‘Open Letter to H.E. Dr. Ahmed Al Banna, the UAE Ambassador to India, to Claim Damages For Non-Enforcement of a Set of Judgments of UAE Courts & Outright Fraud by the UAE Administration’

20th April, 2018, New Delhi.

Download the Authentic  ‘Open Letter to H.E. Dr. Ahmed Al Banna, the UAE Ambassador to India, to Claim Damages For Non-Enforcement of Judgments of UAE Courts & Outright Fraud’, in PDF (Size: 530 kb)

From
Panikkaveettil K. Jabir, [Petitioner],
M/S. Overseas Indians’ Legal Cell, 501, Metro Plaza Building,
Market Road, Near High Court, Kochi, Kerala – 682 018.

To
H.E. Dr. Ahmed Al Banna, UAE Ambassador to India,
12, Chandragupta Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi – 110 021.

Sub. “Damages For Non-Enforcement of Judgments of UAE Courts &
Outright Fraud by the UAE Administration”

Dear Excellency,

This ‘Open Letter’ is a reminder of the previous letter to H.E. Dr. Ahmed Al Banna, UAE Ambassador to India, Dated 28th Feb, 2018. Full text.

The Petitioner is forwarding herewith a copy of his latest representation to the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, dated 09th Feb-2018 for redressal of sufferings and deprivation of all his Rights and assets consequent on his fraudulent and inhuman deportation from the UAE in the year 1996 over-riding the fact that 4 successive Judgments in his favour from Abu Dhabi Courts, finding the UAE officials guilty of the most heinous crimes against him.

The petitioner was closely associated with the Private Departments of (Late) H,H.Shaikh Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nahyan, from 1982 onwards, the then Emir of Abu Dhabi and also the President of United Arab Emirates, H.H. Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, who succeeded Sheikh Zayed as ruler and many others in the ruling family. He had registrations with all the major Oil & Gas Companies on behalf of his firms General Contracting & Trading Est., with all mandatory Governmental Licences, for bidding/tendering/projects/participations etc., and contributed much to the developments of Abu Dhabi Emirate. The petitioner was one of the first India-born real estate investors in Abu Dhabi, UAE, which is a multi-trillion US dollar industry today.

This is a case of personal and racially aggravated attack with malicious motives by ‘higher officials of Abu Dhabi’, UAE, in collaboration with Police, to stop an ‘execution of a Decree’ awarded by the Civil Court on an Apartment Tower  contract  in 1995,  which involves extortion, trespassing, inhuman torture, illegal detention,  criminal conspiracy and fraud against an Indian investor.

[The following part was a significant turning point in this case, it also exposes the deplorable state of affairs in the Administration of Abu Dhabi Police, during the period of the petitioner’s case; in the year 1995].

“In the instant case, the Abu Dhabi policemen did their atrocious acts towards the petitioner in a terrible manner and were caught red-handed by the Petitioner while committing burglary at his office. Thereby they already lost their face.

The policemen who came responding to the alert of the Petitioner, unjustifiably protected the trespassers who were the  law breakers and jointly attacked the petitioner so horribly, worse than death, at the instance of the local Emirati  (the friend of ‘Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan’) for getting illegal gains and to circumvent the Court’s order in force against him. The Petitioner and his younger brother were literally kidnapped from their office by the policemen and were held as a shield against their aggravated crimes.

The Criminal Court found the offenders (A group of policemen and the local Emirati) were guilty and, therefore, passed orders to investigate the crime committed by them. Then followed several other Court Judgments and orders in absolute in favour of the petitioner including the highest Court of Abu Dhabi, against the culprits”.

An excerpt from the Apex Court Judgment reads as follows:-

“Verily the Islamic Law and the entire Positive Laws have honoured Man and protected his freedom, his honour, his property and his soul. Hence, if a man was killed, while protecting these, he is considered to be a martyr. And limitation of his freedom without any rights is an unforgiving crime and the same is mentioned in the provisions of articles 2 and 3 of the Penal Procedures Code. And it is proved in this case that the policeman along with the plaintiff went to arrest the accused and to limitate his freedom….” (Apex Court Judgment, 188/1996 dated 19/5/1996 Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates).

The enforcement of a Judgment is regarded as an integral part of the fundamental Human Right to a fair trial in a reasonable time. That has been violated. Worst still, the Judgment-debtor, the UAE ruler, bypassed all the laws to commit the offense of defrauding the Judgment Creditor in the most cruel and diabolical manner, to deny him the fruits of the decrees obtained by him, forced him to leave behind his well established three business concerns, real estate properties and other investments, images and reputation in the UAE, hard earned by his blood and sweat and valuable expertise in profession.

After arriving India in 1996, the petitioner had submitted very many representations to your Excellency, as a respondent in the case, detailing his inordinate sufferings due to the patent violations of Human Rights perpetrated against him by your country. Two Judicial Orders were also passed by the High Court of Delhi to you (after approaching the Supreme Court) to settle the case.  A period of twenty two years is passed by till date, but there was no response/acknowledgement was received to any of them.

The Petitioner is yet to receive any relief from the country you are privileged to represent in India.  In recent times, the scenario  in legal area has changed entirely.  That a citizen of any country can seek relief from another country (including UAE) has been established, and also acquiesced in by UAE.

The issue of summons to the UAE Ambassador in America, in a Civil Suit instituted in 2009 in a U.S. District Court against UAE (against the top three members of the UAE’s ruling family, who were accused of roles in the abduction and torture) has led to this important development.  Though the charges and jurisdiction of American Court were questioned initially by UAE, it was conceded as evidenced by settlement reached in between the U.S. citizen and UAE.  It is, therefore, open to Indian Courts or authorities to give relief to a person in India, to sue your Government as well in the light of the legal development.

In the present case, UAE Government has additionally made investments in various parts of India.  Your Government is also engaging in trading and commercial activities worth billions of US dollars.  UAE owns properties in the State of Kerala as well.

Before instituting a Suit against you and your country in the light of subsequent development, the Petitioner felt, and he was advised by the Legal Cell of the Indian Society of Authors (with a former Judge of Kerala High Court as Chairman), and members like Judges of the Mumbai and Kerala High Courts and other Government Lawyers that,  it would be desirable to appraise you about his intention to file a Suit in Kerala for securing relief overdue.

The Petitioner would certainly like to avoid a legal battle, wasteful and long drawn out. This letter is to request you humbly, to compensate him for the damages he has sustained under the various counts including violation and deprivation of the Human Rights, and torture and for the deprivation of all his businesses, assets and earnings situated in UAE at the time of his illegal deportation.  The compensation due to him, would be very substantial, aggregating to very many millions of US Dollars. The Petitioner would be only happy in the circumstances, if you could settle his claim, or agree for a settlement by known legal methods including Arbitration as regards quantum of compensation;  Arbitration by a mutually agreed authority.  He would prefer the direct settlement between the parties.

The UAE is liable to pay the petitioner for all the natural and direct consequences of its wrongful act. Apart from actual loss and exemplary or punitive damages, he is entitled to get compensatory damages for pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses, aggravated damages for pain and sufferings, violation of his dignity, respect and rights,  as detailed in the representation filed before the Government of India, towards the price of his business assets, real estate investments left behind in the UAE when he was illegally deported; and the business profits and gains and its market value he would have earned, as well as other expenses for all these years that followed.

There was not merely criminal failure on the part of the authorities in the implementation of a set of Judgements of the Court of Law (in the case relating to aggravated assault, burglary etc.) The authorities are also liable to compensate the petitioner for his intangible injuries as damages suffered from physical and psychological pain as result of the unjust and illegal actions of the authorities, continued up to the deportation and resultant deprivation when he landed in his home land, bereft of any assets whatever.

The (irremediable) damages inflicted on Petitioner by UAE authorities and its far-reaching repercussions:-

Mental distress (by aggravated assault, abduction, detention, extortion, and inhuman torture);

Anguish (resulting from the impact of torture, and deprivation of businesses, investments, company staffs and employees and mental peace of the members of his family and relatives);

Grief (about the state of affairs of himself and the members of his family);

Anxiety (about his own health, ailments, and worries about his staffs, employees and his family) He had to suffer pancreas disorders, heart ailments, compelling him to be an inpatient in hospitals, and continuing to suffer such ailments requiring constant and massive medication;

Vexation (including that caused by the feelings of agony to himself and the members of his family);

Indignation (against the inhumanities of the administration);

Outrage (about the total lack of Rule of Law, and the feeling that even the judiciary is treated with contempt);

Wounded Pride (in the background of the loss of high esteem and dignity he enjoyed in UAE and his homeland India);

Loss of Faith (regarding the petitioner in friends and colleagues and the like. Such persons included businessmen attached to very prestigious investing establishments).

The petitioner  is entitled to compensation for this unique case of  repeated defrauding of the ‘Judgement Creditor’, torturing him to near death, and violating ‘Four Judgements of the UAE Courts’ in his favour and the like. Having regard to the serious nature of the loss and injuries suffered and continuing to be suffered, he is also entitled to an interim relief, on urgent basis, fixed at 120 million US Dollars [INR.782 crore].

The Petitioner seeks an expeditious remedy, in view of the sufferings undergone by him for a long duration of nearly twenty-two years.  As a founder member of ‘INSA’, (Indian Society of Authors, Kerala Chapter), the Petitioner have already requested ‘INSA’ to offer him assistance through their Legal Cell, and he expect that, the organization and its Legal Cell (with very many former Judges of the High Courts and Subordinate Courts and Senior Lawyers) to help him in the just and equitable cause.

The Petitioner expects a  response and reply before 14th May, 2018.  If there is no response, he will be constrained to resort to legal proceedings, holding you and your country responsible for all the costs and consequences thereof.

Yours faithfully,

Panikkaveettil K. Jabir, [Petitioner],

Encl:
Ref. Letter to Smt. Sushma Swaraj, Hon’ble Minister for External Affairs, dated 09-02-2018.

Open Letter [Main] to:
H.E Dr. Ahmed Al Banna, the UAE Ambassador to India, to Claim Damages For Non-Enforcement of a Set of Judgments of UAE Courts & Outright Fraud by the UAE Administration’

Open Letter [Copies] to:
1) H.H Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, The President of UAE & Ruler of Abu Dhabi.
2) H.H Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice-President & Prime Minister of UAE and Ruler of Dubai.
3) H.H Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi and Deputy Supreme Commander of the UAE Armed Forces.
4) H.H Sheikh Abdullah Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Minister of Foreign Affairs of UAE and International Cooperation.
5) H.H Lt. General Sheikh Saif bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Deputy Prime Minister of UAE and Minister of the Interior.
6) H.E Jamal Hussain Al Zaabi, The Consular General of the UAE, UAE Consulate, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala.

Last Update: 20th April, 2018, New Delhi.

Return to the Legal Cell’s Founder CEO

Visit Case Exhibits: UAE.JABIR.NET

MISSION STATEMENT

Safeguard the Rule of Law by ensuring Justice, Freedom and Peace in society.

CASE LAW   |   RESOURCES   |   SOCIAL MEDIA   |  PUBLICATIONS   |   NEWS ROOM

]]> https://www.judgmentforsale.com/articles/open-letter-to-the-uae-ambassador-to-india-to-claim-damages-for-non-enforcement-of-judgments-of-uae-courts-outright-fraud/feed/ 0 https://www.judgmentforsale.com/articles/us-man-secures-10-million-torture-settlement-against-abu-dhabi-uae/ https://www.judgmentforsale.com/articles/us-man-secures-10-million-torture-settlement-against-abu-dhabi-uae/#comments Thu, 13 Jul 2017 13:47:33 +0000 http://www.judgmentforsale.com/articles/?p=238 Continue reading →]]> “THANKS TO STATE DEPARTMENT CABLES, A U.S. TORTURE VICTIM WON A RARE $10 MILLION SETTLEMENT AGAINST UAE RULING FAMILY” – THE CONDITION: SILENCE IN THE PRESS.
July 13, 2017 Washington, D.C.  [First Published In ‘The Intercept News’]

“Thanks to State Department Cables, a U.S. Torture Victim Won a Rare $10 Million Settlement against UAE ruling family” – The condition: Silence in the Press.

[Nearly three decades after he was tortured by high-ranking officials in the United Arab Emirates, Los Angeles resident Khaled Hassen secured a $10 million settlement against the top three members of the country’s ruling family. As a condition of his settlement, Hassen is not allowed to speak about the case; documents confirming the secret agreement was obtained by the Intercept through a “hacker,” or someone who had access to UAE Ambassador to the U.S. Yousef Al Otaiba's hotmail account. Hassen, who was held for two years captive in Abu Dhabi prison from at least 1984, brought the suit only in 2009 the Intercept reports].

“THANKS TO STATE DEPARTMENT CABLES, A U.S. TORTURE VICTIM WON A RARE $10 MILLION SETTLEMENT AGAINST UAE RULING FAMILY”
[By ‘Ryan Grim’ and ‘Alex Emmons’]

An American citizen won  a rare $10 million torture settlement against three top members of the ruling family in the United Arab Emirates, after State Department cables proved the man had indeed been detained as he had claimed.

The confidential and previously unreported settlement was paid out in May 2013, according to documents extracted from the hotmail account of UAE Ambassador to the U.S. Yousef Al Otaiba. The documents were provided to The Intercept either by a hacker or someone who had access to his account.

Settlements for torture victims are extraordinarily rare, making the payout to Los Angeles resident Khaled Hassen that much more surprising.

Hassen’s case was brought in federal court in L.A. against three of the most powerful figures in the Gulf — the crown prince of Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al Nahyan, known in Washington as MBZ, a man particularly close to Otaiba; the emir of the UAE, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al Nahyan; and General Saeed Hilal Abdullah al Darmaki.

The case had more than geopolitical hurdles to overcome: it was seeking justice from an abduction all the way back in January of 1984, when Hassen was working for a member of the royal family consulting on weapons contracting. Competition for contracts in the arms-trade industry can often turn violent, as it did in Hassen’s case. At the time, the three defendants were also in the arms trading business, and were rivals of Hassen’s boss as they all fought to rise through the ranks of the UAE power structure.

MBZ personally witnessed some of Hassen’s torture, Hassen claimed.

Hassen, in his suit, claims he was held in a windowless 7 by 10 foot cell until November 1985, beaten, blindfolded for days at a time, with the air conditioner cut off in the summers, causing the temperature to rise to excruciating levels. His feet and legs, he said, were bound together and he was hung upside down for long periods of time; he was fed foul tasting liquids that brought on “severe pain and hallucinations.” All the while, the State Department was working feverishly to locate and visit with him, the cables indicate.

The suit was filed in February 2009, just weeks after the Obama administration took office. In November, the judge warned that the case was going to be dismissed for lack of action, as the defendants, who were in the UAE, had not been served. So Hassen’s attorneys served Otaiba instead, and the judge accepted it.

To overcome the denials of the UAE government, Hassen’s lawyers cited State Department cables that were released in 2006, showing U.S. embassy officials trying to locate Hassan and secure his release. “Special state security arm which claims even it has no jurisdiction over Al-Hassan [sic] admits latter does remain detained in Abu Dhabi under personal supervision of ‘highest levels’ of government…” one cable from July 1984 reads.

One of the UAE’s U.S.-based lawyers, Hamilton Loeb, noted in one email to Otaiba on July 2, 2010, that Hassen had produced nine State Department cables from 1984-1985 “that are somewhat ugly.” In them US embassy reports that after initial denials, UAE authorities confirmed Hassen was being held by a ‘special state security arm…under personal supervision of ‘highest levels’ of government.”

Loeb, who didn’t respond to a request for comment, told Otaiba that the cables made it impossible for the UAE to deny his imprisonment, and gave the case a credibility that they needed to take seriously, especially given the geopolitical implications.

Most cases that old don’t get very far — the statute of limitations on the U.S.’s Torture Victim Protections Act is 10 years — but Hassen argued that the power the men wielded made it reasonable for him to wait. He finally decided to go forward, he reasoned, because the UAE had decided it wanted to be on good terms with the US — a relationship that might be soured if an American citizen were murdered on American soil in retribution for a lawsuit.

Plaintiffs are typically required to exhaust all legal options in the home state of the defendants before bringing suit in the U.S., but Hassen argued that the courts in the UAE have no independence, and are controlled by the very people he is suing.

Most importantly, he argued, the release of the cables made it possible for him to prove his case.

The judge let it go forward.

Otaiba and the country’s foreign minister worked hard behind the scenes to shield the ruling family from liability, with limited success. U.S. law creates a process to remove a sitting head of state from a lawsuit for diplomatic purposes, and Otaiba successfully lobbied the State Department to request the emir be struck from the case. But Clinton declined to do the same favor for MBZ or al Darmaki.

On January 9, 2011, Minister of Foreign Affairs Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan thanked Clinton and the Department of Justice for granting the emir immunity, but pressed the case of MBZ. As a sign of how seriously the Emirates were taking the case, bin Zayed relayed to Clinton that he wanted to add it to the agenda of her upcoming trip to the Gulf.

Otaiba prepared talking points with a U.S. legal team, according to the emails, relying on a precedent set by Israel, a country that the UAE does not officially recognize, but with which they work in concert on regional issues in Washington. “We held off asserting ‘official acts’ in the initial round, in the belief that the judge would dismiss all claims on other grounds and thereby not require the UAE involve itself further in eliminating the lawsuit. The judge to whom the case was assigned, however, is brand-new on the bench and favorably disposed to claimants like Hassen. Accordingly, the UAE now needs to obtain State intervention to assert official acts immunity. If State does so, it is virtually automatic that the judge will dismiss the claims,” the talking points read.

“This is the same immunity that, for example, the Israelis used successfully to obtain State’s intervention in the Gaza apartment shelling case against Avi Dichter.”

The reasoning didn’t work, and MBZ remained on the case. When she was replaced by John Kerry as secretary of state, Otaiba pushed him as well.

On March 25, 2013, Kerry sent bin Zayed a letter that began: “Your Highness: It was a pleasure seeing you in Abu Dhabi on March 4, and I thank you for your letter regarding the case of Hassen v. Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nayhan et al.”

It read in full:

Attorneys from the Department of State’s Office of Legal Adviser recently met with Mr. Hamilton Loeb, one of Sheikh Mohammed’s attorneys, and discussed with him your request that the United States file a suggestion of immunity on behalf of Sheikh Mohammed. The Department will continue to monitor this case closely and continue our communications with Mr. Loeb concerning developments in the litigation.

Kerry, those who worked with him say, always enjoyed his time in the Gulf region meeting with leaders there — the fabulously expensive bottles of wine that are routinely uncorked when the ruling elite dine agree with Kerry’s elite sensibilities. But the wine wasn’t enough to buy MBZ’s way off the Hassen case, and Kerry’s diplomatic brush off seems to have sent UAE leaders scrambling toward a settlement.

By May 2, 2013, just a few weeks after Kerry’s rejection, the deal had been signed and counter-signed, and wiring instructions for a $10 million payout were circulated by Otaiba. The condition: silence in the press.

“The Embassy is not commenting on the emails,” said the Harbour Group’s Richard Mintz an Otaiba representative. The Intercept reached out to the law firm who represented Hassen and a woman there said the firm couldn’t comment on the case and immediately hung up.

In April 2013, the same years as Hassen’s settlement, the UAE government imprisoned Shez Cassim, a US citizen from Minnesota, for producing a satirical video about Dubai youth culture, the beginning of a horrifying odyssey through the country’s prison system. Soon, Otaiba would be fielding calls and emails from the Minnesota congressional delegation on the detention of Cassim, who became a cause celeb for comedians in the U.S., including Will Ferrell and others at Funny Or Die.

“I continue to be shocked that he is still in jail,” Sen. Amy Klubuchar (D-Minn.) wrote in one email to Otaiba on Christmas Day 2013. “I believe your country has reached a place on the world stage where these things matter even if they were acceptable in the past. That is the case I hope you can make.”

Otaiba told Klobuchar he would continue to lobby MBZ — fresh off the $10 million settlement for allegedly overseeing the torture of Hassen — to release Cassim. “I assure you that’s precisely the case I am making and it does have merit,” he assured her. He was released the next month.

In May 2014, Otaiba authorized the release of that year’s payment to Hassen after a search of the media turned up no articles on Hassen’s case.

Last Updated: July 13, 2017
***

View Excerpts from Failed Arguments of the Defendants, Central District Court:- Khaled Al Hassen v. Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan – The Attorneys for Defendants

* UAE offers a more adequate and alternative forum for Plaintiff’s claims; The UAE Constitution prohibits wrongful arrests, improper detention, and torture of all persons, including non-citizens.

* Litigating Plaintiff’s claim in California would be inefficient and unfair for Defendants, who reside in the UAE and hold extremely high governmental positions which require their presence and attention. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed because this District is a seriously inconvenient forum for this lawsuit.

* Sheikh Mohamed and Sheikh Khalifa Are Absolutely Immune Under the Head-of-State Immunity Doctrine Regardless of whether general or specific jurisdiction exists, this Court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over Sheikh Mohammed and Sheikh Khalifa under any circumstances because they are heads of state recognized by the U.S. Government, and thus “absolutely immune from personal jurisdiction in United States courts”.  …
Read full text: ‘Failed Arguments of the Defendants – Motion to Dismiss Case’

 ‘Khaled Case’ Full Text:  ‘Khaled Al Hassen v. Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan’ @ United States Courts Archive

‘CROWDFUNDING STRATEGY TO ENFORCE UNSATISFIED
UAE JUDGMENTS’

“Support the “Judgment Creditor” to strengthen the Integrity of the Judiciary
and people’s confidence in our Justice System”.
“Invest In ‘UAE Judgments’ Min. 500% Returns! – Read Brochure”

READ FULL TEXT ‘MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR UAE JUDGMENT’ FOR SALE’
http://www.judgmentforsale.com/articles/multi-billion-dollar-uae-judgment-for-sale/

Crowdfunding Promoted by: ‘Alliance Judgment Recovery’

In support of:
Legal Cell; Lawyers India; Reparation Law; Judgment Creditor
https://www.Facebook.com/AllianceJudgmentRecovery/
https://www.Facebook.com/JudgmentForSale/
https://www.Facebook.com/ReparationLaw/
https://www.Facebook.com/RTIorders/
https://www.Twitter.com/JudgmentForSale/
https://www.Twitter.com/RepublicDay2017/
https://www.Twitter.com/ReparationLaw/

GLOBAL CAMPAIGN!

“Twenty one years of arbitrary detention in various forms by the UAE administration, denying fundamental rights and grossly offending the values of human dignity”.

IN THE UAE, “FIRST THEY CAME FOR THE INDIANS”

• First they came for the Indians, I remained silent – I was not an Indian;
  Then they came for the Europeans, I remained silent – I was not a European;
  Then they came for the Americans, I remained silent – I was not an American;
  Then they came for the Emiratis, I remained silent – I was not an Emirati;
  Then they came for the Qataris, I remained silent – I was not a Qatari;
  Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Link To Global Campaign

• ‘Abu Dhabi Crown Prince and de facto ruler of the UAE Federation, Mohamed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, is a fugitive from justice. The Government of India has also helped him remain a ‘fugitive debtor’ all these years! ‘A total shame for the so-called India-UAE relations’!
• ‘The Shameful Acts of The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), The Government of India’
• ‘The Shocking History of ‘Al Wathba’ Central Prison, Abu Dhabi and a ‘Culture of Deception & Secrecy’
• India’s Extradition Treaty With United Arab Emirates (UAE), The Worst Human Rights Abusers! – ‘A Flashback & The Recognition of Representation-1997′
• UAE Fraud: In the instant case, the Emir, the de facto ruler of Abu Dhabi, UAE, played a full-length drama of cowardice. It remains a global shame for the law abiding citizens!
• Observe the ‘Republic Day of India 2017′ as ‘Black Day’ in Protest Against the Decision of the Government of India to Invite the ‘Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi’ as the Chief Guest of the Day!

Link To Articles

Unique is the case of ‘Judgment Creditor’; disgracefully the perpetrator is the ‘Executive Branch of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates’

“Support the Judgment Creditor to strengthen the Integrity of the Judiciary and people’s confidence in our Justice System”. The Judgment Creditor, who obtained four consecutive Judgments against ‘Willful Defaulters’ is very unique in all respects. [White Paper released by ‘Jabir P’, the ‘Judgment Creditor’]

The Judgment Creditor approached various ‘Institutions’ [a brief-list is given below] narrating his ‘traumatic experiences’ and a life of hardship in order to enforce the portfolio of Judgments from the Courts of Abu Dhabi, UAE. “If these ‘institutions’ are not worthy of their names and status, what is the relevance of their existence and how they could be classified worthy?”

The Judgment Creditor is a survivor victim of the ‘cruelest torture’, unethical and inhuman treatments of Abu Dhabi executive branch. In the process, he was betrayed by the ‘UAE Administration’ and the ‘Government of India’ alike at every stage. He lost all precious things in life including his dignity, health and wealth.

The adamant nature of the ‘Judgment Debtor’, the ‘Administration of UAE’, in not executing the Portfolios of Judgments of the Higher Courts of that very Country is cowardice, illegal and a threat and disgrace to the ‘Judicial System of the UAE’ and the entire law-abiding human community of the world. Appropriate action has to be initiated by the authorities concerned at this later stage to reach Justice to the Judgment Creditor.

The Case of the Judgment Creditor

The case of the Judgment Creditor, an Indian businessman and investor at Abu Dhabi, U.A.E., is a unique-one in all respects. It was a story of frightening, blatant violation of the ‘Law’ and the most shocking travesty of ‘Constitution’ of the United Arab Emirates to which the victim was exposed to. The investor was threatened of dire consequences if he did not agree to withdraw a civil suit that he brought against his Emirati business partner. The investor did not accede to the extortion threats of some corrupt local police officials of the Emirate. Due to the seriousness of the case, the Civil Court of Abu Dhabi was pleased to issue an Interim Decision and Order in favour of the investor.

In total negation of the judicial order, the accused in collusion with the local police attacked the Judgment Creditor at his office; robbed of cash and valuables to force him to withdraw the lawsuit. He sought intervention from the police. The police did come, but instead of helping him, he was shackled and literally dragged out of the office and on through the street in the presence of known friends and bystanders.

The Judgment Creditor had to undergo extremes of ‘cruel torture‘, inflicted permanent physical damage and humiliation from Abu Dhabi Police which no human being can withstand. He was confined to a detention center and brutally tortured and later taken to ‘Central Prison’. These painful incidents totally destroyed the life of the Judgment Creditor in all respects. The ‘Duty and Responsibility’ of the authority to protect a Judgment Creditor against the threats of violence was left unattended.

It took six months thereafter, for the person to have his first appearance in Court. He was framed a false case, alleging “Using force against Government employee and assault”. The Trial Court of Abu Dhabi found that the victim is innocent, the case was wholly false, baseless and that it was fabricated by the police for personal gain. The Apex Court of Abu Dhabi found that the victim is innocent; rather ‘a martyr. The Court, comprising three-judge panel, praised the properness of the behavior and courage of victim. It further reiterated the condemnation of prosecution. The Court ordered immediate release of the victim, ‘restoration’ of victim’s dignity and compensation for all his losses while pronouncing a ‘Landmark Judgment’.

Customarily, in UAE, the debtors will be jailed until they have paid their debt. But the debtor in this ‘Landmark Judgment’ is the State of UAE whose Ruler at the time was none other than the late Sheikh Zayed himself, the Emir of Abu Dhabi and absolute Ruler of the United Arab Emirates (UAE). To avoid honoring its moral obligations and assigned responsibilities, the UAE Administration served an arrogant, ‘Despotic Order of Deportation’ against the Judgment Creditor.

The victim was then re-victimized in a manner that was extremely ‘libelous’ – by ‘false statements as if he was punished for a crime’ and deported back to India. The ‘Judgment Creditor’ was entitled to execution of the Judgments and levies the Police Department of Abu Dhabi, worth hundreds of million US Dollars as compensation to restore his life, his dignity and his ‘business establishments’.

The illegal deportation of an established businessman from the country that caused a situation associated with great pain, loss of dignity, loss of his entire business institutions etc. Flouting the orders of a judicial body is totally destructive of the ‘Rules of Law’ and Norms internationally upheld for safeguarding ‘Human Rights’; defrauding the Judgment Creditor is a personal and vindictive action and thus the Executive of the State was committed the most heinous, bizarre, and unspeakable crime.

The ‘legal fight for justice’ took in very many proceedings before the Supreme Court of India and the High Court of Delhi. The subject matter of his grave complaints were adjudicated by the major Courts in India as well, which concurrently found the multiple forms of crime taking place under the UAE Administration such as fraud, forgery, extortion, torture and many other offences and subsequently secured two more Judgments from the High Court of Delhi in the year of 1997 and 2007 respectively. Despite the directive of the Delhi High Court, the Government of India has not discharged its duties as indicated in the judicial orders.

The anguish resultant from the deprivation of his establishments, assets and reputation earned exclusively through the untiring personal efforts of the Judgment Creditor for over 18 years of prime of his life, causes extreme mental depression which will virtually make his life only a vegetable existence. The UAE Government which owes huge debts to the Judgment Creditor by way of the non-execution of the Judgments of the Courts of Abu Dhabi in his favour, and for those unspeakable crimes committed against him, is also solely and exclusively responsible for the closure of “his various ‘business establishments’ in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates”.

The victim, the Judgment Creditor, has one demand: The Government of India should consider taking the necessary steps to execute the Judgments passed by the higher Courts of Abu Dhabi through all means, including the International Court of Justice (ICJ), on behalf of the Judgment Creditor and punish the guilty that was caused ‘Multi-billion Dollars’ worth of damage to the Judgment Creditor in order to strengthening the “Integrity of the Judiciary and people’s confidence in our ‘Justice System”.

The Judgment Creditor approached various ‘Institutions’ including the Government of India, the Higher Judiciary, the NHRC, respectable Ministers, Parliamentarians and even the ‘United Nations’ [a brief list is given below] for redressal narrating his traumatic experiences and a life of hardship of the Judgment Creditor, in order to enforce the portfolio of Judgments which he could secure from the Apex Court of Abu Dhabi on the basis of genuine facts and convincing evidences produced there in.

“If these ‘institutions’ are not worthy of their names and status, what is the relevance of their existence and how they could be classified worthy?”

Communications between the Judgment Creditor and the following Institutions:-

1) Reminder to the Government of India in relation with the Representation – July 16, 2014
http://www.legalcell.com/reminder-to-mea-india-gulf-division-july-16-2014.php

2) A self-contained explanatory representation to the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi 28 October, 2013
http://www.lawyersindia.com/outsourcing/self-explanatory-representation-10-10-13-of-petitioner-ministry-of-external-affairs.html

3) The second (important) reminder notice to the Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi
http://www.lawyersindia.com/outsourcing/second-important-reminder-ministry-of-external-affairs-india-10-june-2013.html

4) Important Reminder Notice to the Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi.
http://www.reparationlaw.com/statepractices/functions_diplomatic_missions_vienna_convention_uae_case.php

5) Shri Salman Khurshid, Hon’ble Minister for External Affairs, Government of India
http://www.reparationlaw.com/statepractices/indo_gulf_reparation_mechanisms_featured_responses.php

6) Representation for ‘Indo-Gulf Reparation Mechanisms’ to the Government of India sheds light on the active involvement of the ‘petitioner’ in the process of getting justice and its far-reaching consequences – dated 28-10-2013
http://www.reparationlaw.com/statepractices/representation_indo_gulf_reparation_mechanisms.php

7) Preface by Mr. V.R. Krishna Iyer, Former Justice, Supreme Court of India
http://www.reparationlaw.com/statepractices/preface_by_v_r_krishna_Iyer.php

8) Covering Letter by Mr. K. Sukumaran, Former Justice of Kerala and Bombay High Courts
http://www.reparationlaw.com/statepractices/covering_letter_by_justice_k_sukumaran.php

9) In the High Court of Delhi Case No: WP(C) NO.6149/1998 Date of Judgment 19/09/2007
http://www.reparationlaw.com/statepractices/jabir_vs_mea_india_19_09_2007_delhi_high_court.php

10) Secretary to the Minister of State, Ministry of External Affairs: 25/06/1999
http://www.lawyersindia.com/outsourcing/ministry_external_affairs_01.html

11) Fax Message to UAE Ambassador, New Delhi, India 23/10/1999
http://www.lawyersindia.com/outsourcing/fax_message_uae_ambassador_delhi_1999.html

12) Non Resident Keralites’ Affairs (NORKA) Dept, Government of Kerala: 18/12/1999
http://www.lawyersindia.com/outsourcing/norka_amitabh_kant_1999.html

13) Amnesty International, Secretariat, London: 16/08/1999
http://www.lawyersindia.com/outsourcing/amnesty_international.html

14) The Minister of State, Foreign Affairs, UAE: 31/03/1999
http://www.lawyersindia.com/outsourcing/letter_to_foreign_affairs_uae_1999.html

15) NHRC To Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi: 25/06/1998
http://www.lawyersindia.com/outsourcing/nhrc_to_ministry_home_affairs_new_delhi_1998.html

16) Shri. I.K. Gujral, Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha: 23/06/1998
http://www.lawyersindia.com/outsourcing/ik_gujral_parliament_1998.html

17) Ambassador of India, Abu Dhabi – United Arab Emirates: 21/09/1998
http://www.lawyersindia.com/outsourcing/ambassador_of_india_abu_dhabi.html

18) Shri. O.Rajagopal, Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha: 19/06/1998
http://www.lawyersindia.com/outsourcing/o_rajagopal_parliament_1998.html

19) Smt. Vasundhara Raje, Minister of State for External Affairs: 16/06/1998
http://www.lawyersindia.com/outsourcing/vasundhara_raje_minister_external_affairs_1998.html

20) Prime Minister’s Office, New Delhi, India: 15/06/1998
http://www.lawyersindia.com/outsourcing/prime_miniters_office_new_delhi_1998.html

21) Secretary to the Minister of State, Ministry of External Affairs: 29/01/1998
http://www.lawyersindia.com/outsourcing/ministry_external_affairs_new_delhi_1998.html

22) Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer to National Human Rights Commission: 4/03/1997
http://www.lawyersindia.com/outsourcing/justice_v_r_krishna_iyer_1997.html

23) Centre for Human Rights, United Nations [U.N.], Geneve: 28/02/1997
http://www.lawyersindia.com/outsourcing/united_nations_office_geneva_1997.html

Appellate Civil/Criminal Jurisdiction, India & United Arab Emirates [UAE]

24) In the High Court of Delhi Case No: WP(C) NO.6149/1998 Date of Judgement 19/09/2007
http://www.reparationlaw.com/statepractices/jabir_vs_mea_india_19_09_2007_delhi_high_court.php

25) In the High Court of Delhi, Appellate Civil Jurisdiction: 20/11/1997
http://www.lawyersindia.com/outsourcing/document_high_court_india.html

26) Key excerpts from the Judgment, Ministry of Justice, Abu Dhabi, UAE 1996
http://www.judgmentforsale.com/excerpts_judgment_summary_abudhabi_uae.html

27) Judgment in Arabic (Final, Legal Court of Appeal) of Ministry of Justice, Abu Dhabi, UAE
http://www.uaeleaks.com/judgment_final_arabic.html

28) Judgment in English (Final, Legal Court of Appeal) of Ministry of Justice, Abu Dhabi, UAE
http://www.uaeleaks.com/judgment_english_translation_01.html

Join Us: A Portfolio of UAE Judgments for Sale!
Funds are proposed to be raised by distribution of shares. “How do I become a voluntary contributor?”
http://www.legalcell.com/i-am-a-voluntary-contributor.php

The Wanton Deployment of Secret Mercenary Armies

The Wanton Deployment of Secret Mercenary Armies
Jabir P  July 10, 2014  Reparation Law News Service,  New Delhi

In Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S.-led private security contractors have been linked to anti coalition activities, murder, bribery, and kidnapping. This pattern has now been actively introduced into already volatile regions, like East Ukraine and the Middle Eastern nations.

Russia is calling on the United States to take steps to curb involvement of foreign mercenaries in the ongoing military operation in Ukraine. Engaging mercenaries is totally in violation of the rules and regulations contained in the UN Convention of the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries.

U.S. mercenaries, formerly known as Blackwater, are reportedly taking part in Ukraine’s military operations against the people fighting for their rights in south-eastern regions of Ukraine.

The U.S. State Department officials say the allegations that there are ‘U.S mercenaries’ operating in Ukraine are false.”

Blackwater is a private military contracting firm founded by former Navy SEAL Erik Prince in 1997. Blackwater mercenaries were made infamous during the invasion of Iraq for their frequent and unprovoked killings of dozens of innocent civilians. It includes the massacre of 17 civilians in Iraq by Blackwater employees, the FBI found. “I put myself and my company at the C.I.A.’s disposal for some very risky missions” says Erik Prince, the former CEO of Blackwater Worldwide.

Late last year, Prince published a book, Civilian Warriors. ‘The Inside Story of Blackwater and the Unsung Heroes of the War on Terror’. Mr. Prince writes that his company has been demonized around the world, because of the secrecy requirements of Blackwater’s contracts with the Pentagon, the State Department, and the CIA, Prince was unable to speak out; he is bound under the terms of his non-disclosure agreement with the U.S. agencies’.

Erik Prince sold his Corporation’s US-based 7,000-acre training facility in Moyock, North Carolina in 2010 to a group of investors close to his family, which is now known as ‘Academi’. Prince retained all rights to the Blackwater name as well as the control of numerous companies that once operated under the umbrella of Blackwater.

Erik Prince is now resettled in Abu Dhabi, the capital of United Arab Emirates with his so-called mercenary army grouped under Reflex Responses, known as R2, alongside the UAE Armed Force, Zayed Military City of Abu Dhabi.

Last year, the Colombia’s defense ministry was alarmed about an exodus of top soldiers to the UAE to join a highly paid American-led mercenary force organized by Erik Prince, for his security company Blackwater (rebranded “Xe”). Prince’s mercenary forces in the UAE, is made up largely of Colombian soldiers, who have acquired this capability and skill through training they have received from the Israeli, US and British experts.

Erik Prince was hired by Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, the crown prince of Abu Dhabi, to deliver an 800-strong first test battalion for the UAE. The $529m initial deal between Mr Prince and the Crown Prince is slated to run through May 2015. Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, who is the immediate ruler of the United Arab Emirates.

While the actual assignment given to Mr. Prince, the founder of a controversial security company Blackwater was to silence the pro-democratic activists inside and outside the country, the UAE took a stand that they were brought only to impart training for a Special Security Group.

UAE is a federation of seven Emirates situated on the Arabian Peninsula, is attributed to authoritarian regime and most powerful among them being Emirate of Abu Dhabi, holding 9% of the world’s oil reserves and 5% of the world’s gas reserves. Abu Dhabi is the capital of the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

The late Sheikh Zayed, installed in August 1966 as head of the oil-rich Abu Dhabi, through a British-led coup against his brother, Sheikh Shakhbut (Ruled:1928-66). Zayed was in power until his death in Nov. 2, 2004. Sheikh Khalifa, the eldest son of Sheikh Zayed, succeeded him to the leadership of Abu Dhabi and UAE.

The ruling regime of UAE is notorious for its Human Rights records. It restricts people’s freedom and controls them by arbitrary arrests, torture, enforced disappearances and killings. The regime is continued to suppress the press by imposing tough laws in the Emirates, set up massive funds, men and machinery to crush down all democratic aspirations across the Arab world. This is done out of their fear that the struggles for democracy may, in turn, take over their regime as well. Hundreds of innocents are being killed in the process in neighbouring countries such as Bahrain and Egypt.

According to ‘Global Research Centre’ the force is aimed at suppressing the people’s struggles in the Gulf countries, with interventions similar to those in Bahrain. It was reported that, once the efficiency of the battalion has been tested, Abu Dhabi will fund worth billions of dollars for a whole brigade of several thousand mercenaries. Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed is a trusted Pentagon associate. He also supports military intervention directed against Iran. The crown prince and his friend Erick Prince, however, are the executors of the project, which was decided in Washington. Its purpose was revealed in documents quoted by the New York Times.

Mercenaries are mostly former military personnel or ex-policemen who kill people just for money. By taking recourse to the formation of a brutal private mercenary army, the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi has demonstrated his intention to resist civil uprisings with violent repression. Blackwater has been involved since the first days of the occupation in Iraq and had 30 plus casualties including in a high-profile incident in Fallujah. By organizing a private hard-core mercenary army to crush their own people, UAE has violated all norms of Human Rights and undermined the international humanitarian law and the Geneva Conventions.

The 1989 U.N. Convention represents an endeavour by the international community to outlaw mercenarism in all its manifestations and consists of 21 articles. According to Article 5 of the Convention, States Parties shall not recruit, use, finance or train mercenaries for the purpose of opposing the legitimate exercise of the inalienable right of peoples to self-determination, as recognized by international law, and shall take, in conformity with international law, the appropriate measures to prevent the recruitment, use, financing or training of mercenaries for that purpose. (Ref.2)

Threats posed by Mercenaries

“Mercenaries pose a threat not only to security, but also to human rights and potentially to the right of peoples to self-determination,” said Faiza Patel, who chaired the study. The study said mercenaries were used in the past to fight in wars between countries but recently the Governments had used mercenaries against their own populations. It said private military and security companies receive between $20 billion and $100 billion per year. (Ref.3)

Responding to complaints and questionnaire sent by Ms. Faiza Patel, Chair-Rapporteur of the U.N. Working Group, who has been studying the issues of private military and security companies, in regards with the laws regulating the activities of recruits or engaging mercenaries in the country, the UAE replied in a dishonest and fraudulent manner that no mercenary group is working in the UAE as a means of violating human rights. The foreign security companies operating in the UAE are under the supervision of the UAE Ministry of Interior, further that their scope of work is limited to “preventive security protection’. License granted to these security companies do not grant them powers of judicial control and their personnel are prohibited from acquiring or carrying any fire arms in accordance to Article 10, 12 and 16 of Federal Decree 37 of year 2006 concerning private companies and their executive regulations”. (Ref.4)

“Blackwater is the modern version of mercenaries that have been used by corrupt governments and regimes throughout history,” American investigative journalist Alex Jones said during an interview with Press TV’s US Desk. According to Jones, Blackwater, which represents the “21st century death squad,” carries out any mission it is paid to do.

The former employees of Blackwater said that in recruiting the Colombians and others from halfway around the world, subordinates were following his strict rule: hire no Muslims. Muslim soldiers, Mr. Prince warned, could not be counted on to kill fellow Muslims. For him, there is no legal accountability and no internationally accepted criteria as they will operate outside any known jurisdictions and most probably in stealth. Prince’s latest venture in the UAE has the hallmarks of government-sponsored military anarchy.

The executed contract between the Blackwater, American-led mercenaries and the UAE authority is available below for reference. “Copy of Mercenary Contract between the GHQ Armed Forces of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and the Blackwater, now called Xe Services [Reflex Responses Management Consultancy or R2 ] of Abu Dhabi for June 2010 to May 2015” (The contract is renewable in 2015) (Ref.5)

As against these crude facts and verifiable truth, the denial of the UAE about presence of any mercenary group reflects and reinforces its Human Rights Violations, cruelties and the tendency of cheating its own people, renowned experts, academic institutions and the UN commissions as a whole. This is an alarming and disgraceful situation to every one!

The Luanda Draft Convention again stressed the responsibility of individual states to prevent their nationals from taking part in mercenary activities, as well as those individual persons defined as mercenaries. State responsibility, as such, is conveyed in Article 319 that makes government officials who undertake to employ, aid, or recruit mercenaries liable for criminal prosecution. Thus, failure by a State to carry out the prosecution of officials who had undertaken such activities would, argues Taulbee, ‘create international responsibility on the part of the offending State’. (Ref.6)

Appendage

“Live by the Sword, Die by the Sword’ is an old saying. It means those who take the sword, shall perish by the sword. Read below what others say about:
“Prince could one day turn on his employers, shoot up their palaces, and stand astride their glittering towers as lord of all he surveys. And a South African mercenary with a pencil moustache could run the Emirati justice ministry, conjuring up memories of a regime we assumed was long dead. Stranger things have happened. One hopes, for the al-Nayhan’s sake, they have a good contract in place, and a new New Model Army to counter their New Model Army. Erik Prince might turn out to be their most dangerous high-end acquisition”. DM

About the Author

The author, Mr. Jabir, an Indian businessman and investor, who was closely associated with the Private Department of Shaikh Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nahyan, the then Emir of Abu Dhabi and also the President of United Arab Emirates. In November, 1996, Jabir became the Whistleblower, taken efforts to improve the regime’s brutal prison conditions by exposing the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment prevailing in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, UAE. …More about the Author

Photograph: “Academi Security Services”
First Published: CNN iReport

Research & Reference Links:

• 1) Colombia worries as troops join Arab mercenary force
• 2) International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries – 44/34 The General Assembly
• 3) UN Expert Reports ‘Alarming Resurgence’ in Use of Mercenaries to Violate Human Rights, Often in New, Novel Ways, in Statement to Third Committee
• 4) ‘No mercenary group is working in the UAE’ – Reply by the ‘Permanent Mission of the United Arab Emirates to the United Nations New York’ under Ref: 2012/991
• 5) “Copy of Mercenary Contract between the GHQ Armed Forces of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and the Blackwater, now called Xe Services [Reflex Responses Management Consultancy or R2 of Abu Dhabi, UAE] for June 2010 to May 2015. Size 6.05MB PDF”
• 6) Taulbee J., (1985) ‘Myths, Mercenaries and Contemporary International Law’, California Western International Law Journal Vol. 15, No. 2, p. 339-363.
• 7) Top 18 Secret Mercenary Armies of the CIA
  

UAE’s State-sponsored Terrorism & Funding for Coup in the Middle East

• 1) UAE’s Military Expenditure Database – SIPRI
• 2) Abu Dhabi’s Mubadala eyes bigger regional military supply chain role
• 3) UAE, Egypt plotting coup in Libya, say revolutionaries
• 4) UAE Funding Former Dictator’s Son for Coup in Yemen
• 5) UAE Spending Billions of Dollars to Topple Tunisia’s Marzouki
• 6) UAE Behind Egypt’s Coup
• 7) Evil prospers when good men do nothing
• 8) What, man, defy the devil: Save mankind from dictators!

Reports on ‘Human Rights in the UAE’

• 1) Real-life Judgment Fraud by the UAE Administration Uncovered!
• 2) UN expert calls for probe of ‘torture’ in UAE prisons
• 3) Solidarity with UAE lawyers
• 4) Human Rights Watch World Report 2014: United Arab Emirates
• ‘5) UAE: Human Rights Watch Official Refused Entry’
• 6) Truth and Justice are being nakedly sacrificed for UAE’s Reputation
• 7) The legacy of torture in the UAE; you may have never heard of!
• 8) A Gift with Lots of Baggage – Sarah Leah Whitson, Human Rights Watch
• 9) The Moral Greatness of UAE is not admirable, and praised when they are not praiseworthy!
• 10) Learn about corrupt practices in UAE
  

Promoting Human Rights Values in the Digital Age. Let’s Join

• Share your events with us
• Share this Flag on your Website

UAE’s military occupation in Bahrain to help suppress a popular revolt

UAE is ranked the world’s fifteenth biggest military spender
April 14, 2014 Press Release, Stockholm, Sweden

UAE is ranked to fifteenth place with $19 billion in the list of SIPRI Military Expenditure Database 2014.

Middle Eastern nations increased their military expenditure by billions of dollars last year, Saudi Arabia, the largest spender in the region, increased spending by 14 per cent to a total of $67.0 billion in 2013. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is ranked to fifteenth place with $19 billion. The comprehensive annual update of the SIPRI Military Expenditure Database is accessible from today at www.sipri.org.

According to the SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) Military Expenditure Database, the gobal military expenditure was $1747 billion in 2013, a fall of 1.9 per cent in real terms since 2012, according to figures released today by Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). The database describes the global, regional and national trends in military expenditure that are revealed by the new data.

The fall in the global total comes from decreases in Western countries, led by the United States, and despite increases in all other regions. In fact, military spending in the rest of the world excluding the USA increased by 1.8 per cent.

The next three highest spenders—China, Russia and Saudi Arabia—all made substantial increases, with Saudi Arabia leapfrogging the United Kingdom, Japan and France to become the world’s fourth largest military spender. China, Russia and Saudi Arabia are among the 23 countries around the world that have more than doubled their military expenditure since 2004.

The fall in US spending in 2013, by 7.8 per cent, is the result of the end of the war in Iraq, the beginning of the drawdown from Afghanistan, and the effects of automatic budget cuts passed by the US Congress in 2011. Meanwhile, austerity policies continued to determine trends in Western and Central Europe and in other Western countries.

‘The increase in military spending in emerging and developing countries continues unabated,’ said Dr Sam Perlo-Freeman, Director of SIPRI’s Military Expenditure Programme. ‘While in some cases it is the natural result of economic growth or a response to genuine security needs, in other cases it represents a squandering of natural resource revenues, the dominance of autocratic regimes, or emerging regional arms races.’

Saudi Arabia and Iraq dominate increase in the Middle East

Military spending in the Middle East increased by 4.0 per cent in 2013, reaching an estimated $150 billion. Saudi Arabia’s spending increased by 14 per cent, to reach $67 billion, possibly due to tensions with Iran but also the desire to maintain strong and loyal security forces to insure against potential ‘Arab Spring’ type protests.

Maintaining regime survival in the face of internal opposition is also the likely motive for Bahrain’s 26 per cent increase. However, the largest regional increase was by Iraq (27 per cent), as it continued the rebuilding of its armed forces.

‘Military spending data for Iran, Qatar, Syria and the United Arab Emirates are not available for 2013, which means that the estimated regional total is highly uncertain. This reflects the general opacity of military spending in the region, and even where data is available it may not cover all military spending,’ said Dr Perlo-Freeman.

Resources fuelling arms acquisitions in Africa

Military spending in Africa increased by 8.3 per cent in 2013, reaching an estimated $44.9 billion. Over two-thirds of the African countries for which data is available increased military spending in 2013. Algeria became the first country in Africa with military spending over $10 billion, an increase of 8.8 per cent since 2012, and of 176 per cent since 2004. Meanwhile, Angola increased its spending by 36 per cent in 2013, to overtake South Africa as the largest military spender in sub-Saharan Africa, and the second highest on the continent. High oil revenues appear to be a factor driving both Algeria’s and Angola’s military spending increases.

Read full report: Military spending continues to fall in the West but rises everywhere else, says SIPRI
http://www.reparationlaw.com/news/military-spending-continues-to-fall-in-the-west-but-rises-everywhere-else-says-sipri/

Related News

Abu Dhabi’s Mubadala eyes bigger regional military supply chain role
http://reparationlaw.com/caselaw/817/

Photograph: UAE’s military occupation in the Kingdom of Bahrain to help suppress a popular revolt.
http://reparationlaw.com/caselaw/category/country/uae/abu-dhabi/

TABLE: Countries with highest military expenditure in 2013

1) USA: $640 billion
2) China: $188 billion
3) Russia: $87.8 billion
4) Saudi Arabia: $67 billion
5) France: $61.2 billion
6) UK: $57.9 billion
7) Germany: $48.8 billion
8) Japan: $48.6 billion
9) India: $47.4 billion
10) South Korea: $33.9 billion
11) Italy: $32.7 billion
12) Brazil: $31.5 billion
13) Australia: $24 billion
14) Turkey: $19.1 billion
15) UAE: $19 billion

(Principal Source: SIPRI)

Links to State-sponsored Terrorism

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is ranked to fifteenth place with $19 billion in the list of annual update of the SIPRI Military Expenditure Database. Terror is being practiced by the Regime of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, against its own people, foreign nationals and its neighboring countries. Some of the links to the UAE’s state-sponsored terrorism are as in the following:

UAE Funding for Coup in the Middle East

• 1) UAE, Egypt plotting coup in Libya, say revolutionaries
• 2) UAE Funding Former Dictator’s Son for Coup in Yemen
• 3) UAE Spending Billions of Dollars to Topple Tunisia’s Marzouki
• 4) UAE Behind Egypt’s Coup
• 5) Evil prospers when good men do nothing
• 5) What, man, defy the devil: Save mankind from dictators!

UN expert calls for probe of ‘torture’ in UAE prisons

UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, at UN headquarters in San Salvador on November 26, 2012 (AFP Photo/Jose Cabezas)

Abu Dhabi (AFP) – A UN expert on Wednesday urged an independent probe into allegations of torture in United Arab Emirates prisons, which she was not allowed to visit during a fact-finding mission.

Gabriela Knaul, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, also criticised “violations” and a “lack of transparency” in court proceedings in the Gulf country, where dozens of Islamists have been rounded up.

Knaul called for independence for the UAE judiciary, which she said “remains under the de facto control of the executive branch of government.”

The UAE foreign ministry welcomed her visit, pledging to “study the remarks and recommendations” she made.

But it complained that some of Knaul’s comments “were based on information that had no known sources and was consistent with a politically motivated campaign by a group seeking to distort the UAE’s reputation.”

In her preliminary report on a nine-day visit, Knaul urged the UAE to “establish an independent committee to investigate all allegations of torture and ill-treatment in detention.”

She told a press conference she had received “credible information and evidence” that detainees are arrested without warrant, blindfolded, taken to unknown places and held incommunicado, sometimes for months.

She said she also had evidence of detainees being “tortured and/or subjected to ill-treatment” including by being put in “electric chairs.”

She said she was not allowed to visit prisons or meet with certain detainees, adding that “on one occasion, I was followed.”

The UAE has not seen any of the widespread protests that have swept other Arab states since 2011. However, authorities have cracked down hard on dissent and calls for democratic reform, drawing criticism from human rights groups.

The top UAE security court last month jailed a group of 30 Emiratis and Egyptians convicted of forming a Muslim Brotherhood cell for terms ranging from three months to five years.

The 10 UAE citizens in the group were among 69 nationals jailed in July for up to 15 years on separate charges of plotting to overthrow the government.

Evidence sometimes ‘fabricated’

In her report, Knaul said supreme court rulings must be subject to appeal, criticising “an apparent lack of transparency during both the investigation phase and court proceedings.”

She spoke of claims that “evidence is sometimes manipulated and fabricated by the police or other security agencies and the prosecution.”

“The lack of transparency is compounded when the court hearings are not public,” she added.

Only selected relatives of the defendants, in addition to local journalists and representatives of human rights groups were allowed to attend the Islamists’ trial.

Knaul also accused the UAE of “disturbing” treatment of women “who dare to file a complaint for sexual assault.”

In July, a Norwegian woman was released following a pardon by the Dubai ruler. Although she had filed a rape report with police, the woman found herself tried and jailed for extramarital sex, perjury and consuming alcohol without a licence.

The UAE, which is home to millions of expatriates, must also “redouble efforts to allow access to justice, in particular to vulnerable groups, such as migrant and domestic workers,” she said.

It should provide “quality interpretation and translation for non-Arabic speakers at all stages of legal proceedings.”

In 2010, the appeal of 17 Indian expatriates sentenced to death after being convicted of killing a Pakistani was repeatedly delayed for lack of an interpreter, drawing strong criticism from Indian human rights groups.

The court later commuted the death sentences to two years in prison followed by deportation.

Photograph: The U.N. Special Rapporteur Gabriela Knaul

UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, at UN headquarters in San Salvador on November 26, 2012 (AFP Photo/Jose Cabezas)

‘Solidarity with UAE Lawyers’

FILE – In this Tuesday, Nov. 29, 2011 file photo, Ahmed Mansour, an Emirati blogger and a human rights activists talks with his children after he was pardoned by UAE’s president and released from jail in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. In early March 2013, a total of 94 people were put on trial on charges of seeking to overthrow the UAE government and holding ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and other groups. The defendants pleaded not guilty and complained of abuses after their arrests. Mansour and four others including a former legal adviser to the UAE’s armed forces were among the first to face arrests for alleged anti-state crimes in early 2011 after signing an online petition urging for political reforms, including free elections for parliament. (AP Photo/Kamran Jebreili, File)

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — One is a former judge. Another is a past president of the lawyers’ association in the United Arab Emirates. Among the more than 90 suspects are also teachers, civil servants, business owners and even a cousin of one of the UAE’s ruling sheiks.

Prosecutors describe them as members of an Islamist network seeking to topple the leadership in one of the wealthiest and most stable corners of the Middle East.

Their defenders portray the group as victims of an Arab Spring-induced panic among Gulf Arab rulers who perceive threats from many directions, including Egypt’s ruling Muslim Brotherhood and reformist chatter on social media.

But whatever emerges from the mass trial that began last month in Abu Dhabi also speaks to issues that reach well beyond the allegations and sullied reputations in the UAE’s tight-knit professional communities. The case – from the arrests to the court sessions to the media controls on coverage – reflects a fundamental retooling of how the Western-allied Gulf states approach the business of using and keeping their power.

Once desperate to keep political crackdowns out of sight, Gulf authorities have increasingly used high-profile tactics to try to keep a lid on calls for reforms. Hardly a day goes by without some backlash in the Gulf Arab states, an arc of ruling families from Kuwait to Oman.

Dozens of online activists and social media contributors have been jailed for posts deemed offensive to rulers. Espionage allegations have been trumpeted, including Saudi Arabia’s claims last month that officials broke up a suspected Iranian-linked spy ring.

Saudi officials, meanwhile, are considering linking social media accounts to national IDs in a move that critics fear could increase monitoring. The country’s top cleric, Grand Mufti Sheik Abdul-Aziz Al-Sheik, denounced Twitter users last month as being part of “a council of clowns.”

“There is a paradox in all this,” said Christopher Davidson, an expert on Gulf affairs at Britain’s Durham University. “There is nothing at the moment to suggest the Gulf regimes are in any immediate danger, but they are definitely acting like they are. This might even have the effect of accelerating dissent.”

Caught in between is Washington.

U.S. interests are deeply intertwined with the Gulf’s Sunni sheiks and kings, who allow American military bases, make major arms purchases and share Washington’s worries about Iran’s nuclear program and its expanding military profile. But the U.S. also has raised concern about the Gulf’s clampdown on dissent, particularly the squeeze on social media in a region that has one of the world’s highest per capita use of Facebook and Twitter.

“America is not going to abandon its Gulf allies. There’s far too much at stake,” said Mustafa Alani, an analyst at the Gulf Research Center based in Geneva. “These crackdowns, however, make it increasingly hard for the Americans to look the other way.”

For decades, the framework for the Gulf’s ruling families has been essentially a swap: They offered generous handouts such as state jobs and discount-rate housing in exchange for political passivity.

The Arab Spring reopened some festering grievances, led by Bahrain’s uprising by majority Shiites and lower-level unrest in Saudi Arabia’s Shiite pockets. It also encouraged other challenges to the status quo such as youth demanding more job opportunities in Oman and Kuwaiti opposition lawmakers growing bolder in political battles with the ruling clan.

The UAE has not faced street protests. Yet it has waged some of the most systematic sweeps in the Gulf against perceived opposition from an Islamist society called al-Islah, or Reform, which for years was allowed to operate on the margins as long as members did not push against the ruling system.

The regional turmoil, however, upended the pact. UAE authorities began to see al-Islah as a pathway for the Muslim Brotherhood, which claimed power in Egypt after the fall of Hosni Mubarak and – in the UAE’s view – seeks to eventually bring down Western-friendly dynasties in the Gulf.

In early March, a total of 94 people were put on trial on charges of seeking to overthrow the UAE government and holding ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and other groups. The defendants pleaded not guilty and complained of abuses after their arrests.

Among the group – including more than a dozen women – are several lawyers led by Mohamed Al-Roken, former head of the UAE Jurists’ Association; judges such as Ahmed Al-Zaabi, who has been detained more than a year; and Sultan Bin Kayed Al-Qasimi, a senior figure in al-Islah and the cousin of the ruler in Ras al-Khaimah, the northernmost of the UAE’s seven emirates. Others include university professors, businessmen and bloggers.

UAE officials decline to discuss details of the case or comment on the ongoing trial, which only hand-picked media have been allowed to observe. The next session is scheduled for April 16.

But senior security figures such as Dubai police chief Lt. Gen. Dahi Khalfan Tamim have repeatedly raised alarms about alleged Muslim Brotherhood infiltration. In October, the UAE’s foreign minister, Sheik Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan, told reporters that “the Muslim Brotherhood does not believe in the nation-state.”

Egypt has grown increasingly bitter about the comments and crackdowns, including agreements by the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council for greater security collaboration in areas including domestic opposition.

At an Arab League summit last month, Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi issued thinly veiled warnings to Gulf states to respect Egypt’s policies. Last week, Egypt’s foreign ministry summoned a UAE envoy in Cairo for talks concerning 11 Egyptians detained on charges of training the alleged coup plotters.

“The UAE crackdowns are definitely part of wider efforts across the Gulf against what is seen as threats,” said Rori Donaghy, a coordinator at the London-based Emirates Center for Human Rights. “The collective idea of security in the region means we will likely be seeing more arrests and more trials with narratives such as coup plots.”

So far, the UAE’s case against the 94-member group has been built around social media posts and interviews on issues such as the wave of changes in the region and the limited public voice in political affairs of the UAE, which is led by a federation of seven ruling families.

In one court session, the defense lawyer tried to poke holes in claims about allegedly subversive literature favored by al-Islah, including works by Muslim Brotherhood writer Sayyid Qutb, who was hanged by Egyptian authorities in 1966. The books, the lawyer noted, are not banned in the UAE.

Dubai-based rights activist Ahmed Mansour sees the trial as part of the UAE’s attempts to crush any group that could be “physiologically empowered by the Arab Spring.”

Mansour and four others – including a former legal adviser to the UAE’s armed forces – were among the first to face arrests for alleged anti-state crimes in early 2011 after signing an online petition urging for political reforms, including free elections for parliament.

“It’s clear that there are some agreements between some of the (Gulf) counties, on the highest and most powerful levels, that no chances should be taken and no compromise should be allowed,” he said. “This is happening no matter what the cost is and how painful that could be on internal or international levels.”

Source: huffingtonpost.com

[Written by Bret Nelson, Senior Research Assistant, Freedom in the World]

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has gone to great lengths to market itself to the world as a cosmopolitan oasis and regional hub for education, culture, and finance. Substantial donations to New York University and the Sorbonne have lured these prestigious institutions to open satellite campuses in Abu Dhabi. The Guggenheim and Louvre have also expanded their collections to satellite museums in the Emirati capital. However, as the UAE authorities escalate their repression of civil society, the cracks in the country’s veneer of relative tolerance are becoming more apparent.

In recent weeks, the UAE has made headlines for its crackdown on Emiratis advocating for expanded civil liberties and political freedoms. Much of the attention has been focused on the government’s response to the Islamist group Al-Islah (Association for Reform and Guidance), a perceived affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood that the authorities claim is intent on violently overthrowing the regime. The UAE recently put over 90 real or suspected Islah activists on trial for allegedly planning a coup. However, there is no evidence that Al-Islah is anything other than a civil society group calling for closer adherence to Islamic precepts in everyday life. The debate over whether Al-Islah is in league with foreign groups like the Muslim Brotherhood is a red herring that distracts from more pressing concerns about the continued crackdown on civil society in general.

Despite the breakneck pace of its modernization and economic development, the UAE remains one of the more repressive countries in a highly repressive region. While less than a quarter of its roughly 8 million residents are citizens, the political system allows just 129,000 citizens to vote for half of the seats in a pseudo-legislative advisory body that possesses no real power. The other half is appointed by the government, which in turn is run by a council of the seven emirates’ dynastic rulers.

Although regime apologists claim that there is no support for political reform among Emiratis, an unprecedented number of activists, reformists, bloggers, judges, and lawyers—not all of whom are Islamists—have been arrested over the past two years as the authorities attempt to inoculate themselves against any democratic contagion from the Arab Spring.

In addition to domestic dissidents, foreign academics and nongovernmental organizations are being swept up in the regime’s crackdown. The UAE recently denied entry to Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, a scholar from the London School of Economics and an outspoken critic of the UAE’s repression of political reform advocates. He had been scheduled to speak, at a University of Sharjah conference on the Arab Spring, about the uprising in Bahrain, which the Bahraini government has brutally suppressed with military support from the UAE. In 2012, Matt Duffy, a professor of journalism at Zayed University in Abu Dhabi, was released from his contract and expelled from the country after he criticized government policies toward freedoms of expression and the press.

In March 2012, the local offices of the National Democratic Institute, which is funded by the U.S. government, and Germany’s Konrad Adenauer Foundation were shut down by the UAE authorities. The RAND Corporation and Gallup were also forced to shutter their offices last year. Clearly these are not Islamist groups, nor is it likely that they planned a violent overthrow of the regime.

Such repression earned the country score declines in Freedom in the World 2013, the latest edition of Freedom House’s annual report on political rights and civil liberties. The UAE currently ranks among the bottom 20 countries worldwide in every civil liberties category that Freedom House measures save one: rule of law. Even in that category, it is still in the bottom 25 percent and tied with countries like Mauritania, Venezuela, and Qatar.

The UAE is not the only wealthy Gulf country that has intensified repression of civil society since the Arab Spring. Both Oman and Qatar have stepped up efforts to stifle dissent among their populations. Saudi Arabia remains among the most repressive environments in the world, and the violent response by the Bahraini government to its people’s calls for political reform is well documented. Yet the Gulf countries, especially the UAE and Qatar, are very protective of their public image and prestige abroad. Indeed, Qatar is keen to portray itself not just as the host of Al-Jazeera, but as the generous sponsor of popular uprisings in places like Libya and Syria.

It is also important to note that all of the Gulf countries are key allies of the United States. The Sunni minority regime in Bahrain, which hosts the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet, has been able to violently suppress dissent without strong objections from Washington. The UAE recently made a significant purchase of U.S. weapons systems in an attempt to deter aggression from Iran, and Qatar houses an important U.S. air base and logistical hub. All of these countries would be crucial to the United States in any potential showdown with Iran. But when U.S. envoys ignore human rights abuses in these countries, or worse yet, explain them away, as Ambassador to the UAE Michael Corbin recently did in an interview with the Khaleej Times, the United States makes itself complicit in the repression.

As recent history has shown in Egypt, Tunisia, and elsewhere in the region, the continued targeting of nonviolent Islamist groups by authoritarian regimes only adds to those groups’ credibility and support among the public, and weakens the legitimacy of the authorities. If the UAE government wants to convince citizens that its policies are better for the country’s future than the program of the opposition, it ought to engage in public debate and civil discourse with the Islamists or any other reformist group, creating an arena for free expression in which all sides can make their case without fear of deportation, imprisonment, or disappearance.

Source: FreedomHouse

‘The records of the case of the Delhi High Court would expose one of the worst violations of those human rights in an oil rich country. And that too, in spite of the judiciary of that very state, proclaiming the innocence of an Indian, who toiled in those desert lands, but had been tortured by a wily policeman, to leave the country, but without even a single Dirham from his many million savings of 18 years duration. Curiously the Indian bureaucrat was fiddling even when an Indian citizen’s house was burning. Thanks to the vision and dynamism, the Human Rights Commission of India sensed the tragedy, and asked the Government of India to explain. It is yet to obey the direction of the Commission to furnish an explanation for the continued inaction’

Human Rights – Expanding horizons

Human beings have always enjoyed a privileged position among God’s creations or as the finer products of evolution. They are not always associated with strength. The saying “To err is human” is an acknowledgement of weakness. When the weak are in larger proportions, law enters with its protective correctness. That is implicit in a statement which portrays the law’s visible representative in favourable colours.

The orthodox view has it that the police brought universal benefits, especially to the weaker sections of the society. ( See ‘The Politics of Police’, Robert Reiner- P.53) A more enduring solution for protecting the weak is to empower them. To confer rights on them. When human beings are conferred diverse rights, some rights stand in the forefront.

Many appellations are given to those more important rights. Some of the more basic have been identified now. They are classified as ‘Human Rights’.

The efforts started seriously, soon after the second World War. ‘The founders of the United Nations realized that the denial of human rights and appalling violations that had occurred in Germany and elsewhere were some of the main concerns following the second World War’. That led to the setting up of the ‘Commission of Human Rights’ (‘Human Rights for the Twenty First Century’ – P.86).

The passage of time has witnessed assignment of seriousness in the theme and systematic and periodic evaluation of performance in the field. It is no longer doing ‘lip service to human rights in high sounding language’. Doing little or no service in terms of actual decisions is not easily forgiven. That is a healthy sign.

In the process of protection of human rights it is the entirety of people that is to be involved. Members of Parliament and Judges of Courts, no doubt, play their useful part. That is not adequate. This feeling is aptly, expressed with reference to a group which would not generally bother about carping comments. Robert Blackburn states: “Constitutional reform cannot be left to politicians alone – who are essential but not sufficient”.

Freedom from torture was considered as an important aspect of human rights. The immediate background of the orgies of torture which fascist forces unleashed might have been the immediate cause of such a strong reaction. Other rights were also treated as dear and near to a refined soul. ‘Man does not live by bread alone’. He has cultural aspirations. Comforts of a clear conscience and the ecstasy of joy in giving expression to one’s views (it does not matter whether they are obscene or objectionable) were also regarded as prominent.

Exploitation of the weak arising from physical disabilities, social oppression or economic greed was also frowned upon. Human rights, therefore, recognized protection for women and insulation of the child against exposure to evils. The horizon of human rights was expanding slowly but steadily.

Modern life gave many comforts to the fortunate people. Telephone for talking to others by defeating distance, enjoying entertainment in glossy publications or in numerous channels of the electronic media and the like. They were, doubtless, luxuries initially. They have almost become necessities in later times. Interface with such facilities, whether it would be intrusion into privacy or the tapping of the telephone, was treated as unlawful, and enjoyment of uninterrupted and un-interfered experiences was treated as human rights.

Maylong Vs United Kingdom is a classic instance where the court projected the human rights under Article B, even when he had been charged with offences relating to dishonest handling of stolen goods. The march of human rights picked up speed. Earlier the aspiration was only to protect people against destruction. It soon took to other fields like the projection of universal values “which are not less significant to man than that of mere survival”.

Sometimes one may wonder whether human rights had not strayed beyond the boundary marks. ‘Spare the rod and spoil the child’ is an old adage. “There will be many among the older generation who did suffer, birched by the strict school master. It is now a violation of human rights. The punishment is treated as a ‘degrading one’. That is clear from a decision rendered in 1978, Tyrer Vs United Kingdom.

The children, however, need not be totally complacent about total insulation from pinpricks, even when sphere thrusts have been averted. That was the view taken fairly recently in 1993. Costello-Roberts Vs United Kingdom. Three whacks on the buttocks on a seven year old boy did not measure up to the level of severity. It was held that the headmaster did not violate Article 3.

Sometimes convictions are rendered in some courts, violating Article 6. That led to a strong reaction from enlightened democracies. Now it has emerged that foreign convictions which violate Article 6 must not be enforced in convention states.

Possibly it is time to have a serious thought about certain countries having economic or material leverage, but totally flouting some of the basic rights. The conscience of the world has not yet reacted effectively, in view of apprehended economic embarrassments. It is high time to think about it with equal enthusiasm as is shown in the areas of gender discrimination or child abuse.

It is possible now to illustrate with specific factual data how such important and essential basic rights are violated with impunity by certain countries. A total deprivation of a person’s property by an arbitrary official or state, is not a lesser violation of human rights than the tapping of the telephone or the stopping of a speech. Right to property, at least in specific situations can be treated as human rights. That has been the concept in important democracies.

It has been observed that the British were “taught by Locke and Blackstone to regard property as the best guarantee of social security”. John Pemble refers to the travel of that concept to India in his book, ‘The Raj, the Indian Mutiny and the Kingdom of Outh’,1809-1859, page 145.

The courts have always been sympathetic towards property rights. Bran Gold stated in 1989 that judges are…. “likely to be more familiar with value of property rights than with social security, more sympathetic to individual acquisitiveness than to community responsibility”.

Yet, even the records of the case of the Delhi High Court would expose one of the worst violations of those human rights in an oil rich country. And that too, in spite of the judiciary of that very state, proclaiming the innocence of an Indian, who toiled in those desert lands, but had been tortured by a wily policeman, to leave the country, but without even a single Dirham from his many million savings of 18 years duration.

Curiously the Indian bureaucrat was fiddling even when an Indian citizen’s house was burning. Thanks to the vision and dynamism, the Human Rights Commission of India sensed the tragedy, and asked the Government of India to explain. It is yet to obey the direction of the Commission to furnish an explanation for the continued inaction. To make matters worse, the Government acted most perversely and in total ignorance of the existence of human rights, when ultimately and belatedly it acted.

The incident is indicative of the illiteracy on human rights even with the ‘think-thank’ in the External Affairs Ministry. It is therefore, appropriate, that an educational exercise on that behalf is undertaken now. Earnest endeavours are bound to bear luscious fruits!

Article – First published at: UAE Human Rights (uaeprison.com) On 10 Dec, 1998