Sheel Patel, Author at IELR Blog

Former Catalan President Detained By German Police, Later Released

April 6, 2018 by Sheel Patel Leave a Comment

Update: Puigdemont was released on bail on Thursday. The court in Schleswig-Holstein rejected Spain’s “rebellion” charge as grounds for extradition.

On Sunday, March 25 former Catalan president Carles Puigdemont was detained by German police. This arrest was made on the grounds of the Spanish European Arrest Warrant (EAW), which mandates EU countries to arrest the suspect in question. Once in custody, the suspect is then put on trial to determine the proper punishment.

In the case of Puigdemont, Spain is asking for his extradition on the grounds of inciting rebellion and misappropriating public funds. According to the rules of the European Arrest Warrant, countries must extradite for a certain list of offenses, but rebellion is not one of them. Because of this, Puigdemont must meet the German criteria for extradition. This is difficult for Germany because their law requires the suspect to have committed violent acts in order to be charged for high treason, a comparable crime to the Spanish rebellion. Puigdemont, however, has not used violence, making German extradition under the EAW a complex matter.

If Puigdemont is indeed extradited, Germany would most probably do so for the misappropriation of public funds that the former Catalonian president is accused of. According to the EAW, once a person is extradited, the country can only try them for the charge they were extradited on. This means that Spain can only try and persecute him for misappropriation of public funds, which carries a significantly lower sentence than rebellion.

Whether or not Germany is willing to do that is unclear, however, because of the significant repercussions of a potential extradition. If Puigdemont is extradited, the legal precedence it establishes may create a slippery slope for EU countries who are trying to punish political rivals. Countries like Scotland, Belgium, and Switzerland may feel the most immediate pressure, as a number of Puigdemont’s allies have fled to those countries and are also facing EAW’s. The Catalonian secession movement has also polarized Spanish citizens, as a number of separatists have already begun to protest Puigdemont’s arrest. The move to extradite Puigdemont may invigorate and strengthen the separatist movement, which will likely do more harm to Spain.

Sheel Patel is an editorial intern at the International Enforcement Law Reporter.

ICC Launches Preliminary Examination into the Philippines’ Drug War

February 20, 2018 by Sheel Patel Leave a Comment

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has launched a preliminary examination into Philippine President Rodrigo Dutarte for his brutal “drug war.” Since 1988, when Dutarte was mayor of Davao City, over 12,000 drug suspects have been killed, reportedly at the hands of the state.

Dutarte’s hard line on drugs was actually an integral part of his presidential campaign, which makes him less receptive to public criticism. He continues to belittle and even jail public activists who speak about his brutality. Many of these killings have been reported to be extra-judicial in nature, which means that they strip the offenders of a proper legal process.

This situation is even more troubling because the Dutarte administration is actively working to justify the legality of the killings. No one in the administration acknowledges the illegality of the President’s harsh plan, effectively squandering the voice of those that are demanding judicial hearings.

The ICC released a statement on February 8 that it would begin a preliminary examination into the situation at hand. This examination does not begin the formal indictment process; rather, it is to determine whether or not the case falls under ICC jurisdiction. Such a process can take months or even years to complete. The formal investigation process can only begin after this investigation yields positive results. Dutarte is seemingly unfazed by this news, however, even urging the ICC to go ahead and try to indict him.

Even if charges against Dutarte are filed, which will most likely be for committing crimes against humanity, the ICC must rely on the Philippine government to physically arrest him and bring him to the Court in The Hague, Netherlands. Such an extraction would be difficult, seeing that Dutarte already has a significant hold on his bureaucracy. In the past few years, the legitimacy and efficacy of the ICC has been called to question.

The outcome of this case, if the ICC takes it on, may either quell or enflame current criticism of the court. In October of 2017, Burundi withdrew from the ICC largely in part of recent discussion surrounding a bias against African states. So far, nine out of ten of the ICC’s cases have involved African states.

If the case against Dutarte goes through, it will be the first ICC investigation of an Asian state. If the ICC does decide to indict Dutarte and is unable to arrest and imprison him, however, there may be more qualms regarding its effectiveness in actually bringing impunity to criminals. Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir has had two warrants for his arrest since 2010, but continues to remain in power because the ICC has been unable to pressure the Sudanese government to hand him over. If Dutarte can avoid arrest, the ICC may take a significant hit in its ability to deter future criminals, thus calling its efficacy into serious question.

Sheel Patel is an editorial intern at the International Enforcement Law Reporter.

Judge Orders Release of Immigrant Rights Activist Ravi Ragbir

February 12, 2018 by Sheel Patel Leave a Comment

On January 26, Manhattan judge Katherine Forrest ordered the release of immigrant rights activist Ravi Ragbir. Ragbir, the executive director of the New Sanctuary Coalition of New York City, was arrested on January 11 and set to be deported soon thereafter.

Ravi Ragbir became a lawful U.S. resident in 1994. In 2000, however, Ragbir was convicted of fraud while working as a mortgage lender and served a short prison sentence. He was set to be deported but was released in 2008 under supervision. After that, Ragbir has become a figure of authority in the immigration rights movement. On January 11 when Ragbir went in for a regular check-in with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), he was told he was going to be detained and soon deported. After fainting, Ragbir was taken to a local hospital and then sent to a federal deportation center in Miami.

Immediately after the arrest, Ragbir’s legal team from NYU Law School’s Immigration Rights Clinic filed a habeas corpus petition and claimed that his constitutional, statutory, and regulatory rights were being violated. Katherine Forrest, a Manhattan District Judge, ruled on Ragbir’s case and called for his immediate release. Forrest spoke about the “freedom to say goodbye” that all citizens are entitled to and argued that Ragbir was not awarded this right. The implications of Ragbir’s case are not unique, however.

In October 2017, Keston Lett was arrested at John F. Kennedy airport for importing drugs into the country. After a $30,000 bond, Lett was released from the custody of the Brooklyn court to his aunt’s house in New Jersey. While in transit, Lett was detained under ICE orders, who were acting under the pretense of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (INA), which allows for the Executive Branch to detain aliens. Lett was then sent to an immigration detention center in Kearny, N.J.

Mr. Lett’s case was brought to Judge Dora Irizarry, who ruled that the ICE’s detention of the defendant violated the Bail Reform Act of 1984 (BRA). Judge Irizarry referenced two other cases that highlighted similar tensions between the BRA and INA.

In light of these recent cases, a striking discord between the Trump Administration’s stricter immigration policy and the judicial branch is evident. ICE detainment has begun to overstep its legal boundaries and create a rift between district judges and immigration enforcement officers.

The court decision may be accessed here.

Sheel Patel is an editorial intern at the International Enforcement Law Reporter.

Hong Kong Announces 3-Year Plan to Ban Ivory Sales

February 5, 2018 by Sheel Patel Leave a Comment

On January 31, Hong Kong’s Legislative Council announced a plan to outlaw all ivory sales over the next three years. Hong Kong, which was home to the world’s largest legal ivory market for the past 150 years, will slowly increase restrictions until all traders must dispose of their ivory stocks in 2021.

In 1977, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) listed African elephants in Appendix II. This meant that countries that exported ivory would have to prove that its trade did not contribute to falling elephant populations. After years of hunting began to take a significant toll on the species’ survival, CITES upgraded the African elephant to Appendix I in 1989, which banned international trade of elephant ivory.[1] Although Hong Kong signed the treaty, they allowed domestic trade of ivory that had been imported before 1990, when CITES was established. This exception was problematic, however, because traders soon exploited this loophole in order to sell newer ivory. Between 2000 and 2013, around 33 tons of new ivory were found in shipments[2]. Most recently, 7.2 tons of elephant tusks were seized in a shipment from Malaysia in July 2017. Such incidents have prompted speculation regarding the severity of ivory smuggling in Hong Kong.

Numerous arguments both for and against the ban have risen. Conservationists around the world consider the ban a significant step in the right direction. Hong Kong’s proximity to mainland China makes it easy for Chinese buyers to circumvent their own ban by going to Hong Kong. This ban will make it much more difficult for those buyers to obtain ivory, thus strengthening the Chinese ban and potentially pressuring countries like Japan and the United Kingdom to halt their ivory trades as well. The closing of the remaining legal market in Hong Kong will also make it nearly impossible for sellers to smuggle in newer ivory into the country, reducing the need to poach elephants. Some argue, however, that the lax three-year timeline will cause short term surges in ivory sales and imports, or that buyers will simply turn to the existing legal markets in Japan, the UK, and the EU.[3]

Regardless of the long-term efficacy of Hong Kong’s ban, its passage gives CITES a significant amount of legitimacy and clout. Ivory carvings have been an integral part of Chinese culture and history for thousands of years. They were used to depict deities and were considered a “national intangible cultural heritage.” Prioritizing international law over deeply embedded cultural ties may be a sign of the power of international treaties in changing international norms.

Sheel Patel is an editorial intern at the International Enforcement Law Reporter.

[1] Favre, D. (2001), Elephants, Ivory and International Law. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, 10: 277–286. doi:10.1111/1467-9388.00287

[2] Rosencranz, A., & Sehgal, D. (2017). Elephants, ivory and CITES. Environmental Policy and Law, 47(1), 2-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/EPL-170002

Former Catalan President Detained By German Police, Later Released

ICC Launches Preliminary Examination into the Philippines’ Drug War

Judge Orders Release of Immigrant Rights Activist Ravi Ragbir

Hong Kong Announces 3-Year Plan to Ban Ivory Sales

Disclaimer

Pages

Categories