THE PERSECUTION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES IN ERITREA – THE NEED FOR A NEW APPROACH IN ADDRESSING GROSS VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS & PRINCIPLES

 

                                                               

ABSTRACT

The persecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Eritrea calls into question whether religious freedom and non discrimination rights are effective. Jehovah’s Witnesses are a visible religious minority worldwide, and their ability to practice their faith and hold their convictions should be protected. Eritrea not only violates Jehovah’s Witnesses’ religious freedom and non discrimination rights, but also their right to work, adequate food, education, and marriage. Enacting human rights treaties and criticizing governments that violate human rights laws and conventions are insufficient in curbing serious violations of religious rights. Hence, it is recommended that there is adoption and application of restorative justice as a solution to the gross violations of the right to freedom of religion. Where restorative justice fails, the international community has a sacred obligation to use sanctions to compel States to adhere to established human rights laws and principles and provide closure for victims of gross human rights violations.

Keywords: Rights, Religion, Discrimination, Jehovah’s Witnesses, State Religion, Restorative justice.

 

• INTRODUCTION

It has been consistently argued that as far as scholars have discovered, there has never existed any people, anywhere, at any time, who were not in some sense religious.^[1] Most of mankind belongs to one religious persuasion or another. Many take comfort in its teachings and doctrines and some hold an extreme belief in the superiority of their religion over that of others, while some countries have fueled this acrimony by adopting a state religion or preferred religion (s). These feelings of superiority of one religion over the other have created and fueled intense discrimination, leading to persecution, discrimination, wars, inquisitions, jihads, etc. The drive towards achieving freedom of religion and non – discrimination based on religion and belief, can be traced to the Principality of Transylvania in 1558 when the government declared freedom to practice Catholicism and Lutheranism as documented in the Edict of Torda.  In 1568, this freedom was extended to all religions. This Edict forbade the intimidation, captivity, or expelling of anyone because of their religion.  The European city, declared the equality of all religions, forbade the government or its citizens from actions that may likely harm others because of their religious belief, and allowed citizens to rise to the kingship of the principality irrespective of their religion, as long as they respect and adhereto the Edict of Torda.  This Edict is widely recognized as the first legal guarantee of religious freedom in Christian Europe.^[2]  The Diet of Torda declared thus:

His Majesty, Our Lord … reaffirms that in every place the preachers shall preach and explain the gospel, each according to his understanding of it and if the congregation like it, well.  If not, no one shall compel them for their souls and would not be satisfied, but they shall be permitted to keep a preacher whose teaching they approve.  Therefore none of the superintendents or others shall abuse the preachers, no one shall be reviled for his religion by anyone … and it is not permitted that anyone should threaten anyone else by imprisonment or by removal from his post for his teaching.  For faith is the gift of God and this comes from hearing which is by the word of God.^[3]

 

The 20^th century saw the codification of common values related to freedom of religion and non – discrimination based on religion and belief, in numerous national constitutions and international treaties.^[4]

In this research, an effort will be made to examine whether or not the provisions of international human rights treaties aimed at promoting freedom of religion and eradication of discrimination based on religion and belief have achieved their objective. In other to achieve this objective, the research will do an assessment of some literature on the subject, discuss the legal framework relied upon by the government of Eritrea in her egregious persecution and discrimination of Jehovah’s Witnesses, analyze the implication of the violations of some human rights of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Eritrea using some human rights instruments and propose a framework for mitigating human rights violations by duty bearers and non – state actors.

 

This research focuses on Eritrea because of the scale, intensity, and viciousness of the persecution and discrimination against Jehovah’s Witnesses in Eritrea. After Adolf Hitler’s Nazi government in Germany, no other State has persecuted Jehovah’s Witnesses with such viciousness, like the government of Eritrea. This research will highlight examples of the ongoing persecution and discrimination of Jehovah’s Witnesses by State actors through the frequent raids on their homes, arbitrary arrest, detention in solitary confinement (often without trial), the denial of access to education for Witness children in Eritrea, denial of citizenship, right to own businesses, denial of food stamps, confiscation of their properties and the denial of their right to conscientious objection. These gruesome persecutions are often enforced and supervised by the government whose treaty obligation is to protect and enforce these rights.

The doctrinal research method was adopted in this research using current research on the subject from journals, decisions of courts, periodicals, etc. the legal theory of restorative justice was also used as a framework for analysis. The research will draw on the elements of restorative justice to apply to the argument that more is required in addressing gross human rights violations. It also aims to use the elements to find solutions to the problems identified in the research.

This research would make recommendations towards eradicating this ugly trend. The principal of these recommendations is the adoption and application of restorative justice. The application of sanctions is also recommended(only after restorative justice has failed).

• AN ASSESSMENT OF SOME LITERATURE ON THE PERSECUTION AND DISCRIMINATION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES IN ERITREA.

Some scholars have published credible research on the egregious religious persecution carried out by the government of Eritrea on religions outside the four preferred religions. The government only recognizes the Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church, the Eritrean
Catholic Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and Sunni Islam.^[5] The pieces of literature discuss the extensive persecution and discrimination of unregistered religious groups in Eritrea, like Jehovah’s Witnesses.

One key research is the article by Daniel and Selan^[6] which traced the troubled relationship between the government of Eritrea and religious groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses. The article provides a historical insight into the religious persecution and discrimination of Jehovah’s Witnesses despite the religious freedom proclaimed by the government in its Constitution^[7] and the government Religious Proclamation^[8] which expressly provided for the clear separation between the State and religion and that none of these entities should interfere in the functions or activities of the other. It referenced Article 7D of the 1977 national democratic program of the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front, which identified Jehovah’s Witnesses in Eritrea as “an imperialist counter-revolutionary faith” that must be vigorously fought[9]. As a way out of the prevailing ban on Jehovah’s Witnesses and other religious groups in Eritrea, the author recommends a political transition through a revolution or other means.

Also, Daniel and Mirjam^[10]identified Eritrea as a state with “systematic and widespread religious persecution”. They posited that although Eritrea was known as a haven of religious tolerance, the 20 years of

its post-independent history is littered with pervasive persecution of chiefly Jehovah’s Witnesses because they refused to participate in the independence referendum from Ethiopia and join the armed forces. The authors posited that “this persecution has produced gender roles that are unprotected by definition, leading to increased vulnerability of women”. They lamented that although the European Union (EU) trumpets its strong support for religious freedom and respect for human rights, it continues to turn a deaf ear to the widespread religious persecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses and other religious groups outside the four preferred ones, by maintaining cooperation with the government of Eritrea and giving her huge financial assistance^[11]. The authors contend that the EU violates its laws and values in its continuous romance and support for Eritrea despite its deplorable human rights record. They recommended a review of EU support for Eritrea and the commencement of dialogue between the EU and persecuted faith communities in Eritrea.

Amanuel^[12] analyzed the rights of persecuted persons from a refugee and asylum perspective. He argued that it is wrong for the international community to examine the rights due to persecuted persons only through the refugee lens because most persecuted persons are still living in their country of origin, unable to seek refugee status elsewhere. He added that every nation of the world owes persecuted persons the remedial right to allow migration into their territory of persecuted persons. He maintained that the circumstances which allow the grant of refugee status by States are the same circumstances faced by persecuted persons like Jehovah’s Witnesses in Eritrea. He lamented the deplorable condition faced by Jehovah’s Witnesses in Eritrea, who have been stripped of their citizenship and denied all known basic rights, yet are unable to leave

Eritrea since the government has cancelled all their travel documents and have in place a shoot – to – kill policy on emigrants. He argued that since the “government has failed or is unwilling to respect human rights”, governments of other countries must step in by granting persecuted persons safe and easy entry into their countries and that the right to asylum should also qualify as a human right although it is not immediately exercisable by all humans.

Despite the value that the available literature on the persecution and discrimination of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Eritrea adds to the present discussion, they do not recommend what can be done to ensure restorative justice for victims of religious persecution and discrimination. It is in respect of this, that this research makes a fundamental addition to knowledge. It recommends the adoption and application of restorative justice and sanctions (if the application of restorative justice fails) in addressing the gross violation of the religious rights of Jehovah’s Witnesses and other religious minority groups.

 

2.1. Restorative Justice

Carrie Menkel – Meadow^[13] defined restorative justice as;

“The name was given to a variety of different practices, including apologies, restitution, and acknowledgments of harm and injury, as well as to other efforts to provide healing and reintegration of offenders into their communities, with or without additional punishment”.

Restorative Justice is a type of justice that focuses on healing the harm that criminal action has created. When that is not possible, it is best handled through cooperative mechanisms that allow all willing parties to meet, but other approaches are available if that is not possible. This has the potential to change people, relationships, and
communities[14]. When crimes such as gross human rights violations are committed, they affect the victim (s), the violator (s), and society. Therefore, the principles of restorative justice seek inclusion in addressing crime and criminal conduct and not alienation of the offenders.

Development of restorative justice policies, procedures, and programs that respect the rights, needs, and interests of victims, offenders, communities, and all other parties was urged in the Vienna Declaration on Crime and Justice: Meeting the Challenges of the Twenty-first Century in the year 2000.[15]Also, the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations adopted a resolution in 2002 outlining a set of Fundamental Principles for the Use of Restorative Justice Programs in Criminal Matters. These principles provide critical direction for policymakers, community organizations, and criminal justice authorities who are developing restorative justice responses to crime in their society[16].

Additionally, in recognition of victims of grave human rights violations’ right to remedy and reparation, the United Nations’ member states adopted the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to Redress and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law in General Assembly resolution 60/147 of 16 December 2005.[17] Some elements of restorative justice shall be briefly discussed below.

2.2 Elements of Restorative Justice

Some elements of restorative justice include;

1. Acknowledgment of crime and apology: this principle demands that criminals accept responsibility for their conduct as well as the hurt they have caused. One of the best ways to remedy or make amends for the harm or offense done to anyone is to acknowledge the wrong done and a sincere apology for crimes committed. Although the wound may run deep, individuals who willingly assume responsibility and endeavour to address disputes through informal processes are highly valued in restorative justice.[18]
2. Truth and Reconciliation: This requires full disclosure of the wrongs committed by individuals, organizations, and state actors. The aim is to find out who the victims are, what happened to them, and where they ended up, as well as the magnitude of their suffering and whether the violations were the result of premeditated action on the part of the government or another group.[19]The objective is not retribution, but the reconciliation of the victim and the offender to promote a peaceful and more tolerant society. Usually, the platform for the meeting of offenders, victims, and members of the community is often put in place by a commission that midwives the truth and reconciliation process.[20]

• Payment of compensation: This is anything of value paid, given, or awarded to a victim of crime to compensate for the injury or wrong suffered. Payment of restitution is not of modern origin. It dates back to ancient times. It was provided for in the Hammurabi code, the Torah, and the early English codes.[21] The purpose of restitution is to among other things vindicate the victim as innocent for any wrong alleged or harm suffered. Victims are believed to feel more vindicated when the offender admits, explains the crime, and makes up for their criminal or wrong conduct.[22]Restitution also serves as a therapeutic and aids in the rehabilitation of the criminal.[23]

1. Reintegration of victims and offenders of crime into society: Although the incarceration of criminals seeks to keep society safe, sometimes there are many cases of recidivism. To cure this defect, restorative justice provided a platform for criminals to be reintegrated into society after admitting their wrong conduct and restituting their victims. Reintegration is better served by the alternative punishment of restitution. This is less stigmatizing than imprisonment. It also gives the offender the chance to set things right with the victim and enhances their self-worth. Reintegration urges the community and the person who caused harm to work together rather than turning to ostracize the offenders. People that do harm are given credit for what they’ve learned in the process. As soon as the perpetrator of the harm accepts responsibility and agrees to make things right, the door is open for him or her to rejoin the community with trust and respect restored.[24]

 

What happens when the gross violator of international human rights law is the State itself? Does the international community have a sacred duty beyond the occasional naming and shaming? Is naming and shaming enough of a deterrent? Would silence in the face of gross human rights violation by the government of Eritrea not make the international community complicit and indeed a violator of its basic principles and guidelines on the right of victims to remedy and reparation? Before answers are given to the above questions, it is necessary to first examine the persecution and discrimination of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Eritrea by the government of President Isaias Afwerki since 1993.

 

• THE HISTORICAL AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK PROMULGATED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF ERITREA IN PERSECUTING JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES.

The State of Eritrea is an African nation. It is a multi-ethnic, cultural, and religious nation. Its constitution provided safeguards for freedom of religion, manifesting such belief and freely assembling with a community of worshippers.^[25] It provides that the state shall endeavour to create opportunities to ensure the fulfilment of the citizens’ spiritual needs.^[26] Also, the Constitution abhors all forms of discrimination against any citizen based on religion.^[27] The government also issued a Religious Proclamation^[28] which provides for the separation and non – interference between the State and Religion. Eritrea is a State party to several international human rights

 

instruments.^[29] Despite the laudable provisions in its constitution, how did the government of Eritrea sink so low in complying with its duty to respect and protect the right of freedom of religion and belief and prevent discrimination against Jehovah’s Witnesses?

 

3.1.The Historical Perspective

Eritrea was involved in a 30 years bitter struggle for independence from Ethiopia. In 1991, Eritrea gained independence from Ethiopia following an independence referendum. Jehovah’s Witnesses did not take up arms during the pre-independence struggle with Ethiopia and also abstained from the independence referendum.[30] They also refused to do compulsory military service but opted for alternative civilian service.[31]The reason for their conscientious objection is founded on their religious belief. The above religious belief of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Eritrea was considered unacceptable and unpatriotic and deserving of stiff punishment. They were thus labelled an “imperialist – created counter-revolutionary faith” that must be fought and defeated.^[32]

3.2 The Legal Framework Used in the Persecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Eritrea

The government of Eritrea operates without all known democratic structures. The executive arm of government headed by President Isaias Afwerki runs an absolute dictatorship. The legislative arm is known as “HagerawiBaito,”which largely exists on paper only and the judiciary is not known to provide an effective remedy for litigants

who seek judicial remedies against the State. Thus, the government is run by the issuing of proclamations from the President of the State of Eritrea. Some of these presidential proclamations have been used to unlawfully target Jehovah’s Witnesses in Eritrea.

In 1991 and 1995 respectively, the government promulgated proclamations^[33] that prescribed 2 years imprisonment, a fine of Nakfa 3000 (about USD 200) or both, for anyone who refused to undertake compulsory military service which on paper lasts for 18 months (in practice, it is for an indefinite period).

On 25^th October 1994, the President of Eritrea gave an Executive Order addressed to the Minister for Internal Affairs, that stripped Jehovah’s Witnesses of their citizenship,[34] prohibited their employment into the public service, sacked those already in the public service, cancelled their business permits, and outlawed the issuance of new ones, cancelled their identity and travel documents, outlawed the issuance of new ones, and denied them of all known and available basic rights and benefit.[35]These include denial of food stamps and the right to education for children of Jehovah’s Witnesses beyond the 11^th grade etc.

In compliance with the Executive Order, the Minister for Internal Affairs issued a press statement on 4^th March 1995, which stated among other things that;

 

“Finally, the government stated that they [Jehovah’s Witnesses] would not have rights equal to those of any other citizens since they have refused to accept the government and its laws. Patience has its limits…”^[36]

 

 

Additionally, on 15^th July 1995, the government issued a Proclamation to provide for Activities of Religion and Religious Institutions.^[37]This proclamation made it mandatory for all religions and non–governmental Organizations (NGO’s) to obtain government permits through registration to operate or exist in Eritrea. Failure to comply with this requirement of registration attracts imprisonment of between 1 – 6 months or fines ranging between ER 15, 001 to ER 29,000.^[38]

Drawing from the well-documented hatred the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front (EPLF) has for Jehovah’s Witnesses, some may have wondered why this hatred did not abate after Eritrea won its hard-fought battle for independence? The answer is not far–fetched. After Eritrea gained independence, the EPLF changed its nomenclature to People’s Front for Democracy and Justice (PFDJ), which has ruled Eritrea since 1991. Thus, the inclusion of the terms “democracy” and “justice” to its name upon independence did not with respect, change the guerilla mentality and approach to issues. The ruling PFDJ under President Afwerki with a religious zeal has continued to vigorously implement its 1977 National Democratic Programme, which expressly mandates the “fight” against the “imperialist – created counter-revolutionary faith” – Jehovah’s Witnesses. The result of the implementation of this heinous program was the stripping Jehovah’s Witnesses of their citizenship – thus making them Stateless in their own country, denying them food rations, work, business, and travel permits, denying their children education beyond the 11^th grade, denial of public service

employment and indefinite detention and torture – not for being criminals, but because of their religion and belief.^[39]

It is further submitted, that the State of Eritrea violates its proclamations and laws in persecuting and discriminating against Jehovah’s Witnesses. Article 20 and 37,[40] prescribed 2 years imprisonment, a fine of Nakfa 3000 (about USD 200), or both, for anyone who refused to undertake compulsory military service. Article 8 of the Proclamation of National Service,[41] prescribes 18 months for compulsory military service, made up of 6 months of training in the National Service Training Centre and 12 months of active military service and development tasks in military forces. From 1991 till 4^th December 2020, the government of Eritrea has tortured and arbitrarily detained 54 Jehovah’s Witnesses for refusing to undertake military service and opting for alternative civilian service. None of these men and women have been charged, appeared before any law Court, or convicted for the offense for which they are detained. All of those detained have spent more than the two years in prison prescribed by the National Service Proclamation.^[42]On 4^th December 2020, the government released 28 Jehovah’s Witnesses (26 men and 2 females) from detention. 24 Jehovah’s Witnesses are still in prison.^[43]

Also, it is pertinent to point out that Proclamation 73/1995 contradicts the Eritrean Constitution. While the preamble expressly provides that Eritrea recognizes the right to freedom of belief and conscience and the principle of separation and non – interference between the state and religion, the same proclamation encourages government interference and regulation of religion and faith through

the requirement of registration for religious groups to exist legally in Eritrea in preference for the four preferred religions. To date, no other religious group outside the preferred 4 has been registered.^[44]In 2002, the government ordered the closure of all religions except the 4 preferred religions.^[45]This proclamation also contravenes Article 19 of the Constitution of Eritrea which guarantees freedom of belief and conscience.

 

• THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND NON – DISCRIMINATION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW

The legal protections guaranteeing freedom of religion and non – discrimination based on religion or belief is embedded in several regional and international human rights instruments. They include; the African Charter on Human & People’s Rights 1981,^[46]  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1966;^[47]International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) 1966;^[48] Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) 1984;^[49]Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) 1979^[50];  International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) 1965;^[51]Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) 1989^[52] and the

Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination and Intolerance Based on Religion and Belief 1981^[53]. Interestingly, Eritrea is a State Party to all these instruments which carry with them the burden of a duty–bearer.

In gross disregard to its obligations as a promoter, respecter, enforcer, and guardian of the letter and spirit of the Charter, it has executed the fiercest persecution and discrimination against Jehovah’s Witnesses, because of their religious belief.  The 2015 and 2016 reports of the Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in Eritrea (COIE),^[54]drew attention to the discriminatory and abusive treatment of Jehovah’s Witnesses. In the second report of the Commission presented on 21^st June 2016,^[55] the COIE called on the State of Eritrea to

“Respect freedom of religion and belief …. Put an end to the practice of arbitrary arrest and detention of individuals based on their religious beliefs, in particular followers of specific religious groups, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses…”

 

The Commission condemned the persecution and discrimination of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Eritrea as contrary to “international law and one of the gravest human rights violations”. The Commission added that the persecution and discrimination of Jehovah’s Witnesses based on religion constitutes a “crime against humanity”. Eritrea is listed among the world’s worst violators of religious freedom for its relentless persecution, arrest, detain without trial, assault, and intimidation of its citizens into changing or renouncing their religion or believe. The United States of America in listing Eritrea among the

worst violators of religious freedom describes the actions of Eritrea as “systematic, ongoing and egregious”.^[56]

This research applauds the characterization of the intense persecution and discrimination of Jehovah’s Witnesses “as a crime against humanity”, and urges the international community to impose the strongest sanction possible on the officials of the Government of the State of Eritrea.

 

• HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS OF THE BAN, PERSECUTION, AND DISCRIMINATION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES IN ERITREA

Human rights are called fundamental rights because they arise naturally out of a person’s existence on earth.^[57] Among these rights is the right to freedom of religion and non–discrimination based on religion and belief. While it has been established that this right is a “classic human right under pressure”,^[58] this section of this research shall examine other rights of Jehovah’s Witnesses with an intersection with freedom of religion that has also been violated by the government of Eritrea. Some of these rights include but are not limited to; the right to work, promotion and earning an adequate standard of living, food, establishing a marriage relationship, and education.

 

5.1.Right to Employment and Promotion at Work

The ICESCR provides for the right of everyone to work and to be promoted at the place of work^[59]. Closely related to this right is the right to earn an adequate standard of living through work.^[60]The importance of this right was also emphasized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).^[61] Earning an adequate standard of living naturally arises from being gainfully employed, being recognized for work done, and receiving a promotion (which comes with additional perks). The resources earned from gainful employment are used to fund the clothing and housing needs of the employed. The ICESCR places the promotion and protection of this right on the shoulders of governments.

Jehovah’s Witnesses in Eritrea have been denied this right since 25^th October 1994, when President Afwerki issued an executive order stripping them among other things, the right to employment in the public service. This order mandated the Minister of Interior to demise all Jehovah’s Witnesses already in the public service and prohibits their employment. Amnesty International reported that by 2005, 100 Jehovah’s Witness families has been dismissed from government employment and 36 families evicted from their homes.^[62]  This persecution and discrimination against Jehovah’s Witnesses because of their religion has foisted upon them a state of poverty and social mobility. Depriving them of gainful employment is thus a grave violation of their right.

 

5.2.Right to Adequate Food

The right to adequate food is provided for in the ICESCR^[63] and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,^[64] CEDAW,^[65] and the CRC.^[66] “It is not simply a right to a minimum ration of calories, proteins, and other specific nutrients. It is a right to all nutritional elements that a person needs to live a healthy and active life, and to the means to access them”.^[67] The right to food means that food must be available, accessible, and adequate. The availability of food is drawn from the production of food, cultivation of land, or other ways of getting food. No one must be deprived of this right. The duty to ensure food adequacy rests on the government and the government must protect food sources^[68]and ensure access to adequate food for all its citizens.^[69] Interestingly, the Supreme Court of Nepal, gave a judicial blessing to the duty of government to make adequate food available and accessible to its citizens.^[70]

Sadly, the right to adequate food has been stripped – off Jehovah’s Witnesses in Eritrea. As a fall–out of the Executive Order of 25^th October 1994, Jehovah’s Witnesses are denied the ability to work, earn an income and feed themselves. They are denied food stamps offered to all Eritreans by the government.[71] They are prohibited from owning and registering property[72] (this naturally implies that they are denied land to farm for subsistence). Even when they manage to get the food, they are denied gas and water by the government. This sad reality was aptly captured in the United States Commission for International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) 2017 Annual Report thus:

Since 1994, Jehovah’s Witnesses have been barred from obtaining government-issued identity cards. Eritrean identity cards are required for legal recognition of marriages or land purchases. The State Department has reported that some local authorities have denied water and gas services to Jehovah’s Witnesses”.^[73]

 

Thus, by denying Jehovah’s Witnesses food stamps, refusing them public service employment to earn a living, and preventing them from owning land where they can farm and grow their food, the government of Eritrea implicitly denies them the right to health, adequate nutrition, social security and the right to life. This interrelationship between the right to food and nutrition, health, and the realization of a person’s economic, social and cultural rights was amplified by the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR) when it condemned the government of Nigeria for violating the right to food of the Ogoni people from Bodo community^[74]. Similardecisions were made by the Supreme Court of
India^[75]. This article strongly condemns this wicked and deliberate denial of basic human needs and international law and calls for the stiffest of sanctions against the government of Eritrea.

 

5.3.Right to Marry

 

This right is provided for in the ICESCR,^[76] CERD,^[77] ICCPR,^[78]and the UDHR.^[79] Mindful of the importance of marriage to society, the United Nations (UN) in 1962 passed the Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage, and Registration of Marriages[80]. In addition to providing for the right to marry, this Covenant provides for the importance of consent for the legality of any marriage. Of importance to this research is the provision that “all marriages shall be registered…”^[81] It is worthy of note that all the human rights instruments above, places the duty to promote, protect, assist and register marriages in the hands of the government of each UN Member State. The right to marriage includes the right to choose a spouse of one’s choice, the protection and assistance necessary to establish a family by marriage, the equality and duty of responsibility of spouses during the marriage and at its dissolution.

The implication of denial of registration of marriage was dealt with by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR),^[82] the Court held that “the concept of “private life” is a broad term not susceptible to exhaustive definition. It covers the physical and psychological integrity of a person. It can therefore embrace multiple aspects of the person’s physical and social identity… Beyond a person’s name, his or her private and family life may include other means of personal identification and of linking to a family…. The Court finds no reason why a State’s acknowledgment of the real marital status of a person should not form part of his or her personal and social identity, and indeed psychological integrity protected by Article 8. It, therefore, considers that registration of a marriage, being a recognition of an individual’s legal civil status, which undoubtedly concerns both private and family life, comes within the scope of Article 8 (1)”. The Court further held that a refusal to register a marriage in the public registry would have practical repercussions in daily life.^[83]

 

The State of Eritrea is a party to the above human rights instruments. However, it continues to act in violation of this right and introduce stiff impediments to the realization of this right through its policies. Specifically, all Eritreans must present a national identity card for their marriages to be registered by the government. Jehovah’s Witnesses in Eritrea are disproportionately affected by this policy because they have been stripped of their citizenship and their national identity cards have been revoked. A community reading of the provisions of articles 1, 2, and 3 of the Convention on Consent to Marriage, demonstrates that the requirement of registration of marriage is critical in determining its legality. Thus, for 27 years counting from 1994 when they were stripped of their citizenship and all basic rights, no Jehovah’s Witness has been able to register their

marriage in the national registry of marriages. This is an affront and a violation of their social and cultural rights. By necessary implication, it is also safe to conclude that all children born from any marriage conducted in “secret”, do not also have their births registered in the birth registry. It is submitted, that this discrimination is repugnant to all known democratic principles and provisions of international law.  It is further submitted that the derogation of the rights of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Eritrea, is not necessary for a democratic society.

5.4.Right to Education

 

This section would examine the right to education concerning children. The legal protection of children’s right to education and non – discrimination is provided for in the ACHPR,^[84] African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child,^[85] CRC,^[86] Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women,^[87] Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,^[88]ICESCR,^[89] and UDHR.^[90] This right to education is not limited to only free and compulsory primary education. State Parties are also mandated to make secondary and higher education accessible.^[91] State parties are enjoined to promote vocational education and take steps to make it progressively free.^[92] The availability and accessibility of information on vocational education and guidance to children are also provided

For.^[93] Indeed, every State must guarantee equal access to education, including for disadvantaged groups.^[94]

 

The right to education of children has also received judicial backing. The European Court of Human Rights held that the rights of seven and nine-year-old girls were violated when they were denied school enrolment because their father was not registered as a resident.^[95]

 

Although the State of Eritrea is a duty bearer under international human rights law, it has grossly perpetuated an ongoing attack on the right to education of children of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Children of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Eritrea are denied an education beyond the 11^th grade. This is because “the government’s requirement that high school students complete their final year at the Sawa Training and Education Camp, which includes six months of military training, effectively denies Jehovah’s Witnesses an opportunity to attend their last year of high school and graduate because their faith prohibits them from participating in the military training. Some children of Jehovah’s Witnesses have been expelled from school because they refused to salute the flag or to pay for membership in the officially sanctioned national organization for youth and students”.^[96]

 

It must be made clear, that enacting a policy that effectively targets or disproportionately affects a particular class of people, amounts to discrimination. Through this policy which effectively truncates the education of children of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Eritrea, the government has effectively shut the door of university education on these young children. The negative actions and policies of the government of Eritrea on children of Jehovah’s Witnesses have received knocks and condemnation from the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACERWC)^[97] and other regional and international human rights bodies.

 

It is submitted, that this policy is also a violation of the right of Jehovah’s Witness children in Eritrea to conscientious objection.^[98] The government of Eritrea has no provision for alternative civilian service. One can only imagine the effect this deliberate and targeted government policy would have on the economic, social, and psychological development of these young children, who are denied full access to education because of their faith and that of their parents. This audacious human rights violation of a vulnerable group of Witness children is most reprehensible.

 

• INTERNATIONAL REACTION TO THE PERSECUTION AND DISCRIMINATION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES IN ERITREA

 

The persecution and discrimination against Jehovah’s Witnesses in Eritrea have attracted huge international condemnation. On 30^th June 2015, the Human Rights Committee (HRC) of the United Nations adopted a resolution stating that it “strongly condemns the systematic, widespread and gross human rights violations that have been and are being committed by the Government of Eritrea.”  In its resolution, the HRC also called on the government of Eritrea to take “immediate and concrete steps to implement recommendations” made by the Committee of Inquiry on Human Rights in Eritrea (COIE), including those concerning Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Similarly, on 8^th June 2016, the United Nation’s Human Rights Council published a report based on the findings of the Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in Eritrea (COIE), which the council established to investigate human rights violations in Eritrea. The COIE urged Eritrea to;

“Respect freedom of religion or belief” and to “put an end to the practice of arbitrary arrest and detention of individuals based on their religious beliefs, in particular followers of specific religious groups, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses,  . . . and release immediately and unconditionally all those unlawfully and arbitrarily detained”.

The COIE concluded that Eritrea’s persecution of individuals based on their religion constitutes “a crime against humanity”.^[99]This research notes with concern that beyond the occasional “calling out” and “naming and shaming” of the government of Eritrea by the United Nations (UN), the United States of America, the European Union (EU), the African Union (AU) and other preeminent international human rights groups and scholars, there has been little or no strong deterring factors to make the government of Eritrea reshape its criminal human rights record. Thus President Isaias Afwerki and his government continue to ignore calls for reforms of its egregious human rights policies and test the will of the international community.

• RECOMMENDED FRAMEWORK TO ADDRESS ERITREA’S PERSECUTION OF- JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES

The application of some elements of restorative justice namely; acknowledgment of crime and apology, truth and reconciliation, payment of restitution, and reintegration of offenders, and victims into society are vital elements that can change the tide of persecution and ensure a mutual resolution of the issues.The international community (particularly the European Union because of its close ties to Eritrea) should encourage the government of Eritrea to establish a truth and reconciliation commission. This Commission

should be modeled after the Truth & Reconciliation Commission of the Republic of South Africa.

The objective of this proposed commission should be national reconciliation through the application of restorative justice to wit;

1. Acknowledgment of crime and apology
2. Truth and reconciliation
3. Payment of compensation, and
4. Reintegration of offendersand victims into society

 

1. Acknowledgment of crime and apology: This step involves the meeting of the victim and offender with a mutual desire to remedy past crimes. Acknowledging a past crime involves personal awareness, deep reflection, compunction, and guilt.[100] Petrucci[101] argued that for acknowledgment and apology to be effective, an offender has a blameworthy self and a sympathizing self. The presence of these two elements makesthe offender worth forgiving. An offender recognizes and accepts that he or she has acted unacceptably and needed a repaired social identity. The acceptance of blameworthiness and apology makes it easier for the victim to forgive and resolve the conflict.[102] The resolution of the conflict achieves an improvement of the relationship and restoration of mutual respect.[103]

This research believes in the efficacy of this approach because Jehovah’s Witnesses strongly advocate forgiveness in their preaching work. They believe and advocate the Biblical

principle in Romans 12:17[104] which states: “ Return evil for evil to no one.Take into consideration what is fine from the viewpoint of all men”. They also encourage forgiveness as a means of repairing damaged relationships with others.[105]

 

It is suggested, that acknowledgment, apology, and forgiveness are most effective when the offender(s) and the victim(s) communicate face to face. Thus there should be a face-to-face meeting between officials of the government of Eritrea and Jehovah’s Witnesses victims. This meeting should be set up by a truth and reconciliation commission with the active support of the international community (particularly the European Union). This meeting would create the atmosphere necessary for true reconciliation and reduce recidivism.

 

1. Truth and Reconciliation: Often, the first step to genuine conflict resolution is truth. It is suggested that a truth and reconciliation commission be established by the government of Eritrea. The European Union (as the largest financial supporter of the government of Eritrea) must play an active behind the scene role in ensuring the success of the process. This commission should bring to the table all those who have played a role in the egregious persecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Eritrea, including the Witnesses. The commission should encourage anyone who has information (beyond those documented)on the crimes against humanity perpetrated against Jehovah’s Witnesses to reveal it. The informants should also be assured of their safety.

 

While the application of retributive justice can provide closure for the victims of human rights abuse and promote a sense of vengeance, it does not promote reconciliation.

Reconciliation is better for social cohesion and progress. Mindful of the fact that the  Government of Eritrea is the prime perpetrator of gross human rights violations against Jehovah’s Witnesses in Eritrea, and the need for future peace andstability, restorative justice is a better approach. Also,the government of Eritrea has a vital role to play in the payment of compensation and the reintegration of both the victims and offenders into society. Therefore, any approach which promotes retribution would likely be stonewalled by the government of Eritrea, and the cycle of persecution would continue.

 

 

1. Payment of Compensation: Compensation is money paid to someone because they have been hurt, or because something has been lost or damaged^[106]. One may wonder why victims of gross human rights violations are compensated. The answer lies in the truth that once there is an injury, there must be a remedy. It is not enough to prosecute and jail perpetrators of gross human rights abuse and their enablers. What happens to their victims who faced intense persecution, torture, indefinite imprisonment, and unimaginable deprivations that fly against all known human rights laws and principles? What happens to their victims who need constant medical attention? What becomes of victims who suffer poor health due to deplorable prison conditions and may be unable to find gainful employment? What happens to the children who lost decades of social progress because they were denied the right to education? Indeed, what would life be like for the families of those whose breadwinners died in prison?

 

It is a general principle of international law that once there is an established violation of international law, the duty to pay reparation (compensation is an element of reparation) immediately arises^[107].  While the effects of the persecutions may not be undone, compensation to the victims would provide a cushioning effect to the hardship experienced or loss suffered. Jehovah’s Witnesses in Eritrea have suffered persecution and discrimination since 1993 and should be compensated to promote genuine national reconciliation.

d. Reintegration of offenders and victims into society: is important because of the stigmatization that victims and offenders face in the community. Often victims are blamed for putting themselves in the condition they suffer from, while the offenders are seen as outcasts or outlaws. Reintegration becomes successful when victims and offenders become active and productive members of their society. This reintegration must be supported and encouraged by all and the government must play a lead role in this direction.

Jehovah’s Witnesses in Eritrea need to be reintegrated into Eritrean society. They have been ostracized, persecuted, arrested because of their faith, detained for indefinite periods, stripped of their citizenship and all basic rights provided for by Eritrean and international law. The State of Eritrea is the driver and financier of the persecution and genuine reintegration must be led by the government. This reintegration should include not be limited to the recognition of their right to freedom of religion, immediate release of all Jehovah’s Witnesses in detention, and declaration of pardon to clear any criminal record against Jehovah’s Witnesses and enacting a law that provides for alternative civilian service for conscientious objectors. Also, urgent steps should be taken to restore their citizenship, restoration of service for those dismissed from public and private sector employment, return of their seized properties and travel documents, immediate registration of all marriages entered into during the ban.

However, if the government of Eritrea fails, refuses, or neglects to embrace restorative justice, this research recommends the full deployment of sanctions by the United Nations Security Council, the European Union, and the United States of American. The mode of these sanctions is discussed below.

 

8.0.Sanctions 

The second approach advocated by this research is sanctions against the government and officials of the government of Eritrea. Sanctions are an international reaction to the repulsive actions of a State which amounts to a violation of international order, to compel the affected State to reverse its policies and actions. One of such actions that can trigger international sanctions is State-sponsored human rights violation.

 

It is submitted, that having established that the persecution and discrimination of Jehovah’s Witnesses by the government of Eritrea amounted to “crimes against humanity,” the UN should deploy a combination of economic, diplomatic, military, and travel sanctions against the government of Eritrea and its officials.

 

8.1. Economic Sanctions

Jonathan Masters defined economic sanctions as “the withdrawal of customary trade and financial relations for foreign and security policy

purposes”.^[108] It is often deployed to achieve a predetermined objective namely to compel a nation to comply with international law and normative order. It can take the form of a ban on the banking relationship between the banking sector of the concerned State and the rest of the world, trade restrictions, hike in tariffs of products from or exported by the concerned State, etc.

This research strongly recommends an international ban on the purchase of Eritrean copper, gold, marble, and potash. All international companies involved in the mining of these natural resources should be encouraged or directed by their home governments to pull out of Eritrea. Also, a blanket ban should be placed on the purchase of all agricultural produce ( sorghum, barley, beans, dairy products, lentils, meat, millet, leather, teff and, wheat) from Eritrea. This would shrink the 24 % gross domestic product (GDP) contributed by agriculture to the Eritrean economy^[109]. Similarly, a ban should be imposed on the purchase of Eritrean livestock and its– products. This would greatly impact the $ 0. 157 Billion USD (which amounts to 39% of the total agricultural GDP in 2013) livestock contributed to the Eritrean economy^[110].

 

8.2 Diplomatic Sanctions

 

Diplomatic sanctions are an expression of extreme condemnation or displeasure of a countries policies and actions. It can take the form of reduction (recalling some diplomats) or severance of diplomatic relationships^[111] (recalling all diplomats and even closing the embassies and High Commissions). This research strongly advocates that the imposition of diplomatic sanctions on the government of Eritrea would only be effective when it is built on a resolution of the UN Security Council. It is therefore submitted that such a resolution would pile maximum pressure on the government of Eritrea until it takes urgent and responsible steps to respect, promote and enforce her treaty obligations under international human rights laws.

 

8.3 Military Sanctions

 

The current government of Eritrea developed from a resistant front seeking independence from Ethiopia. However, despite gaining independence in 1993, the government has continued to operate as a police state. One prominent group of its brutal operation are Jehovah’s Witnesses. For any military sanctions against the government of Eritrea to be effective, it should include an arms embargo of small and light weapons, assault rifles, military hardware, and prohibition of export, supply, or delivery of all military items. It should also extend to all forms of military assistance, training, and cooperation.

The UN, the United States of America, the EU, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation of Europe (OSCE) are strongly enjoined to pass joint and individual resolutions imposing a total arms embargo on the government of Eritrea. As a major supporter and financier of the government of Eritrea, the EU must no longer pay lip service to the egregious human rights violations actively perpetrated by the government of Eritrea. It must step up and match her intermittent condemnation with the suspension of all military assistance and cooperation. The EU must live up to its avowed dedication to human rights idles and stop fraternizing with the most active human rights violator currently living.

8.4 Travel Ban

 

The UN Security Council and the EU should pass a resolution banning President Isaias Afwerki, members of his immediate family, the Minister for Interior and members of his family, all current ministers of the government of Eritrea and members of their immediate family, all officials of the ruling People’s Front for Democracy and Justice (PFDJ) and members of their families and the Heads of all State-run enterprises and members of their families, the Head of the Eritrean Police and members of his family and Brigadier General Ghirmay Mehari (Eritrea’s Commissioner of Prisons) and members of his family from traveling outside Eritrea for any purpose. Member States of the UN and the EU should take urgent steps to cancel all visas already issued to the concerned persons and members of their families. This would turn on the heat on the ruling class and either force a positive policy change or bring an end to President Afwerki’s government.

 

9.0 CONCLUSION

It is submitted that the adoption and application of restorative justice and sanction (if restorative justice fails) is a better approach in addressing the challenge of gross human rights violation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Eritrea. Although this research centers around the egregious persecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Eritrea, it is submitted that restorative justice can be very efficacious in handling human rights abuses around the world. Sanctions should only be applied where restorative justice fails.

 

Written by Nekabari Annah, Esq.

 

^[1]Mankind’s Search for God (2006), (Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, New York), p.19.

^[2] Sherman, A.J., Islam and the Black American: Looking Toward the third Resurrection (2005), (Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK)  p.144.

^[3] Sigismund, J., “The Story of Francis David and King John Sigismund: The Establishment of the Transylvanian Unitarian Church” available at https://lightbringers.net/content/story-francis-david-and-king-john-sigismund-establishment-transylvanian-unitarian-church accessed on 11^th May, 2018.

^[4]Article 14 Constitution of Eritrea 1997; Section 15(2) Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As Amended); Section 9(3) Constitution of the Republic of South Africa; Section 20 Constitution of the Republic of Malawi 1994 (As Amended in 2017); Article 11 Constitution of the Republic of South Korea 1948 (As Amended in 1987); Article 12 Constitution of the Republic of Singapore 1963; Article 28 and 29 of the Russia Constitution; Article III, Section 5 Bill of Rights of the Philippine Constitution 1987; Article 8 of the Bangul Charter 1981; Article 9 (2) and 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950; Article 1 and 2 of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion and Belief, 1981; Article 18(2) and 26 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966; Article 5, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; Article 2 (2), International Covenant on Economic, Social & Cultural Rights; Article 30, Convention on the Right of the Child; Article 2 (1) and 3 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Article 1, International Labour Organization Code.

 

^[5] “Eritrea 2015 International Religious Freedom Report by the United State Department” p.1 available at https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/256233.pdf accessed on 22^nd May, 2018.

^[6] Daniel, R.M. and Selan, K., “The Troubled Relationship of State and Religion in Eritrea” (2014) 14 African Human Rights Law Journal 244 – 265.

^[7] Eritrea’s Constitution of 1997, articles 14 and 19.

^[8] Eritrea: Proclamation 73/1995 of 15^th July, 1995, Proclamation to legally standardize and articulate Religious institutions and activities, (15^th  July 1995) available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/48aec42b2.html accessed on 29^th  December, 2021.

[9] Supra n 6.

^[10] Daniel, R.M. and Mirjam, V.R. “Religious Persecution in Eritrea and the Role of the European Union in Tackling the Challenge,” available at :https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299420108_Religious_persecution_in_Eritrea_and_the_role_of_the_European_Union_in_tackling_the_challenge accessed on 10^th August, 2021.

^[11] “EU Announces Support for Poverty Eradication in Eritrea” (11^th December, 2015) available at https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_15_6298 accessed on 10^th August, 2021.

^[12] Amanuel, T., “On the Rights of Persecuted Persons (2017), A thesis submitted to the Faculty of San Francisco State University, In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Philosophy” available at https://scholarworks.calstate.edu/downloads/wd375x97j?locale=en accessed on 10^th August, 2021.

^[13] Menkel-Meadow C., “Restorative Justice: What Is It and Does It Work?” (2007) Annual Review of Law and Social Science 3:10.1–10.27 available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1005485 accessed on 14^th November, 2021.

[14] “Lesson 1: What is Restorative Justice?” available at http://restorativejustice.org/restorative-justice/about-restorative-justice/tutorial-intro-to-restorative-justice/lesson-1-what-is-restorative-justice/#sthash.5bUvep8u.dpbs accessed on 1^st December, 2021.

[15] “The Vienna Declaration on Crime and Justice: Meeting the Challenges of the Twenty-first Century,” 10th United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Vienna, 10-17 April 2000, A/CONF. 184/4/Rev. 3, para. 29.

[16] United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes, “Handbook on Restorative Justice Programmes (2006),” p.2. See also annex ii.

[17] “Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to Redress and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law in General Assembly resolution 60/147 of 16 December 2005” available at https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/remedyandreparation.aspx accessed on 29 December, 2021.

[18] Supra n. 14 Lesson 4.

[19]Maepa T., “The Truth and Reconciliation Commission as a Model of Restorative Justice” p.1-2 available at https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/111CHAP6.PDF accessed on 1^st December, 2021.

[20]Some prominent examples of Truth and Reconciliation Commissions are; the United States Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians 1980, which was set up in to investigate the relocation and internment of Japanese Americans and Japanese nationals during World War II; Argentina’s 1983 National Commission on the Disappeared; South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission established in 1995 to address the human rights violation under Apartheid; Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada 2008, established to investigate human rights abuses in the Canadian Indian residential school system; Brazil’s National Truth Commission 2011 etc.

[21] Richard, E.L. Criminal Restitution: A Survey Of Its Past History And An Analysis Of Its Present Usefulness (1970),5 University of Richmond Law Review 71 available at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview/vol5/iss1/6 accessed on 3^rd December, 2021.

[22] Supra n. 14 Lesson 3: Programs, “Restitution” accessed on 3^rd December, 2021.

[23] Supra n. 19, p. 11.

[24] Capstick L., “The 5 R’s of Restorative Justice (2018)” available at https://conflictcenter.org/the-5-rs-of-restorative-justice/ accessed on 3^rd December, 2021.

^[25] Eritrea’s Constitution of 1997, Article 19(1)(2)(4)(5).

^[26]  Ibid Article 10(1).

^[27] Ibid Article 14(1).

^[28] Supra n. 8.

^[29] African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights 1981; African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child 1990; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1966; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) 1966; Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) 1984; Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) 1979;  International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) 1965; Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) 1989 and the Declaration on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination and Intolerance on the Basis of Religion and Belief 1981.

[30] Daniel, R.M & Selan K., Op. Cit. p.20.

[31] Ibid. p.21.

^[32] Article 7D, National Democratic Programme of the Eritrea People’s Liberation Front.

^[33] Proclamation 11 / 1991, article 20 and Proclamation 82 / 1995, article 37.

[34] “Imprisoned for Their Faith” available at https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/by-region/eritrea/jehovahs-witnesses-in-prison/ accessed on 23^rd November, 2021.

[35] Eritrea: “You Have no Right to Ask – Government Resists Scrutiny on Human Rights, Amnesty International” May, 2004 available at https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/afr640032004en.pdf accessed on 23^rd November, 2021.

^[36] Eritrea Ministry of the Interior, “Jehovah’s Witnesses have lost citizenship rights” (4^th March, 1995) available at http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/33/003.html accessed on 11^th August, 2021.

^[37] Supra n. 8.

^[38] United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Report, Issue Update: The Global Persecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses (November, 2020). p. 3 and 4 available at https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/2020%20Issue%20Update%20-%20Jehovahs%20Witnesses.pdf accessed on 29th December, 2021.

^[39] Human Rights Watch Submission to the Universal Periodic Review of Eritrea (January, 2019), 32^nd Session available at hrw.org/news/2018/09/12submission-universal-periodic-review-eritrea accessed on 31^st July, 2021.

[40] Supra n. 33.

[41] Supra n. 8.

^[42] “Eritrea: A Quarter Century Behind Bars in Eritrea” Jehovah’s Witnesses 17^th (September 2019) available at https://www.jw.org/en/news/jw/region/eritrea/A-Quarter-Century-Behind-Bars-in-Eritrea/ accessed on 15^th August, 2021.

^[43] “Eritrea Releases 28 Jehovah’s Witnesses from Prison” Jehovah’s Witnesses 4^th (December 2020) available at https://www.jw.org/en/news/jw/region/eritrea/Eritrea-Releases-28-Jehovahs-Witnesses-From-Prison/ accessed on 15^th August, 2021.

^[44]Home Office Country Policy and Information Note, Eritrea : Religious Groups, Version 3.0 (February, 2018), p. 7 available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/eritrea-country-policy-and-information-notes accessed on 29th December, 2021.

^[45] Daniel, R.M. and Selan, K. The Troubled Relationship of State and Religion in Eritrea (2014) 14 African Human Rights Law Journal 244 & 245.

^[46] African Charter on Human & People’s Rights, articles  2 & 18.

^[47] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), article 18 (1 – 3).

^[48] International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) 1966, article 2 (2).

^[49] Inferred from articles 1 and 16.

^[50] Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) 1979, articles 2 & 3.

^[51] International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) 1965, article 5 (d) (vii).

^[52] Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) 1989, article 2 & 5.

^[53] Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination and Intolerance Based on Religion and Belief 1981, articles 1, 2, 4 & 6.

^[54] A United Nations mandated group, created by the United Nations Human Rights Council by Resolution 26/24 of 27^th June, 2014.

^[55]“Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in Eritrea – A/HRC/32/47” available at https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/CoIEritrea/Pages/2016ReportCoIEritrea.aspx accessed on 24th July, 2021.

^[56] “State Department names the World’s worst violators of Religious Freedom” United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (4^th January 2018) available at https://www.uscirf.gov/news-room/releases-statements/state-department-names-worlds-worst-violators-religious-freedom accessed on 29th December, 2021.

^[57]Donnelly J., “Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice” (3rd ed., Cornell University Press 2013) p 7–8.

^[58]Bielefeldt H., “Misconception of Freedom of Religion or Belief” (2013), Human Rights Quarterly, 35 (1), p. 33 available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/23352251 accessed on 31^st July, 2021.

^[59] International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) 1966, article 6 & 7 (c).

^[60] International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) 1966, article 7 (ii) & 11.

^[61] Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1945, article 25.

^[62] Amnesty International Report, Eritrea: Religious Persecution AI Index: AFR 64 / 013 / (2005) p. 7.

^[63] International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) 1966, article 1 (1 & 2).

^[64] Supra n. 61.

^[65] Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) 1979, article 12 (2).

^[66] Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) 1989, article 24 (2) (e).

^[67] Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, The Right to Adequate Food, Fact Sheet No. 34. p.6 available at https://www.refworld.org/docid/4ca460b02.html accessed on 29th December, 2021.

^[68]The Social and Economic Rights Action Centre (SERAC) and the Centre for Economic and Social Rights (CESR) v Nigeria. Communication no. 155/96, Decision of the 30th ordinary session of the African Commission of Human and Peoples’ Rights, Banjul, 13–27 October 2001, para 68. See also Resolution 431 on the Right to Food and Nutrition in Africa ACHPR/Res. 431(LXV) November 10^th, 2019.

^[69] Ibid.

^[70] Decision No. 8540 NKP Part: 53, Year: 2065 BS Month: Baisakh Volume 1, Writ No. 014, Supreme Court of Nepal.

[71] 2019 Report on International Religious Freedom: Eritrea (2019) available at https://www.state.gov/reports/2019-report-on-international-religious-freedom/eritrea/ accessed on 23^rd November, 2021.

[72] Amnesty International, Eritrea: Religious Persecution (December 2005) p. 11 available at https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/afr640132005en.pdf accessed on 29th December, 2021.

^[73] United States Commission for International Religious Freedom 2017 Annual Report: Eritrea, (26 April 2017) available at https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/2017%20USCIRFAnnual_Eritrea.pdf accessed on 5^th June, 2018.

^[74]SERAC and CESR v. Nigeria, (n. 49) para 64. See also the Decision in African Commission on Human And Peoples’ Rights v. Republic of Kenya, Application No. 006/2012, Judgment, African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 2017,  p. 201.

^[75]C.E.S.C. Limited & Ors. v. Subhash Chandra Bose & 34 Ors. AIR1992SC573, Supreme Court of India; Shantistar Builders v. Narayan KhimalalTotame, (1990) 1 SCC 520, Supreme Court of India.

^[76] International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) 1966, article 10 (1).

^[77] International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) 1965, article 5 (d) (iv).

^[78] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1976, article 23 (4).

^[79] Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1945, article 16.

[80]Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage and Registration of Marriages. It was opened for signatures and ratification by General Assembly resolution 1763 A (XVII) of 7 November 1962
Entry into force: 9 December 1964, in accordance with article 6. Available at https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/minimumageformarriage.aspx accessed on 23^rd November 2021.

^[81]Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage, and Registration of Marriages 1962, article 3.

^[82]Dadouch v. Malta, Application No. 38816/07. Paragraphs 47 and 48.  (20^th July, 2010) available at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-99883%22]} accessed on 18^th August, 2021.

 

^[83] Ibid para. 50.

^[84] Protocol of the ACHPR on the Rights of Women in Africa, article 17, 12.

^[85] African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child 1990, article 11.

^[86] Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989, articles 28, 29 and 2.

^[87] Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women 1979, article 10; See also International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1966, article 24.

^[88] Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2006, article 24.

^[89] International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) 1967, articles 13 and 14.

^[90] Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1945, article 26.

^[91] International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) 1967, article 13 (2) (b) – (c)  and Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989, article 28 (1).

^[92] International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) 1967, article 13 (2) (b); Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) 1989, article 28 (1) (b).

^[93] Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989, article 28 (1) (d)

^[94]Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 13: The Right to Education, para. 26; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) 1967, articles 10 (3) and 13 (2) (c ).

^[95]ECtHR, Timishev v Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, ECHR 2005-XII, Judgment of 13 December 2005, paras. 63–67.

^[96] United States Commission for International Religious Freedom 2017 Annual Report: Eritrea, 26 April 2017; available at https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/2017%20USCIRFAnnual_Eritrea.pdf accessed on 5^th June, 2018.

^[97]“Eritrea: Imprisoned for their Faith” available at https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/by-region/eritrea/jehovahs-witnesses-in-prison/ accessed on 31^st August, 2021.

^[98]International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1966, article 18 and Human Rights Committee General Comments No. 22, paragraph 11.

^[99] Human Rights Council, Report of the commission of inquiry on human rights in Eritrea, A/HRC/32/47, 9 May 2016, p. 6, par. 29, and p. 13, para. 74.

[100]Shapland J., “Forgiveness and Restorative Justice: Is It Necessary? Is It Helpful?” (2016) 5(1) Oxford Journal of Law and Religion, p. 97.

[101]Petrucci C.J. , Apology in the Criminal Justice Setting: Evidence for Including Apology as an Additional Component in the Legal System (2002), Behav. Sci. Law 20. p.341 available at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bsl.495 accessed on 29th December, 2021.

[102]Ibid. p. 342.

[103] Ibid. p. 342.

[104] The rendering is according to the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. Published by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

[105]“Guidance For Peaceful Relationships” available at https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/awake-no1-2021-mar-apr/guidance-for-peaceful-relationships/ accessed 29^th December, 2021.

^[106] Cambridge Dictionary, “Compensation” available at https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/compensation accessed on 13th November, 2021.

^[107] Permanent Court of International Justice, Factory at Chorzow (Claim for Indemnity) case, (Germany v. Poland), (Merits), PCIJ (ser. A) No. 17, 1928, p. 29. See also Article 1 of the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts adopted by the International Law Commission in 2001: “Every internationally wrongful act of a State entails the international responsibility of that State.” UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.602/Rev.1, 26 July 2001 (hereinafter “ILC Articles on State Responsibility”).

^[108] Jonathan M., What are Economic Sanctions? (12^th August 2019) available at https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-are-economic-sanctions accessed on 23rd November, 2021.

^[109] Bernadette M., “Report of the International Fund for Agricultural Development on Eritrea” available at https://www.ifad.org/en/web/operations/w/country/eritrea#anchor-experts accessed on 24^th November, 2021.

^[110] African Union IGAD Centre for Pastoral Areas & Livestock Development (ICPALD): Contribution of Livestock to the Eritrean Economy (December, 2015) p.6 available at https://www.au-ibar.org/sites/default/files/2020-11/20160610_final_report_contribution_livestock_eritrea_economy_en.pdf accessed on 31^st August, 2021.

^[111] United Nations Charter 1945, article 41.