Introduction to the Hearing and People’s Tribunal for Women of Afghanistan Judges

Thanks for the opportunity of opening a new session of the long series of sessions of the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal. I think that the most important message has been clearly given by the introductory comments, and data, and perspectives which defined what is the situation of the Afghanistan women in the international scenario, and I think that that would be the core of the attention of this meeting here this morning and the hearings during the two days.

I have simply to add a few information or few comments on how the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal has been involved, not so much from the point of view of the logistics because we have been working for many months with a very important working group from different countries, but because we feel that the session of the Tribunal, as has been said in the last part, is part of a broader interest today in facing situations which have common, in common, the fact of having on one side a very clear evidence of the violation of human rights, and on the other side, there is a kind of, say, role of spectator of the international community. What has been said, a crime of silence, which was at the beginning of the history of the peoples’ tribunal, which was back in the ’60s at the time of the Vietnam War, and later after the Vietnam War with the dictatorships in Latin America.

Something which was incredible was happening: a war after the declaration that war was illegal in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and then a dictatorships for countries of Latin America which were in fact looking for a new development. At that time, Russell, the philosophers, and then Sartre, started working on the idea that it was time to give to peoples the role of being the judges of what is happening in the world. The ideas of Russell and Sartre were expressed in two tribunals in on Vietnam in ’66 and ’67, pre-history of our time, and then of the Russell Tribunal II where Lelio Basso and our group started working on that, on dictatorships in Latin America.

The point was so clear that two words became the center of the attention of the, of those who were working among the different actors in the decolonization process, which were very important. The Tribunal was one, but was not so important. There were two words which needed to become clear as the protagonists of a new time for international law.

The first word was peoples. International law has been developed after the Universal Declaration and Second World War as a law of the states. Peoples were nominated only at the beginning of the Universal Declaration and then left aside. Those who were really the protagonists and the controller of international law became the states, whatever was the situation of the state, their state of democracy, dictatorships, states were the controller of what was in fact the interpretation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And one main problem of the declaration was, are universal human rights a problem for individuals or they must be interpreted and applied specifically and more importantly, in order to be applied to individuals, to be collective human rights? And in that sense, the states were imposing their interpretation, both in Vietnam, like the war of the United States, and then in Latin America with dictatorships of military and economic power.

So, the problem was very important and in ’76, those who have been working—I was old enough to, I am old enough to be present at that time—in ’76 there was a Universal Declaration of Peoples’ Right, the Algiers Declaration, where the peoples were really at the center of the attention. But there was another word which became very important. It was clear that Vietnam, dictatorships, were not separate events in the history. There was a kind of, say, permanent need to be present as a tribune of visibility, of restitution of voice to people, in order that the silence of states, of the states could not be the only protagonist of history.

And the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal was established a few years later after the Universal Declaration of Algiers in ’79, exactly for the purpose of being first of all, a tribune of visibility, of free speech, of restitution to the qualification of the events, to the peoples who are the victims of the repressions. So that the victims of the repression could not be conceived of those who are called to justify their right. The logic should be interpreted on the other way, as in the International Declaration of Human Rights, “We, people of the world.” And the people should become really the protagonist of the Tribunal, with their witnesses, something which could be really representing the life of people, and to declare that the violation was not a concept, was the fact of the death, destruction, denial of the life of real people. Otherwise the risk of international law, as everything in international law, is to be really importantly interested in discussing the principles and who is violating the principle. The victim becomes a kind of proof of evidence, instead of being the point of departure.

And in this sense, the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal was in fact a project which was starting in ’79, at the time where the international law was also having a complete change of actors. The end of the ’70s was the time where different actors were becoming important beside the states, were the international private organizations, multinationals, but even more so the international law was becoming something which was in fact mainly dependent on the priority which were set by the agenda of the United Nations which was transformed progressively in an instrument for the policies of the states. The decolonization was more or less at the end, but the real recolonization was starting, because beside the denial of decolonization of different cases which were taken by also the Tribunal, Salvador, Timor-Leste, and something which is difficult to tell the long history of the 55 sessions of the Tribunal.

But the Peoples’ Tribunal took the names which were in the name, permanent and people, very seriously and try to respond always, knowing that it is clear that the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal does not have effective judicial or penal rules or measures. But it was clearly a proposal to imagine, that was a research project, is a research project, which should answer to a question. Could international law become also, and possibly more importantly, a bottom-up and not only a top-down exercise for the rights of people? And if all peoples of the world, irrespective of the type of violation, feel and are a part of this process, that could be something which could maintain at least the original concept of the International Declaration of Human Rights where all the basic principle of people were clearly established. But the conditions were there to be perfectly violated, because there was not an International Court, there was not a way for imposing to states or to propose something of the states.

So the Tribunal was in fact at that time a tribunal that, with respect to the peoples’ tribunal, was not only, as it is this tribunal, a tribunal for the people. It was a tribunal of the people in order to be more effectively and more continuously in producing also different criteria, a tribunal for the people. We are here for the work which has been done by those who have prepared, through testimonies and research, this session to be really representative of people. The Universal Declaration of Algiers was approved, people, by an assembly where people were mixed with experts. There was not a kind of production of an individual intellectual work. Was something which was reflecting one of the last stage of a colonization which was stopping. We have now to stop the silence. Is a new important phase of a long, long history of decolonization, not only in the old term, but to decolonize the life of people. And the life of women in Afghanistan is one of that.

The fact of having a tribunal of this type make the jury of the Tribunal an important permanent laboratory of research, not only of judgement on the specific case, but on interpretation of the laws which exist and those who should be in fact developed in order to avoid the repetition of the. We are living in a time, I make a small point, where everybody is discussing in, in the world the definition to whom and how could be applied the notion of genocide. The Tribunal has faced at least nine cases of genocides which were not even mentioned in history. Genocide which fully respect the definitions given by the international law, international law is debating. But what is important is that the, those who are discussing that forget that the main point of a definition of genocide as the crimes of humanity is not mainly to condemn those who are committing crimes, is just to prevent that those crimes against humanity and genocide could be committed again. To give a judgement of severity with formal terms is useless if you don’t have the means to put into practice what you are doing. And we are living in a situation, in a historical time where these things are very important.

So in that sense, and I close rapidly, the situation of the women in Afghanistan, which will be presented in details in the indictment which has been presented, represented for the Tribunal a most relevant and very urgent competence, because was and is the expression not simply of a crime of one or two, but of a system of structural violation of the fundamental individual and collective right. And this repression is made certainly of active repression, but is mainly made by the denial of the individual subject and of their collective expression to give an interpretation of their life as the real subject of the life. So the denial is not a sum of violation. Is a structural denial of the existence itself in the world of that violation.

And the fact that this is as women as protagonists, has been said very well and we shall listen to that, is also important because it represent, in that sense, women of Afghanistan represent a crossroad on one side of a long history of war, repression of colonization in the area. Even the Tribunal had for twice the opportunity of judging the rights of the Afghan people during the Soviet invasion, with two session in Sweden and in Paris. So we have been aware and follow that. But that the situation, just to show that now that colonization which was substituted by another colonization with different appearance, different consequences, is now a colonization which happens from inside on, in the name of a mix of religious, political, civil, cultural. In order to see that the case of the women in Afghanistan is becoming a real challenge for international law, because what is the crime, against what principle of law? Against all is a practical model of society. And in that sense it is been important that the preparation, and you will listen to the, during the preparation of the Tribunal, has been a very important work of putting in visibility the different components of this sense.

I think that I’m already out of my time possibly, but I would like to conclude that with few points which are, which few observation which are important for the Tribunal. Is important to see that why everybody says, “Why women in Afghanistan are denied?” and said. But we feel, and the experience of the Tribunal is, saying that women are the model case and the very extensive and tragic case of the application of a category of violation of human rights, which is has become, has been said, something which is normal. If you are able to call somebody with a name which declare that is not like you, which is an other, it could become an enemy, whatever is the case. It has been the case, and is the case of a name like say, terrorist, which has no clear significance, is a kind of, practically, you know, is a definition. We have met the terrorist denomination to justify repression. Women are not declared terrorist. They don’t need to do that. They simply are considered others and they apply the worst definition of others and the fact of not being apparent, not to have voice. In Afghanistan, women summarize and express at its maximum level the capacity of denial of the existence of subjects which are different from those who detain the power.

And in that sense, we feel that the women of Afghanistan represent something which is not simply, more importantly, a case for Afghanistan. Is really a case of universal significance, where something happens in the extreme terms, it means that it is happening in various terms in various sector of the world. And in that sense, the resistance and the life, even more than the resistance, because they are living, not only resisting of Afghanistan is really at the core of the legitimacy and the credibility of an international society which is fully informed of what is going on, but is powerless in addressing and stopping a process which denies the core itself of international law. The existing international law as it is is at the end of its careers, because many things should be done. People should have the voice. And it would be a long work, and in that sense, to start with the women and their transversality to the colonization of the life in the world is really an important problem, because they are a people which is not juridically recognized as such, does not correspond to a definition, but is really the people who is responsible of the reproduction of society in all the terms of the mean of reproduction. If we have to have a future, women either should be recognized principal protagonist for all what has been happening, not only in Afghanistan. Otherwise, we do not see as representative for this small role we have of people, it would be difficult to find something which is a truly decolonization of the human, human rights.

Given that, I think my role is simply and then the Secretariat with Simona will be silent listening to the other, to indicate the persons who have accepted and we are very grateful for their acceptance because for many times we have asked with difficulty and but they are here. We have, since we don’t have the names here, we have listed them in alphabetical order, people who are called and I apologize for possibly the bad pronunciation sometimes, but they could sign so you recognize.

The first is somebody from Spain, Araceli Garcia Del Soto from Spain, as a Psychologist, Human Rights Expert in psychological and trauma-informed approaches. Elisenda Calvet Martinez again from Spain, International Law Scholar specializing in transitional justice and genocide studies. Emilio Ramirez Matos, Spain, Lawyer and Academic with expertise in civil law, heritage law, and human rights. Hedad from Afghanistan, Constitutional Lawyer and former Ombudsman of Afghanistan. Mai El Sadany, Egypt and United States, Human Rights Lawyer and Executive Director of the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy. Marina Forti from Italy, Journalist and Writer focusing on environment, rights, international affairs. Rashida Manjoo, South Africa, Professor Emeritus of Law, University of Cape Town, former UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women. Rashida will be, as been selected by the jury, to be the Chairperson for this jury. Kalpana Sharma, India, Journalist and Author recognized for her work on gender, development, media accountability.