<<previous  |  index  |  next>>

Government Response to Killings and Other Strike-Related Abuses

The Guinean government has legal obligations under several international and African human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which require it to respect the right to life, right to bodily integrity, right to liberty and security of the person, and freedoms of expression, association, and assembly.¹⁶⁹ Guinea does have the right to impose legitimate restrictions on many rights including the right to liberty and security of the person and the three freedoms of expression, association, and assembly when it is necessary for public order or security, and indeed enjoys the right to derogate from these rights in times of emergency. No derogation is permitted from the right to life or the right to bodily integrity. Permissible restrictions or derogations must be set out in law and are only legitimate to the extent strictly required by the situation. In the case of restrictions resulting from a formal derogation in time of emergency, they must also only last as long as is absolutely necessary. Therefore while some of the actions taken to curtail full exercise of political rights, particularly after the violence of February 9, may fall within legitimate action, many of the actions of the security forces during the six-week crisis period, in particular the use of violent force resulting in injury and death, cannot be reconciled with Guinea’s human rights obligations.

The Guinean Ministry of Health has acknowledged that as of March 19, 2007, the strike and the violent response to it had resulted in the deaths of 129 individuals, and 1764 wounded.¹⁷⁰ Civil society leaders attempting to investigate strike-related abuses told Human Rights Watch that the true death toll may never be known because many victims never went to a hospital or a morgue, but were quickly buried by their families in accordance with Islamic tradition.¹⁷¹ In addition, medical personnel interviewed by Human Rights Watch emphasized that victims seriously wounded during the strike continue to succumb to their injuries.¹⁷²

In the course of its investigation, Human Rights Watch interviewed a number of Guinean civilian and military authorities, and asked them to explain the role of defense and security forces during the strike and address allegations of wrongdoing.

The Police

The primary institution charged with crowd control in Guinea is the police, which falls under the control of the Ministry of Security. In the course of its investigation, Human Rights Watch interviewed dozens of witness who alleged that police officers, under the guise of maintaining public order, were involved in murder, assault, and robbery of civilians. However, despite the high death toll and other abuses described in this report, then-serving minister of security, Fodé Shapo Touré, told Human Rights Watch that he was not aware of any cases of excessive use of force by his agents in the exercise of their duties during the strike, but noted that this will ultimately be for a subsequent investigation to determine.¹⁷³ According to the minister, prior to the strike instructions were given to police to use “all conventional means” to maintain order, including “batons, helmets, riot shields, and tear gas,” but not firearms.¹⁷⁴ The minister noted that many police were wounded during the strike due to projectiles thrown by demonstrators, and that a number of police stations and even private homes of police officers were ransacked during the demonstrations.¹⁷⁵ 

The Military

In the course of its investigation, Human Rights Watch collected dozens of reports from victims and eyewitnesses alleging the involvement of the military, and particularly the Red Berets, in murder, rape, assault, and robbery. Officially known as the Autonomous Presidential Security Battalion, (Bataillon Autonome de la Sécurité Présidentielle, BASP), the presidential guard, or Red Berets, is an elite military unit comprised of 200-300 men, charged with presidential security. Like most soldiers in Guinea, members of the BASP do not receive training in crowd control and do not posses riot control equipment.¹⁷⁶ In an interview with Human Rights Watch, the leader of the BASP, Colonel Donzo, denied that members of the BASP were involved in any human rights abuses during the crisis period, and noted that because of this, none of them have been sanctioned for actions taken.¹⁷⁷ According to Colonel Donzo, members of the BASP were given the order not to fire on protestors or individuals, and had for primary mission during the crisis to protect public property, such as the national radio and television stations, and to find stolen arms in certain sectors of Conakry.¹⁷⁸ Contradicting the testimony of numerous eyewitnesses interviewed by Human Rights Watch, Colonel Donzo maintains that Red Beret soldiers were not positioned at the November 8 Bridge, where tens of protestors were shot during the march of January 22, 2007, and were not involved in incidents involving the arrest and harassment of union leaders and journalists described in this report.¹⁷⁹

Other military authorities maintain that during the unrest, criminals used military uniforms and stolen weapons to perpetrate abuses against individuals.¹⁸⁰ Human Rights Watch would note that many of the eyewitness it interviewed alleging involvement of Guinean soldiers in human rights violations saw the perpetrators not only wearing a military uniform, but in close proximity to military vehicles.¹⁸¹

The Gendarmerie

In Guinea, the gendarmerie is a military body charged with police duties among civilian populations. It falls under the responsibility of the Ministry of Defense. In the course of its investigation, Human Rights Watch collected numerous reports from victims and eyewitnesses alleging the involvement of the gendarmerie in the shooting deaths of unarmed demonstrators. Unlike the police and the military, however, gendarmes do not appear to have been involved in assault and robbery of civilians in Conakry’s neighborhoods. Human Rights Watch sought an interview with the head of the Guinea’s National Gendarmerie, General Jacques Touré, but was told that in order to receive an interview, it would be necessary to pass though the minister of defense, a post which at the time was held by President Conté.¹⁸² Human Rights Watch did not attempt to contact President Conté during its stay in Guinea.

The Ministry of Justice

In late January 2007, then-serving Minister of Justice Alsény Réné Gomez announced the creation of a national commission of inquiry charged with investigating the deaths, injuries and destruction of property caused during both the January-February 2007 strike and June 2006 strike.¹⁸³ Supervised and staffed by officials from the Ministry of Justice, the work of the commission was to be overseen by a committee of supervision that included representatives from the gendarmerie and the Ministry of Defense, as well as representatives from two trade unions.¹⁸⁴ Guinea’s legal bar association unanimously voted to refuse membership on the committee of supervision due to concerns relating to the commission’s independence, stating that the government in place at the time could not be both “murderer and investigator.”¹⁸⁵ Guinea’s biggest and oldest human rights organization, the Guinean Organization for Human Rights (Organisation Guinéenne de Défense des Droits de l’Homme et du Citoyen, OGDH), similarly declined to participate.¹⁸⁶

Many of those interviewed by Human Rights Watch concerning the national commission of inquiry, from diplomats, to UN representatives, to victims of strike-related abuses in Conakry’s suburbs, expressed extreme skepticism as to whether such a commission is capable of operating independently, noting that a previous commission established to investigate abuses from June 2006 has not resulted in any prosecutions, that incidents involving excessive use of force prior to the June 2006 strike have never resulted in prosecutions, and that historically, Guinea’s Ministry of Justice has not been able to operate independently of the executive branch of government.¹⁸⁷ Some victims and community leaders told Human Rights Watch that they would not testify before any commission that did not have at least some international membership.¹⁸⁸  

In response to criticisms leveled against the commission created by former minister Gomez, in mid April 2007, newly appointed Minister of Justice and Human Rights Paulette Kourouma dissolved the committee of supervision. In addition, she created a panel consisting of both judges and lawyers, and instructed its members to draft a statute relating to the creation of a new, independent body with special mandate to investigate and prosecute those found responsible for strike-related abuses.¹⁸⁹ Guinea’s bar association has agreed to participate in the drafting of the statute, and told Human Rights Watch that the goal is to create a “special independent tribunal” with authority to investigate, indict, and prosecute.¹⁹⁰ Formal membership on the “special tribunal” by non-Guineans has been excluded, as has participation by members of civil society.¹⁹¹ According to an official with the Ministry of Justice, it will be for the National Assembly to vote on the draft statute to create “the independent judicial structure that Guineans are waiting for.”¹⁹²

To allow for a judicial process in which Guineans have the confidence to participate, which is capable of operating independently and following leads as far as they need to go, Human Rights Watch believes that it is critical that an independent body be created and properly funded as soon as possible. This body should be charged with investigating and bringing to justice those responsible for crimes committed by state security forces and others during the January-February nationwide strike, as well as previous strikes such as June 2006 when similar abuses were committed.¹⁹³ To assure impartiality, expediency, and thoroughness, the work of any independent commission or special court that is created should draw upon the expertise of the international community through the involvement of members of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.