Category : Sélection du Personnel et Enquêtes Préalables (Paragraphes 45-49 du Code)

BROOK HOUSE IMMIGRATION CENTRE SCANDAL

Background

The Brook House Immigration Centre is a privately managed detention centre in London which houses foreign nationals whose asylum applications have been rejected or those who have served prison sentences. It has a capacity of more than 500 men and has the same security as a category B prison. Category B prisons have the second highest level of security (after category A) and house inmates that do not pose an immediate risk to the public but may still require a higher level of security. At Brooke House, both inmates whose asylum claims have been rejected and those with prison sentences are detained together. Though the Centre was initially designed to hold detainees for less than 72 hours, they end up spending at least three months there on an average.

Brook House was initially managed by the company G4S, ever since it opened up in 2009 under a Home Office contract. Between 2022-2018, G4S reportedly made a gross profit of 12.3 million Euros from running the Centre.

In 2010, a report published by the then Chief Inspector of Prisons Anne Owers stated that Brook House was “one of the least safe immigration detention facilities that had been inspected”. There was a rampant problem of violence, bullying and drugs at the Centre.  In 2009, a large number of the staff had resigned following a fire started by detainees. Staff reported feeling unsupported by their managers and often found it difficult to control the behaviour of detainees. This consequently resulted in them utilising higher use of force, separation and isolation methods, and restrictions to control detainees and curb their violent behaviour.

Things came to a head in 2017, when a BBC Panorama Documentary revealed the shocking conditions at Brook House, where detainees were reportedly harshly abused both verbally and physically. BBC obtained secretly filmed footage of the interactions at the Centre with the help of whistle-blower Callum Tulley, who had been working at the Centre since he was 18 years old.

The Incident

The documentary revealed a shocking culture of abuse and silence that existed within Brook House. Accounts of abuse at the Centre include G4S staff bullying and humiliating detainees, and addressing them in degrading language. Incidents include staff taunting a naked detainee, staff trying to “scare/freak out” another detainee who was under suicide watch, and using abusive and depredatory language at the detainees or while referring to them and excusing it as ‘banter’. The Brook House Inquiry report published on 2023 found at least 19 instances of mistreatment at the Centre, which are contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Allegedly, though only a minority of the staff were involved in these patterns of abuse from 2015-2017, the rest of the staff turned a blind eye. There was a culture of silence. Any staff member who showed empathy for the detainees were mocked for it. There was also rising concerns of widespread drug use, bullying and mental health.  Incidents of self-harm or threat of self-harm were reportedly very high.

Reportedly, there was a persistent staff shortage problem at the Centre which resulted in heavy workloads for the staff. This meant officers were often overworked, irritable, tired, desensitised and prone to taking out their frustrations on detainees. Callum states how often it was just two officers responsible for a single wing which houses more than 100 detainees. In some cases, officers were injured after being attacked by detainees and had to be taken to the hospital.

Legal Aspects

Court cases

Though no prosecutions were brought about after the police investigation, two former detainees were successful in their attempt to have a full independent investigation. A public inquiry of the conditions at the Centre was ordered. The first phase of public hearing began on 2021. On September 2023 The Brook House Inquiry Report was published with 33 recommendations. The Inquiry Chair has urged the Home Office to respond to the report within six months.

The International Code of Conduct

The International Code of Conduct requires that Personnel of Member and Affiliate companies take all reasonable steps to avoid the use of force, and if force is used, it should be proportionate to the threat and appropriate to the situation. (Rules on the Use of Force : paragraph 29, Use of Force : paragraph 30-32).

Resources on Use of Force

The Code states that Member and Affiliate Companies will only, and require their personnel to treat all detained persons humanely and consistent with their status and protections under applicable human rights law and international humanitarian law, including prohibitions on cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment (paragraph 33).

Resources on Detention

The Code instructs Member and Affiliate companies to provide a safe and healthy working environment and to adopt policies that support this. This includes policies that address psychological health, deter work-place violence, alcohol and drug abuse and other improper behaviour. Companies must also ensure that reasonable precautions are taken to protect relevant staff in high-risk or life-threatening operations (paragraph 64).

The Code requires stringent selection and vetting of personnel, assessment of performance and duties (paragraphs 45 to 49), and training of personnel of the Code and relevant international law, including human rights and international criminal law (paragraph 55). Meeting the requirements of the Code of Conduct, can help private security companies and their clients ensure that private security personnel are qualified, trained, supported, informed, and responsible.

Resources on working conditions

Impact

A series of investigations was launched following the documentary’s release. Inquiry into the abuse at the detention centre began on 2021. G4S is no longer responsible for the Centre. In 2020, the company Serco took over the Centre. Ten personnel of G4S were dismissed or had to resign due to this controversy.

G4S has also removed itself from the management of another immigration Centre called Tinsley House. By August 2019, it stopped operating accommodation centres for asylum seekers in the Midlands, north-east England and Norther Ireland after it was overlooked in the tendering process.

In 2021 BBC interviewed some of the detainees (current and former) at the Centre again. This time there was no allegations of violence but instead the concern was more on how Covid was handled by the Centre.

Discussion

What reasons could have sustained this culture of abuse at Brook House? If there was sufficient staff to handle the detainees, with reasonable working hours and conditions, would it have made a difference?

The grievance redressal system for the staff at the Centre was clearly lacking. How different would the outcome have been if the managers had addressed staff concern on time?

Related incidents

Sources

 

 

This case was prepared by Shilpa Suresh, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies. 

BIRMINGHAM PRISON

Background

The Birmingham Prison has a history of drug use by prisoners within the facility. Particularly, the prison had a problem with “new psychoactive substances” (NPSs), including “mamba” and “spice.” In 2015, the Prison and Probation Ombudsman (“PPO”) published a “learning lessons bulletin” regarding NPSs. The bulletin acknowledged several deaths of prisoners in which the prison was allegedly aware NPS use was a factor in the death, while discussing various patterns of behaviour and risks associated with NPS use.

Further, a report examined 19 deaths in the prison between April 2012 and September 2014 where the prisoner was strongly suspected to have used NPS drugs. By 2016, the number of similar prisoner deaths was at least 58.

Previously, the United Kingdom government has needed to interfere with prior contracts with G4S. In 2016, the government needed to step in at the end of G4S’s contract to run Medway Secure Training Centre after undercover reporters filmed staff allegedly mistreating children. Further, G4S lost its contract in 2015 to run Rainsbrook STC after prison inspectors graded the prison as “inadequate” and reporting that staff had allegedly behaved “extremely inappropriately” with young people.

The Incident

HMP

In 2018, the United Kingdom Ministry of Justice took immediate control of Birmingham Prison from G4S following an inspection revealing that prisoners allegedly used alcohol and drugs, engaged in violence, and lived in poor conditions surrounded by cockroaches, blood, and vomit. The chief inspector of prisons, Peter Clarke, alleged that there had been “dramatic deterioration” of the prison since the last inspection in 2017.

 

The report further revealed that staff were fearful, experiencing bullying and occasional attacks. Appalled at the conditions of the prison, Clarke stated “There had clearly been an abject failure of contract management and delivery…”

Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) then decided to run the prison for six months before deciding whether they could grant control back to G4S. However, after the six month period, the HM Prison and Probation decided to run the prison permanently.

Legal Aspects

Court cases

On October 11, 2019, Angela Carr, the mother of a prisoner, Andrew, who died at Birmingham Prison from use of cannabinoid (an NPS), brought a lawsuit against G4S in the High Court of Justice. Andrew Carr had died during the period that G4S was in charge of running the prison.  The lawsuit claimed that G4S breached two duties arising from the right to life under the Human Rights Act.

Ms. Carr alleged that an officer saw Andrew on the ground, laying on his side. Instead of calling a Code Blue, the officer allegedly continued to check on the rest of the prisoners. Allegedly, five minutes later, after noticing that Andrew was in the same position, the officer went to get assistance to open the door. Almost 20 minutes after the officer first noticed Andrew on the floor, a nurse observed that Andrew´s lips were purple, and found no signs of life.

Interviews of employees involved in the incident allegedly showed that they were aware (in addition to a general awareness among prison staff) of the method of transport of drugs that Andrew used to obtain the drugs, utilising the prison sewage pipe system. The coroner involved in Andrew´s death had expressed concerns that it was known for approximately five years that drugs were passed through the sewage system, but no action had been taken to address this before Andrew´s death.

In March 2020, G4S sought an order striking the claim and granting summary judgement to end the litigation. Under the United Kingdom’s legal framework, a court may strike out a claim if there are no reasonable grounds for bringing that claim. Further, a court may grant summary judgement if the claim has no reasonable prospects of success, and if there are no other compelling reasons why it should be disposed of at trial.

In determining the motion, the court concluded that there was a general and operational duty at issue. A general duty arises where a State has assumed responsibility for an individual by imprisoning him, in particular, the State assumes responsibility for his safety and welfare. The operational duty arises where there is an allegation that authorities have violated their positive general duty to protect the right to life; it must be established that the authorities knew or ought to have known at that time of the existence of a real and immediate risk to life of an identified individual, and that they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which might have been expected to avoid that risk.

Given the circumstances, including the alleged awareness of the system of transport of drugs, the court determined that there were reasonable prospects of success and reasonable grounds for bringing the claims that G4S breached the above-described duties. The judge accepted Ms. Carr’s argument that the responsibilities for complying with the general duty would be shared between the state, and the contractor, G4S. Thus, G4S’S applications for strike out and summary judgement were dismissed.

The International Code of Conduct

The International Code of Conduct prescribes that its Member and Affiliate Companies will only guard, transport, or question detainees if: (a) the Company has been specifically contracted to do so by a state; and (b) its Personnel are trained in the applicable national and international law. Furthermore, security personnel have to treat all detained persons humanely and consistent with their status and protections under applicable human rights law or international humanitarian law, including in particular prohibitions on torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. (paragraph 33)

The Code requires stringent selection and vetting of personnel, assessment of performance and duties (paragraphs 45-49), and training of personnel of the Code and relevant international law, including human rights and international criminal law (paragraph 55). Meeting the requirements of the Code of Conduct, can help private security companies and their clients ensure that private security personnel are qualified, trained, supported, informed, and responsible.

Impact

HMPSS agreed to a settlement with G4S of £9.9 million to cover the cost of the “step-in” action. In order to improve standards at the prison, the prison introduced a search team to detect and deter the bringing of contraband into the prison, additional prison officers, and additional training for staff. This fine contributed to a decrease in revenues of G4S Care & Justice Services UK from £38m in 2017 to £21m in 2018.

Discussion

What are some special recruiting, training, and vetting considerations in providing security for a prison environment?

How can private security personnel safety influence the quality of their services?

Related incidents

Sources

 

 

Case prepared by Madison Zeeman

ESCOBAL MINE: VIOLENT REPRESSION OF INDIGENOUS PROTESTS

Background

The Escobal Mine, operated by Tahoe Resources Inc. at the time of the incident, was a Canadian-owned mine in San Rafael las Flores, Guatemala. The Escobal mine produces concentrates of silver, gold, lead, and zinc. The population of the Department of Santa Rosa, where San Rafael las Flores is located, is mostly mestizo with about 5% of the population identifying as indigenous Xinka.

According to the Centro de Acción Legal-Ambiental y Social de Guatemala, the San Rafael las Flores community has rejected the Escobal Mine Project for several reasons:  These reasons include the alleged threat of the project to the area’s hydrological resources, risk of other environmental impacts, and the lack of a community consultation about the mine. Allegedly, prior to the incident, over 500 members of the local communities gathered to protest at the mine, demanding that the company workers leave the area.

The Incident

On April 27, 2013, members of the community, including the Plaintiffs-Appellants in the case, participated in a protest outside the gates of the mine. According to information discovered during the course of the litigation, Tahoe’s security manager, Alberto Rotondo Dall´Orso, was concerned that the protests would interfere with the operation of the mine. This belief arose out of prior conflicts resulting from protests of the mine; the security and Tahoe Resources personnel were allegedly aware of the strong community opposition to the mine project.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants alleged that security guards then opened the mine gates and “opened fire on the protestors using weapons that included shotguns, pepper spray, buckshot and rubber bullets.” Several protestors were injured.

Finally, the Plaintiffs-Appellants alleged that the shooting was planned, ordered, and directed by Rotondo and that Tahoe “expressly or implicitly authorised the use of excessive force by Rotondo and other security personnel, or was negligent in failing to prevent Rotondo and other security personnel from using excessive force.”

Legal Aspects

Court cases: Garcia v. Tahoe Resources Inc., 2017 BCCA 39.

Initially, the community litigants (hereinafter, “Plaintiff-Appellants”), filed a civil claim against Tahoe Resources in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The Appellants alleged three causes of action against Tahoe Resources: (1) direct liability for battery, (2) vicarious liability for battery, and (3) negligence. Essentially, the Plaintiff-Appellants claimed that Tahoe expressly or implicitly authorised the unlawful conduct of Rotondo and the security personnel, and as the parent company of Minera San Rafael, Tahoe Resources was vicariously liable for the battery. Finally, the Plaintiff-Appellants alleged that Tahoe had a duty of care towards the Plaintiffs-Appellants because it controlled operations of the mine, and knew about the opposition of the mine. According to the Plaintiff-Appellants, Tahoe Resources breached this duty of care by failing to conduct background checks, failing to establish and enforce clear rules of engagement, and failing to adhere to and monitor adherence to Corporate Social Responsibility policies.

In August 2014, Tahoe Resources filed a notice of application to move the proceedings to Guatemala, which the judge granted. The judge found that Guatemala was “clearly the more appropriate forum for determination of the matters in dispute.” This finding was based on the fact that the alleged battery and breaches of duty occurred in Guatemala, and that corruption within the Guatemalan criminal justice system was not relevant to the civil claims for injury.

The Plaintiff-Appellants appealed this decision, and the appellate judge agreed in 2017 that Guatemala was not the appropriate forum for the dispute. The Canadian case Club Resorts Ltd v Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17 states that context-specific factors and concerns may be considered by the court in deciding whether to apply forum non conveniens. In overturning the initial non conveniens decision, the appellate judge considered the difference in available discovery procedures in Guatemala and British Columbia, the difference in limitation period for parties to commence a civil suit, and the risk of unfairness in the Guatemalan Justice System. As these factors, according to the judge, unfairly disadvantaged the Appellants, the lawsuit was moved to British Columbia.

The International Code of Conduct

The International Code of Conduct requires that Personnel of Member and Affiliate companies take all reasonable steps to avoid the use of force, and if force is used, it should be proportionate to the threat and appropriate to the situation. (Rules for the Use of Force: paragraph 29, Use of Force: paragraph 30-32).

Resources on Use of Force

The Code requires stringent selection and vetting of personnel, assessment of performance and duties (paragraphs 45 to 49), and training of personnel of the Code and relevant international law, including human rights and international criminal law (paragraph 55). Meeting the requirements of the Code of Conduct, can help private security companies and their clients ensure that private security personnel are qualified, trained, supported, informed, and responsible.

Meeting the requirements of the Code of Conduct can help private security companies and their clients ensure that private security personnel are qualified, trained, supported, informed, and responsible.

Impact

Suspension of licence

In 2017, the Guatemalan Supreme Court of Justice temporarily suspended Tahoe Resources’ mining licences, until a suit against the Ministry of Energy and Mines is resolved for discrimination and lack of prior consultation with the indigenous Xinka communities. The suspended licences included the licence to operate in the Escobal Mine.

Tahoe Licences Suspended for Lack of Consultation with Indigenous Communities, While Company Denies Indigenous Presence and Opposition – NISGUA

As of September 2018, the licence was still suspended. Tahoe’s Escobal mine license to remain suspended — Guatemalan court – Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

As of April 2022, Pan American Silver still had no concrete date for the reopening of the mine. Mining firms cautious as Guatemala seeks to lift suspensions – BNamericas

SettlementsPan American Silver, who had acquired Tahoe Resources earlier in 2019, settled with the Plaintiffs-Appellants to end the litigation in British Columbia in July 2019. The terms of the settlement are confidential.

Stock Prices

Tahoe Resources’ stock, prior to the incident, was priced at $27 a share, but the value fell after details of the incident at Escobal Mine emerged. The mine was eventually suspended by a Guatemalan Court, and Tahoe was sold to Pan American Silver for $5 a share.

After Pan American Silver purchased Tahoe Resources, it initiated a plan to hire more women security guards. (see p. 96, 2021 SUSTAINABILITY REPORT | Pan American Silver)

Public relations

After the conclusion of the case in 2019, Pan American Silver, a company that acquired Tahoe Resources earlier that year, released a public statement acknowledging that the 2013 shooting infringed the human rights of the protests. In the statement, Pan American Silver, on behalf of Tahoe, apologised to the “victims and the community.”

Discussion

After Pan American Silver purchased Tahoe Resources, it initiated a plan to hire more women security guards. How might an increased female security personnel presence improve community relations?

Before the incident, it was alleged that Tahoe’s security manager was concerned that the protests would interfere with the operation of the mine. How could personnel training and procedures address both the protests and the operation of the mine?

Related incidents

Sources

 

 

Case prepared by Madison Zeeman

HOMICIDE PAR DES GARDES DE SUPERMARCHÉ

Contexte

En 1888, le Brésil a été le dernier pays de l’hémisphère occidental à abolir l’esclavage. À l’époque de l’abolition, la population brésilienne était majoritairement noire ou métisse jusqu’aux années 1930, lorsqu’un afflux d’immigrants européens est arrivé au Brésil à la recherche de main-d’œuvre. À cette époque, des méthodes pseudo-scientifiques anti-noires ont été utilisées pour « prouver » scientifiquement la supériorité biologique des Blancs. Ces théories (manifestement fausses) ont été largement réfutées au milieu du 20e siècle, mais elles ont continué à être utilisées pour propager le racisme dans les politiques sociales et politiques.

Aujourd’hui, ces politiques ouvertement racistes ont disparu et la plupart des Brésiliens reconnaissent que les préjugés raciaux et la discrimination persistent au Brésil. Toutefois, l’analyse statistique révèle un traitement disparate des Brésiliens non blancs dans de nombreux domaines de la société. Par exemple, en moyenne, les Brésiliens non blancs gagnent la moitié du revenu de la population blanche du Brésil, et les Brésiliens noirs sont presque trois fois plus susceptibles d’être victimes d’un homicide que les autres.

Alors que les Noirs et les métis représentent environ 57 % de la population brésilienne, ils constituent 74 % des victimes de violences mortelles et 79 % des personnes tuées par la police. Dans les entreprises brésiliennes, les Brésiliens noirs occupent moins de 5 % des sièges dans les conseils d’administration. Enfin, la discrimination persiste sous la forme d’insultes, d’agressions et d’injures raciales.

L’Incident

Le 19 novembre 2020, à Porto Alegre, au Brésil, une employée d’un supermarché Carrefour a appelé la sécurité après qu’un homme ait prétendument menacé de l’attaquer. Les images de l’incident semblent montrer que l’homme, João Alberto Silveira Freitas, a été frappé au visage, puis agenouillé, par deux agents de sécurité blancs, ce qui a entraîné sa mort. Selon l’institut médico-légal de l’État, la cause du décès est l’asphyxie. L’enquête préliminaire aurait indiqué que Freitas a été battu pendant plus de cinq minutes avant de mourir.

Des passants ont filmé l’incident, qui a été largement diffusé sur les médias sociaux. Un autre employé semblait être aux côtés des agents de sécurité pour filmer l’incident.

Aspects Juridiques

Devoir de Surveillance

Selon l’enquêtrice Vanessa Pitrez, Adriana Alves Dutra, superviseur de Carrefour, avait autorité sur les gardiens, ce qui impliquait l’obligation de les empêcher de frapper Freitas. Ainsi, selon Mme Pitrez, cette autorité aurait pu permettre à Mme Dutra d’être condamnée pour homicide en tant que co-conspiratrice.

Le Code of Conduite International

Le Code de Conduite International exige que le personnel des sociétés membres et affiliées prenne toutes les mesures raisonnables pour éviter le recours à la force, et si la force est utilisée, elle doit être proportionnée à la menace et appropriée à la situation. (Règles sur le Recours à la Force : paragraphe 29, Recours à la Force : paragraphe 30-32)

Ressources sur le Recours à la Force (en anglais)

Lorsqu’elles sont appréhendées, toutes les personnes appréhendées doivent être traitées avec humanité et conformément à leur statut et aux protections prévues par le droit des droits de l’homme ou le droit humanitaire international applicables, y compris en particulier l’interdiction de la torture ou d’autres peines ou traitements cruels, inhumains ou dégradants (paragraphe 34).

Ressources sur l’Appréhension des Personnes (en anglais)

En outre, le Code de conduite international exige une sélection et un contrôle rigoureux du personnel, une évaluation des performances et des tâches (paragraphes 45 à 49), ainsi qu’une formation du personnel au Code et au droit international pertinent, y compris les droits de l’homme et le droit pénal international (paragraphe 55). Le respect des exigences du code de conduite peut aider les entreprises de sécurité privée et leurs clients à s’assurer que le personnel de sécurité privée est qualifié, formé, soutenu, informé et responsable.

Impact

Le lendemain de la mort de M. Freitas, Carrefour SA a déclaré qu’elle « regrettait profondément ce qu’elle a qualifié de mort brutale » et a indiqué qu’elle avait pris des mesures pour que les responsables soient légalement punis. Carrefour a déclaré qu’il mettrait fin au contrat avec la société de sécurité, qu’il licencierait l’employé responsable du magasin au moment de l’incident et qu’il fermerait le magasin en signe de respect.

Par ailleurs, le président-directeur général de Carrefour, Alexandre Bompard, s’est exprimé sur Twitter et a déclaré que des mesures internes avaient été mises en œuvre par Carrefour au Brésil. M. Bompard a demandé que soit revue la formation des employés et des sous-traitants en matière de sécurité, de diversité et de tolérance.

Carrefour Supermarket a créé un fonds de 5 millions de dollars pour lutter contre le racisme au Brésil et a déclaré que les Brésiliens noirs représenteraient au moins 50 % des nouvelles embauches annuelles.

Poursuites et Règlements

Peu après l’incident, l’État brésilien a intenté une action en justice contre Carrefour pour obtenir 38 millions de dollars de dommages et intérêts pour la mort de M. Freitas. La plainte demandait également au tribunal de fermer le magasin, « dans le but de réduire le risque d’actes hostiles qui pourraient se produire lors de manifestations ». Enfin, la plainte exigeait la création d’un plan de lutte contre le racisme et les traitements discriminatoires de la part du détaillant à Porto Alegre.

En juin 2021, Carrefour a conclu un accord avec le bureau du procureur fédéral et d’autres parties pour payer 115 R$ (22 millions de dollars américains). Ce règlement a mis fin à toutes les poursuites relatives à la mise en œuvre et à l’exécution de mesures de lutte contre le racisme et la diversité raciale.

Prix des Actions

À la suite du décès de Freitas, Carrefour Brasil a été retiré de l’indice des entreprises ayant les meilleures politiques environnementales, sociales et de gouvernance géré par S&P Dow Jones et B3. Quatre jours seulement après la mort de Freitas, le cours de l’action de Carrefour Brasil a chuté de 6 % dans les échanges de l’après-midi.

Enquête Criminelle

Finalement, les deux hommes qui auraient battu Freitas ont été arrêtés et ont fait l’objet d’une enquête pour homicide, en raison de l’asphyxie de la victime et de son incapacité à se défendre.

Manifestations, Violence, et Dommages Matériels

Le lendemain de la mort de M. Freitas, des manifestants ont commencé à distribuer des autocollants représentant le logo de Carrefour taché de sang, ont appelé au boycott de la chaîne et ont brandi des pancartes « Black Lives Matter ». Plus tard dans la soirée, la manifestation est devenue violente et les manifestants auraient brisé des vitrines et des véhicules de livraison. Les manifestants ont ensuite pris d’assaut et saccagé le supermarché où l’incident s’était produit, et 200 manifestants se sont rassemblés devant un autre magasin Carrefour à Rio de Janeiro.

Discussion

Comment le processus de contrôle des nouveaux membres du personnel de sécurité aborde-t-il la question du racisme et d’autres formes de discrimination ?

Comment le recrutement et la formation du personnel de sécurité privée peuvent-ils intégrer les concepts de diversité, de sensibilité et d’inclusion ?

Incidents Liés

  • Mine Escobal : Répression Violente de Manifestations Indigènes
  • Violente Repousse de Mineurs Illégaux Menant à des Poursuites Judiciaires
  • Le Massacre de la Place Nisour
  • Répression de Manifestations contre la Mine de Rio Blanco
  • Émeutes de Migrants Détenus sur l’Île de Manus
  • Violence et Agressions Sexuelles dans les Fermes de Kakuzi

Sources

 

 

Cas préparé par Madison Zeeman

PULSE NIGHTCLUB: THE SECURITY GUARD KILLER

Background

Omar Mateen had allegedly previously been interviewed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 2013 and 2014 after reports of extremist behaviour and connections to terrorism. Mateen had falsely claimed to be associated with the Boston marathon bombers, in addition to claiming connection to both Al Qaeda and Hezbollah. However, these allegations were determined to be insubstantial. Throughout these FBI investigations, Mateen was still allowed to work at G4S.

Mateen was allegedly only psychologically evaluated once at the start of his employment with G4S, and not again once the company was put on notice that he had been interviewed by the FBI.

One of Mateen´s former co-workers alleged that he “saw it coming” based on Mateen´s behaviour, which involved talking about killing people “all the time,” and always being angry. Allegedly, Mateen made it clear he did not like “blacks, women, lesbians, and jews.” The former co-worker allegedly complained multiple times to G4S about these comments, and ultimately quit his job due to harassment from Mateen. G4S continued to employ Mateen, who obtained a “security officer” licence to buy firearms in addition to his state licence and concealed carry permit.

Prior to this incident, G4S had previously been accused of improperly vetting its employees. One incident involved a former paratrooper who killed two colleagues in Iraq, allegedly claiming to be the “antichrist.” An official investigation revealed that G4S did not properly vet his psychological health.

The Incident

On June 12, 2016, Pulse Nightclub, an LGBTQ nightclub, was hosting its popular Latin Night. Just after 2:00 AM that night, more than 300 people were inside the nightclub when Mateen opened fire near the entrance. After an off-duty police officer engaged in gunfire with Mateen, and several police officers with SWAT training exchanged gunfire with Mateen, Mateen was allegedly able to continue to move through the club. At 2:35 in the morning, Mateen allegedly called 911 and professed his “allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of the Islamic State.” After police had cornered Mateen in a bathroom area, the situation became a hostage situation, and Mateen spoke to negotiators three times. At 5:02 in the morning, Orlando police triggered a controlled detonation and smashed through the wall of the club with an armoured vehicle. Mateen was killed after engaging in a gun battle with about a dozen officers. At the time of the shooting, the Pulse attack was the deadliest mass shooting in United States history, with 49 fatalities.

Legal Aspects

Court cases

A lawsuit was filed by victims, survivors, and representatives alleging that G4S, the security company that provided firearms training to Mateen, should be held liable for damages resulting from the attack. The lawsuit alleged that the security firm ignored his comments supporting violence prior to the mass shooting, and failed to remove his service weapon and recommend his firearms licence be removed when they should have.

However, a judge threw out the lawsuit in April 2019, writing that G4S did not have civil liability for the attack because Mateen was not working for the firm at the time of the attack.

The International Code of Conduct

Further, the International Code of Conduct requires stringent selection and vetting of personnel, assessment of performance and duties (paragraphs 45 to 49), and training of personnel of the Code and relevant international law, including human rights and international criminal law (paragraph 55). Meeting the requirements of the Code of Conduct, can help private security companies and their clients ensure that private security personnel are qualified, trained, supported, informed, and responsible.

Meeting the requirements of the Code of Conduct can help private security companies and their clients ensure that private security personnel are qualified, trained, supported, informed, and responsible.

Impact

Settlements and Fines

G4S, who employed Mateen, was fined $151,400 by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for allegedly  providing inaccurate psychological testing information on forms that allowed employees to carry guns. The Department discovered that G4S had listed the name of a psychologist who no longer practised as the screener on Mateen´s form, in addition to more than 1,500 other employees over a 10 year period.

The amount was the largest on record under the specific state law.

Stock Prices

Once it was revealed that Omar Mateen, the shooter at Pulse Nightclub, was a G4S employee, shares in G4S fell dramatically. The G4S shares dropped by as much as 7.5%. When G4S´s shares dropped, it wiped out about $280 million in company value.

Discussion

What role does continuous psychological evaluation play in the vetting of security personnel?

Related incidents

Sources

 

 

Case prepared by Madison Zeeman

MIGRATION DETENTION RIOTS AT MANUS ISLAND

Background

Manus Island in Papua New Guinea was one of three offshore immigration detention centres used by Australia. Under Australia’s immigration policy, every immigrant arriving to Australia is to be detained and processed, with those found to be legitimate refugees allowed to resettle in Papua New Guinea or Cambodia.

Manus Island was originally opened to house asylum seekers who came to Australia by boat in 2001. Many asylum seekers started attempting the journey to Australia by sea, and more than 1,200 people drowned trying to get to Australia. In order to limit the amount of people arriving by boat to seek asylum, the policy was changed so that any asylum seeker arriving by boat would have no chance of being allowed to settle in Australia.

Since the opening of Manus Island, the centre has been criticised for high rates of depression and anxiety among detainees, under-sourced facilities and poor living conditions, and a lack of access for human rights organisations.

In an Australian Parliament, a senate committee recognized several factors that gave rise to the February 2014 riots, including the size and composition of the Manus Island centre; tension between asylum seekers and locals; the condition of the facilities at the centre; inadequate security infrastructure at the centre; and uncertainty about refugee status and resettlement arrangements.

Prior to the 2015 riots, it was reported that refugees believed their lives were endangered due to the Australian government’s plans to move detainees to Lorengau, the capital of Manus province. Refugees allegedly believed they would be attacked by local people if they moved to the capital; some refugees were so frightened that they refused to leave the centre.

The Incident

In February 2014, unrest at Manus Island resulted in 77 injuries, one by a gunshot, and one death from a head injury. There had been escalating protests at the centre for a few days, with the protestors breaking through fences a few days into the protest. Allegedly, on the first day of the demonstrations, refugees were hopeful that immigration authorities would tell them how much longer they would have to stay at Manus Islands. When they did not receive an answer to this question, a riot started the same night.

Immigration Minister Scott Morrison claimed that asylum seekers initially caused the disturbance and broke out of the centre, but refugee advocates and people inside the facility claimed that police and locals entered the compounds with weapons and attacked detainees. This caused asylum seekers to flee outside of the compound.

In January 2015, over 100 asylum seekers went on a hunger strike, protesting their treatment at the detention centre. A few days later, more asylum seekers joined the protest, while running water allegedly became unavailable at Manus Island. Local security guards went on strike after going unpaid.

After a few days, strikers started to collapse without food or water, with other strikers starting to consume harmful materials in protest. Around this time, riot police entered the detention centre. International Health and Medical Services (IHMS) staff converted the staff cafeteria into an emergency medical centre, treating over a hundred detainees.

The next day, multiple strikers were allegedly taken to the “Chauka” solitary confinement unit. In response, an urgent petition to the UN special rapporteurs on human rights was lodged overnight by refugee advocates. The same day, it was reported that security personnel started to round people up, attempting to end the protest. The next day, guards in riot gear allegedly entered Manus Island compounds, attempting to end the protest by force, taking alleged riot “ringleaders” into the Chauka isolation unit.

Legal Aspects

Court cases

After the riots, former G4S guards filed a lawsuit against the company and the government, alleging that the two parties were responsible for the failures related to the riots. Specifically, the former guards claimed that G4S and the government inadequately trained staff, and did not make personal protective equipment available to them. This, the guards alleged, resulted in their physical and mental harm.

Australia has a duty of care to asylum seekers under Australian law, and may be vicariously liable for any breach of this duty.

In support of the former guards´ claims, emails were shown to the court that showed G4S´ requests for additional 100 security guards at the site, warning there was increasing awareness of the possibility of conflict.

In July 2021, the parents of asylum seeker Reza Barati sued the Australian government over his death during the February 2014 detention centre riots. It was alleged that Mr. Barati was beaten to death by guards and other workers. Specifically, court documents stated that Mr. Barati was returning to his room after gunshots were fired into his compound, when a Manus Island worker in a G4S uniform hit him from behind with a length of timber spiked with nails. Then, up to 10 men kicked him in the head.

Mr. Barati’s parents claimed that the Australian government’s negligence, in addition to G4S negligence, were to blame for Mr. Barati’s death. The Barati family alleged that tensions had increased in the six months leading up to the violent riots, and the number of detainees increased tenfold, with over 500 more detainees living at the centre than the amount the centre was built to house. Thus, Mr. Barati´s parents alleged that the government and G4S should have had notice of the likelihood of violent protests occuring, and that the parties should have ensured staff were properly trained and that the centre was equipped to deal with outbreaks of violence.

Earlier, two men were convicted for Mr. Barati’s death and sentenced for 10 years in jail by Papua New Guinea’s national court.

The International Code of Conduct

The International Code of Conduct requires that Personnel of Member and Affiliate companies take all reasonable steps to avoid the use of force, and if force is used, it should be proportionate to the threat and appropriate to the situation. (Rules on the Use of Force : paragraph 29, Use of Force : paragraph 30-32).

Resources on Use of Force

Additionally, security personnel are only allowed to apprehend persons to defend themselves or others against an imminent threat of violence following an attack or crime against Company Personnel, clients, or property under their protection. Apprehension and detention must be consistent with international and national law, and all apprehended and detained persons must be treated humanely and consistent with their status and protections under applicable human rights law and international humanitarian law. (Detention: paragraph 33)

Resources on Apprehending Persons

Resources on Detention

The Code states that Member and Affiliate Companies will only, and require their personnel to treat all detained persons humanely and consistent with their status and protections under applicable human rights law and international humanitarian law, including prohibitions on cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment (paragraph 33).

The Code requires stringent selection and vetting of personnel, assessment of performance and duties (paragraphs 45 to 49), and training of personnel of the Code and relevant international law, including human rights and international criminal law (paragraph 55). Meeting the requirements of the Code of Conduct, can help private security companies and their clients ensure that private security personnel are qualified, trained, supported, informed, and responsible.

Meeting the requirements of the Code of Conduct can help private security companies and their clients ensure that private security personnel are qualified, trained, supported, informed, and responsible.

Impact

Investigations

In an Australian Parliament report, a Senate Committee stated that the factors giving rise to the February 2014 incident should have been known to Australia and the contracts managing the centre. The committee concluded that the Australian government therefore failed in its duty to protect asylum seekers from harm.

The Report found that many G4S staff continued to defend asylum seekers at great risk to their own safety during the riots, however, the Report recognized that many G4S staff and local residents used excessive force with the asylum seekers, or were involved in violence against the asylum seekers.

The Report concluded that asylum seekers suffered numerous violations of basic human rights during the February 2014 riots, including the right to life and the right to security of person.               

Settlements and Fines

By September 2022, fifteen former employees of G4S reached a confidential settlement totalling millions of dollars with G4S and the Australian Government.

In October 2021, Australia ended offshore immigration processing on Papua New Guinea. The Manus Island centre was found to be illegal and ordered shut by the Papua New Guinea Supreme Court in 2016, and Australia was forced to pay $70m in compensation to those unlawfully detained. Those still detained in Papua New Guinea were allowed to transfer to the Nauru processing centre, otherwise they were offered a “permanent migration pathway … including access to citizenship, long-term support, settlement packages and family reunification”.

Discussion

The Australian parliament, in a report, determined that the factors giving rise to the incidents should have been known to the Manus Island managing personnel. How can private security companies and their personnel be aware of and address risks of violence and conflict?

What are the specific responsibilities of private security personnel when engaging in dealing with people in vulnerable situations such as detained migrants?

Related incidents

Sources

 

 

Case prepared by Madison Zeeman