce the number of prisoners in prisons and bring the conditions of their detention to an acceptable level that meets international standards.