Читайте также:
|
36. The Working Group considers its mandate twofold as to its consideration of rights holders: (i) persons working for PMSCs may commit abuses and human rights violations while performing their security work in situations of violent or low-intensity conflict; and (ii) the persons employed by PMSCs often find themselves in vulnerable situations, with contractual irregularities, exploitation, arbitrary detention and other restrictions on their human rights and labour rights.
37. Consistent with the first set of issues, the Working Group is concerned at information collected about some aspects of the activities of Fijians recruited to work for private companies offering military assistance, consultancy and security services in situations of violence and armed conflict such as in Iraq. To exemplify the situation, the Working Group notes the experience recounted to it by a former Fijian soldier who served as a private security guard for a PMSC in Baghdad in 2006 and claimed to have witnessed shooting incidents while working in Iraq.[19] The person in question figures as a witness in a criminal court case taking place in the United States of America, over what he reported to the media and company executives as a series of incidents in Iraq during July 2006. The allegations concern random shootings and deliberate targeting of civilians and involve private contractor guards and former United States military personnel. The case reached the United States courts after an investigation was carried out by the United States Army and the company in question. A team of lawyers representing the PMSC and representing the officers implicated in the incidents met with the person in question, Mr. Naucukidi, in Fiji in May 2007 to take his statement.[20] Other accounts from this and other individuals provide insights as to how companies operate in Iraq without vehicle plates and no uniform (making it impossible to distinguish between PMSCs); use heavy weaponry and pose a challenge in terms of accountability and oversight.
38. Relevant to the other aspect of the Working Group mandate’s concern, it also addresses issues concerning the rights of individuals recruited for work with PMSCs. At the time of the visit, 21 Fijians had reportedly been killed while working for PMSCs in Iraq, with several others injured.[21] One much publicized incident took place in mid-April 2006, when four Fijian nationals working as security personnel in Iraq were killed in an ambush during a convoy-protection mission northbound towards Kirkuk in northern Iraq.
39. The Working Group has also received information on situations where Fijians recruited for these private security companies have been exploited. As mentioned above, thousands of Fijians have in recent years been lured into paying fees for prospective security work abroad which did not materialize. In other instances, the contracts were signed under fraudulent conditions, either immediately upon departure or upon arrival in the country of destination. After performing security work in countries abroad, many Fijians have experienced contractual irregularities and poor working conditions, including excessive working hours, partial or non-payment of salaries, ill-treatment and the neglect of basic needs such as access to medical services. A representative from the Trade Union considered that there is no proper legislation and oversight of the contractual arrangements, a lack which has led to unpleasant surprises. One Fijian contractor reportedly stated that the contract viewed in Fiji was different to the one signed in Iraq, where he earned approximately $1,200 monthly.[22]
40. The interim Attorney General of Fiji informed the Working Group that the wife of a person who had suffered a heart attack in Iraq had visited him. The insurance policy did not cover “natural death”, and since Hong Kong had been specified as the jurisdiction, there was limited opportunity for recourse. As far as abuses by PMSCs were concerned, if Fijians were mistreated or detained, international law and conventions should apply. NGO representatives told of experiences where a PMSC agent had gone to a family and attended the funeral. The family had accepted the explanation and had not wished to ruin the relations, as it was considered “traditional courtesy” to accept apologies without criticizing.
41. The Working Group was informed of the limited reintegration measures available to Fijians who had performed security work abroad upon the return to their communities in Fiji. Such measures are necessary to prevent domestic violence and the spread of sexually transmittable diseases.[23] There appears to be no decent debriefing or process to deal with returnees, in particular sexual and other violence against women and children by those returning to Fiji. Among the repercussions when people return from security work abroad, there is violence against women in homes. NGO representatives informed the Working Group that no counselling is available and that there are no debriefings with trained psychologists.
42. One PMSC representative informed the Working Group of its insurance policy, which included medical treatment in London or Dubai, coverage of medical and emergency expenses, and a list of 60 detailed descriptions of injuries. The representative noted that claims had been paid out in full. However, that version contrasted with a number of accounts provided by PMSC employees. As to proceeding with claims, one individual referred to an exchange with a PMSC, when he had warned the PMSC that in 30 days he would institute action for some 20 to 30 individuals. The company had sent him a threatening reply, was aware that the lawyer had spoken publicly about it and considered itself defamed. Another individual informed the Working Group of a claim submitted to the High Court of Fiji at Suva, Civil Jurisdiction, in 2006, against Armor Group Services Ltd on charges of termination of the plaintiffs’ contract on unfounded allegations and unlawful detention for general damages of US$ 200,000. The plaintiff had also written to the British High Commission in Suva, which had responded by letter of 9 January 2006 “regarding your complaint against a British Company, the Armor Group Security Company that operates in Iraq”. The representative of the High Commissioner “advised to engage the services of a lawyer if you are looking to obtain redress from the above-mentioned company”.
Дата добавления: 2015-02-16; просмотров: 112 | Поможем написать вашу работу | Нарушение авторских прав |