amnesty international

Amnesty International (commonly known as Amnesty or AI) is an international non-governmental organization with the stated purpose of campaigning for internationally recognized human rights. It compares actual practices of human rights in countries with internationally accepted standards and demands compliance where these have not been respected. To these ends it undertakes research and campaigning to mobilize public opinion in the belief that it is this which has the power to exert pressure on governments.

Amnesty International states that it is independent of economic, political and religious interests. It does not support or oppose any particular government or group, nor does it support or oppose the views of the victims whose rights it seeks to uphold. It is concerned solely with the impartial protection of human rights.

Amnesty International is unpopular with some and is often criticized, but its principles and efforts are well respected by many. It is a Nobel peace prize laureate and its information is sought by both news agencies and governments alike.

Its official symbol, a candle surrounded by barbed wire, was inspired by the proverb: "Better to light a candle than curse the darkness".

Rationale

The rationale of Amnesty International is formed from several key ideas. It argues that:

• Human rights are unalienable and universal. They are natural laws which are the birthright of all human beings. Everyone is entitled without distinction.
• Human rights are indivisible. Violating rights to protect other rights or in the name of “higher” causes undermines the principle of universality. There is no conflict between rights, they share common bonds. When rights are deprived others are threatened, when secured others can follow.
• Human rights will not be protected by governments alone. Governments have declared their commitment to human rights and have bound themselves by covenants, yet violations persist throughout the world. There are many pressures on governments to disregard human rights and it is at this point of failure that human rights organizations have a role to play.
• Defense of human rights requires individual action. The violation of one individual’s rights can set in motion a pattern of further abuses. The place to stop patterns of abuse emerging is at the level of the individual. Moreover, it is at this level that the action of the ordinary individual can make a difference.
• Independence and impartiality are necessary in the defense of human rights. It is not appropriate to support or oppose any particular political, economic or religious ideology. Neither is it appropriate to single out any country or regime, or method of violation as the “worst”. The focus is on the individual and all individuals.

Early history: 1961-1979 and origins

On December 10, 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the 30 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). At the same time governmental representatives, who made up the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, ruled that it had no power to interfere in the internal affairs of governments in order to act on specific human rights complaints. As a result, a situation developed in which “practical measures to give life to human rights principles began to lag far behind the rhetoric”.^[1] Twelve years on, in November 1960, two Portuguese students, Ivone Lourenço and another student friend, were sentenced to seven years imprisonment for a remark made which was critical of the Portuguese government (see Salazar dictatorship).

Amnesty International was conceived by British lawyer Peter Benenson when, traveling to work one morning, he read of the plight of these two students in the news. Benenson, in consultation with other writers, academics and lawyers wrote to David Astor, editor of The Observer newspaper, who, on May 28, 1961, published Benenson's article The Forgotten Prisoners. The article brought the reader’s attention to those “imprisoned, tortured or executed because his opinions or religion are unacceptable to his government” ^[2] or, put another way, to violations, by governments, of articles 18 and 19 of the UDHR. The article described these violations occurring, on a global scale, in the context of restrictions to press freedom, to political oppositions, to timely public trial before impartial courts, and to asylum. It also launched 'Appeal for Amnesty, 1961', the aim of which was to mobilize public opinion, quickly and widely, in defence of these individuals who Benenson named "Prisoners of Conscience". In the same year Benenson had a book published, persecution 1961, which detailed the cases of several prisoners of conscience.

What started as a short appeal soon became a permanent international movement, ‘Amnesty International’, working to protect those imprisoned for non-violent expression of their views and to secure world wide recognition of Articles 18 and 19 of the UDHR. From the very beginning, research and campaigning were present in Amnesty International’s work. A library was established for information about prisoners of conscience and a network of local groups, called ‘THREES’ groups, was started. Each group worked on behalf of three prisoners, one from each of the then three main ideological regions of the world: communist, capitalist and developing.

By the mid-1960s Amnesty International’s global presence was growing and an International Secretariat and International Executive Committee was established to manage Amnesty International’s national organizations, called ‘Sections’, which had appeared in several countries. The international movement was starting to agree its core principles and techniques. For example, the issue of whether or not to adopt prisoners who had advocated violence, like Nelson Mandela, brought unanimous agreement that it could not give the name of ‘Prisoner of Conscience’ to such prisoners. Aside from the work of the library and groups, Amnesty International’s activities were expanding to helping prisoner’s families, sending observers to trials, making representations to governments, and finding asylum or overseas employment for prisoners. Its activity and influence was also increasing within intergovernmental organizations; it would be awarded consultative status by the United Nations, the Council of Europe and UNESCO before the decade was out.

Leading Amnesty International in the 1970s were key figureheads Sean MacBride and Martin Ennals. While continuing to work for prisoners of conscience, Amnesty International’s purview widened to include “fair trial” and opposition to long detention without trial (UDHR Article 9), and especially to the torture of prisoners (UDHR Article 5). Amnesty International believed that the reasons underlying torture of prisoners, by governments, were either to obtain information or to quell opposition by the use of terror, or both. Also of concern was the export of more sophisticated torture methods, equipment and teaching to “client states”.

Amnesty International drew together reports from countries where torture allegations seemed most persistent and organized an international conference on torture. It sought to influence public opinion in order to put pressure on national governments by organizing a campaign for the ‘Abolition of Torture’ which ran for several years.

Amnesty International’s membership increased from 15,000 in 1969^[3] to 200,000 by 1979.^[4] This growth in resources enabled an expansion of its program, ‘outside of the prison walls’, to include work on “disappearances”, the death penalty and the rights of refugees. A new technique, the ‘Urgent Action’, aimed at mobilizing the membership into action rapidly was pioneered. The first was issued on March 19, 1973, on behalf of Luiz Basilio Rossi, a Brazilian academic, arrested for political reasons.

At the intergovernmental level Amnesty International pressed for application of the UN’s Standard Minimum Prison Rules and of existing humanitarian conventions; to secure ratifications of the two UN Covenants on Human Rights (which came into force in 1976); and was instrumental in obtaining UN Resolution 3059 which formally denounced torture and called on governments to adhere to existing international instruments and provisions forbidding its practice. Consultative status was granted at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in 1972.

Recent history: 1980-2005

By 1980, Amnesty International, now a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and a UN Human Rights Prize winner, was drawing more criticism from governments. The then USSR was alleging that Amnesty International conducted espionage, the Moroccan government denounced it as a defender of lawbreakers, and in Argentina, Amnesty International’s 1983 annual report was banned. Such hostility made defending human rights a dangerous occupation in some countries.

Throughout the 80s, Amnesty International continued to campaign for prisoners of conscience and of torture, and on the other issues added to its mandate over the years. Again new issues emerged including: extrajudicial killings; military, security and police transfers; political killings; and “disappearances” (especially under military dictatorships in Latin America).

Towards the end of the decade the growing numbers, worldwide, of refugees was a very visible area of Amnesty International’s concern. While many of the world’s refugees of the time had been displaced by war and famine, in adherence to its mandate, Amnesty International concentrated on those forced to flee because of the human rights violations it was seeking to prevent. It argued that rather than focusing on new restrictions on entry for asylum-seekers, governments ought to address the human rights violations which were forcing people into exile.

Apart from a second campaign on torture during the first half of the decade, the major campaign of the 80s was the ‘Human Rights Now!’ tour which featured many of the famous musicians and bands of the day playing concerts to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the UDHR.

Throughout the 1990s Amnesty International, now with a membership of one million^[5] led by Senegalese Secretary General Pierre Sané, worked on a wide range of issues and world events.

Amnesty International was forced to react to human rights violations occurring in the context of a proliferation of armed conflict in: Angola, East Timor, the Persian Gulf, Rwanda, Somalia and the former Yugoslavia. Amnesty International took no position on whether to support or oppose external military interventions in these armed conflicts. It did not (and does not) reject the use of force, even lethal force, or ask those engaged to lay down their arms. Rather it questioned the motives behind external intervention and selectivity of international action in relation to the strategic interests of those sending troops. It argued that action should be taken in time to prevent human rights problems becoming human rights catastrophes and that both intervention and inaction represented a failure of the international community.

However, Amnesty International was proactive in pushing for recognition of the universality of human rights. The campaign ‘Get Up, Sign Up’ marked 50 years of the UDHR. Thirteen million pledges were collected in support of the Declaration and a music concert was held in Paris on December 10, 1998 (Human Rights Day).

In particular, Amnesty International brought attention to violations committed on specific groups including: refugees, racial/ethnic/religious minorities, women and those executed or on death row. The death penalty report When the state kills and the ‘Human Rights are Women's Rights’ campaign were key actions for the latter two issues and demonstrate that Amnesty International was still very much a reporting and campaigning organization.

At the intergovernmental level, Amnesty International argued in favor of creating a United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (established 1993) and an International Criminal Court (established 2002).

Post 2000, Amnesty International’s agenda turned to the challenges arising from globalization and the effects of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US. The issue of globalization provoked a major shift in Amnesty International policy, as the scope of its work was widened to include economic, social and cultural rights, an area that it had declined to work on in the past. Amnesty International felt this shift was important, not just to give credence to its principle of the indivisibility of rights, but because of the growing power of companies and the undermining of many nation states as a result of globalization.

In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the new Amnesty International Secretary General, Irene Khan, reported that a senior government official had said to Amnesty International delegates: "Your role collapsed with the collapse of the Twin Towers in New York".^[6] In the years following the attacks, some of the gains made by human rights organizations over previous decades were eroded. Amnesty International argued that human rights were the basis for the security of all, not a barrier to it. Criticism came directly from the Bush administration and The Washington Post, when Khan, in 2005, likened the US government’s detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to a Soviet Gulag. ^{[7] [8]}

During the first half of the new decade Amnesty International turned its attention to violence against women, controls on the world arms trade and concerns surrounding the effectiveness of the UN. Its membership, close to two million by 2005^[9], continued to work for prisoners of conscience.

Work

Amnesty International’s vision is of a world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards.

In pursuit of this vision, Amnesty International’s mission is to undertake research and action focused on preventing and ending grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination, within the context of its work to promote all human rights.

—Statute of Amnesty International, 27th International Council meeting, 2005

This mission translates into specific aims which are to:

• Abolish the death penalty
• End extrajudicial executions and "disappearances"
• Ensure prison conditions meet international human rights standards
• Ensure prompt and fair trial for all political prisoners
• Fight impunity from systems of justice
• End the recruitment and use of child soldiers
• Free all prisoners of conscience
• Promote economic, social and cultural rights for marginalized communities
• Protect human rights defenders
• Stop torture and ill-treatment
• Stop unlawful killings in armed conflict
• Uphold the rights of refugees, migrants and asylum seekers

Amnesty International targets not only governments, but also non governmental bodies and private individuals (non state actors).

To further these aims Amnesty International has developed several techniques to publicize information and mobilize public opinion. The organization considers as one of its strengths the publication of impartial and accurate reports. Reports are researched by interviewing victims and officials, observing trials, working with local human rights activists and by monitoring the media. It aims to issue timely press releases and publishes information in newsletters and on web sites. It also sends official missions to countries to make courteous but insistent inquiries.

Campaigns to mobilize public opinion can take the form of individual, country or thematic campaigns. Many techniques are deployed such as direct appeals (for example, letter writing), media and publicity work and public demonstrations. Often fundraising is integrated with campaigning.

In situations which require immediate attention Amnesty International calls on existing urgent action networks or crisis response networks; for all other matters it calls on its membership. It considers the large size of its human resouces to be another one of its key strengths.

Organization

Amnesty International is largely made up of voluntary members but retains a small number of paid professionals. Its organization is intended to reflect its principles of international solidarity and democracy. Members are organized according to various models depending on the strength of presence in a particular country. The movement is most established in the West, less so in the global South and East. In countries where Amnesty International has a strong presence, members are organized as ‘Sections’. Sections coordinate basic Amnesty International activities normally with a significant volume of members (some of whom will form into ‘Groups’) and a professional staff, each have a board of directors. In 2005, worldwide, there were 52 Sections. ‘Structures’ are aspiring Sections, they too coordinate basic activities but have a smaller membership and a limited staff. In countries where no Section or Structure exists people can become ‘International Members’. Two other organizational models exist: ‘International Networks’, which promote specific themes or have a specific identity; and ‘Affiliated Groups’, which do the same work as Section Groups, but in isolation.

The organizations outlined above are represented by the International Council (IC) which is led by the IC Chairperson. Members of Sections and Structures have the right to appoint, one or more, representatives to the Council according to the size of their membership. The IC may invite representatives from International Networks and other individuals to meetings, but only representatives from Sections and Structures have voting rights. The function of the IC is to appoint and hold accountable internal governing bodies and to determine the direction of the movement. The IC convenes every two years.

The International Executive Committee (IEC), led by the IEC Chairperson, consists of eight members and the IEC Treasurer. It is elected by, and represents, the IC and meets biannually. The role of the IEC is to take decisions on behalf of Amnesty International, implement the strategy laid out by the IC, and ensure compliance with the movement’s statutes.

The International Secretariat (IS) is responsible for the conduct and daily affairs of Amnesty International under direction from the IEC and IC. It is run by approximately 500 professional staff and is headed by the Secretary General. The IS operates several work programs: International Law and Organizations; Research; Campaigns; Mobilization; and Communications. Its offices have been located in London since its establishment in the mid-1960s.

Amnesty International is financed largely by fees and donations from its worldwide membership. It does not accept donations from governments or governmental organizations.

Amnesty International Sections, 2005
Algeria; Argentina; Australia; Austria; Belgium (Flemish speaking); Belgium (French speaking); Benin; Bermuda; Canada (English speaking); Canada (French speaking); Chile; Côte d’Ivoire; Denmark; Faroe Islands; Finland; France; Germany; Greece; Guyana; Hong Kong; Iceland; Ireland; Israel; Italy; Japan; Korea (Republic of); Luxembourg; Mauritius; Mexico; Morocco; Nepal; Netherlands; New Zealand; Norway; Peru; Philippines; Poland; Portugal; Puerto Rico; Senegal; Sierra Leone; Slovenia; Spain; Sweden; Switzerland; Taiwan; Togo; Tunisia; United Kingdom; United States of America; Uruguay; Venezuela.

Amnesty International Structures, 2005
Belarus; Bolivia; Burkina Faso; Croatia; Curaçao; Czech Republic; Gambia; Hungary; Malaysia; Mali; Moldova; Mongolia; Pakistan; Paraguay; Slovakia; South Africa; Thailand; Turkey; Ukraine; Zambia; Zimbabwe.

IEC Chairpersons
Seán MacBride, 1965–1974; Dirk Börner, 1974–1977; Thomas Hammarberg, 1977–1979; José Zalaquett, 1979–1982; Suriya Wickremasinghe, 1982–1985; Stephen R. Abrams, 1985–1991; Ligia Bolivar, 1991–1993; Ross Daniels, 1993–1997; Colm O Cuanachain, 1998–2003; Jaap Jacobson, 2003–2005; Hanna Roberts, 2005–present.

Secretaries General
Peter Benenson, 1961–1966 (President); Eric Baker, 1966–1968; Martin Ennals, 1968–1980; Thomas Hammarberg, 1980–1986; Ian Martin, 1986–1992; Pierre Sané, 1992–2001; Irene Khan, 2001–present.

Critisisms and other issues

Categories of criticism
Criticism of Amnesty International may be classified into two major categories, accusations of selection bias and ideological bias. In addition, many governments, including those of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, ^[10] China, ^[11] the Taliban ^{citation needed]}, Vietnam, ^[12] Russia ^[13] and the United States, ^[14] have attacked Amnesty International for what they assert is one-sided reporting or a failure to treat threats to security as a mitigating factor. The actions of these governments – and of other governments critical of Amnesty International – have been the subject of human rights concerns voiced by Amnesty, and have not escaped the negative publicity that often accompanies such accusations.

Alleged selection bias
Some contend that there are a disproportionate number of AI reports on relatively more democratic and open countries. This is the major source of the charge of "selection bias", with critics pointing to a disproportionate focus on allegations of human rights violations in for example Israel, when compared with North Korea or Cambodia. In 2006 the organization accused Israel of violating humanitarian law in connection with the 2006 Israel-Lebanon War.^[15]

Supporters claim that AI's intention is not to produce a range of reports which statistically represents the world's human rights abuses. Instead, its aim is (a) to document what it can, in order to (b) produce pressure for improvement. These two factors skew the number of reports towards more open and democratic countries, because information is more easily obtainable, these countries have usually made strong claims and commitments to uphold human rights, and because their governments are more susceptible to public pressure. AI also focuses more heavily on states than other groups. This is due in part to the responsibility states have to the citizens they claim to represent.

A tendency to over-report allegations of human rights abuse in nations that are comparatively lesser violators of human rights has been called "Moynihan's Law," after the late U.S. Senator and former Ambassador to the United Nations Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who is said to have stated that at the United Nations, the number of complaints about a nation's violation of human rights is inversely proportional to their actual violation of human rights.

Own country rule
Amnesty International has followed a neutrality policy called the "own country rule" stating that members should not be active in issues in their own nation, which also protects them from potential mistreatment by their own government. This principle is also applied to researchers and campaigners working for the International Secretariat to prevent domestic political loyalties influencing coverage.

Economic, social and cultural rights
Recently, Amnesty has expanded the scope of its work to include economic, social and cultural rights, saying that these concerns had arisen out of its traditional work on political and civil rights. Its 2004 annual report said that "it is difficult to achieve sustainable progress towards implementation of any one human right in isolation. […] AI will strive to […] assert a holistic view of rights protection. It will be particularly important to do so in relation to extreme poverty, and the human rights issues underlying poverty." ^[16] As an example it asserts that "The right to effective political participation depends on a free media, but also on an educated and literate population. ^[16]

Abortion
One of the most controversial internal issues the organisation currently faces is that of its position on abortion. It has been argued that under certain circumstances abortion is a human right and that AI should recognise it as such; while many AI members support this stance, many other members are fundamentally opposed to it and reject the premise on which the argument is founded. AI’s current position is to adopt a neutral stance on the issue of abortion and at a meeting in Mexico in August 2007 the International Council will decide whether or not to retain this stance; the Council will also consider a number of other proposals which may include advocating the right to abortion in certain circumstances and campaigning for its decriminalization and legalization in relevant countries. The topic is highly controversial within the organisation. The organisation's position is that a decision is not planned to be taken until August 2007 and membership consultation will continue until then. In the meantime, senior figures in the Catholic Church (which has traditionally been a strong supporter of AI) have been among those who have condemned any moves that would change AI's policy on abortion. A fierce debate is likely to continue.

Israel and Sudan
In 2004, the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs's NGO Monitor released a study comparing Amnesty International's treatment of Israel to its response to the twenty years of ethnic, religious and racial violence and slavery in Sudan (a predominantly Arab country) in which (at that time) two million people had been killed and four million displaced. They argued that Sudan's human rights abuses were incomparably worse than Israel's. US Secretary of State Colin Powell said “there is perhaps no greater tragedy on the face of the earth.”^[17] Columnist Anthony Lewis further wrote that “the Sudanese Government in Khartoum bombs southern villages and blocks food relief flights to areas where it wants the population to starve.”^[17] In June 2001, the UN's International Labour Organization reported that in Sudan, as well as in three other African countries, “the wholesale abduction of individuals and communities is not uncommon.”^[18] The New York Times reported murder, abductions, and property destruction against the southern Sudanese.^[19]

When NGO Monitor focused on the year 2001, they found that AI issued seven reports on Sudan, as opposed to 39 on Israel.^[20] They specifically called attention to the difference in both scale and intensity:

While ignoring the large-scale and systematic bombing and destruction of Sudanese villages, AI issued numerous condemnations of the razing of Palestinian houses, most of which were used as sniper nests or belonged to terrorists. Although failing to decry the slaughter of thousands of civilians by Sudanese government and allied troops, AI managed to criticize Israel's "assassinations" of active terrorist leaders.^[20]

—Asleep at the Wheel: Comparing the Performance of Human Rights NGO's on Sudan and Arab-Israeli Issues, NGO Monitor

For 2000–2003, they found 52 reports on Sudan and 192 reports on Israel. They state “[t]his lack of balance and objectivity and apparent political bias is entirely inconsistent with AI's official stated mission.”^[20]

In 2004, Professor Don Habibi of UNC-Wilmington condemned Amnesty International, among others, for their obsession with Israel, to the exclusion of other, worse violators. He writes:^[21]

This obsession would make sense if Israel was among the worst human rights offenders in the world. But by any objective measure this is not the case. Even with the harshest interpretation of Israeli’s policies, which takes no account of cause and effect, and Israel’s predicament of facing existential war, there can be no comparison to the civil wars in Sudan, Algeria, or Congo. Like the UN, the policies of AI and HRW have more to do with politics than human rights.

—Human Rights NGOs and the Neglect of Sudan, Don Habibi

AI defenders respond by asserting that all nations should aspire to absolute respect for human rights, and that the difficulties associated with monitoring 'closed' countries should not mean that 'open' countries should receive less scrutiny.

With the outbreak of the more easily covered Darfur conflict, the imbalance was rectified. Between 2003 and 2006, AI issued 110 reports per year on Sudanese issues [1]. This compares with less than 100 articles per year for Israel and the Palestinian Authority combined between 2001 and 2006 [2].

Freedom of expression vs. hate speech
Amnesty International's endorses restrictions on speech which incites hatred towards any group of people, whether racial, religious, or otherwise. In reference to the Muhammad cartoon controversy, the organization stated:

"The right to freedom of opinion and expression should be one of the cornerstones of any society. ... However, the right to freedom of expression is not absolute -- neither for the creators of material nor their critics. It carries responsibilities and it may, therefore, be subject to restrictions in the name of safeguarding the rights of others. In particular, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence cannot be considered legitimate exercise of freedom of expression. Under international standards, such 'hate speech' should be prohibited by law. ... While AI recognises the right of anyone to peacefully express their opinion, including through peaceful protests, the use and threat of violence is unacceptable." ^[22]

The proponents of AI argue that this position, however, is consistent with international human rights law. Article 3 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide ("The Genocide Convention"), for example, lists "direct and public incitement to commit genocide" as an act which should be punished alongside the actual commission of genocidal acts. This very clause has allowed for the prosecution of a number of top-level génocidaires who organized the Rwandan Genocide via public radio broadcasts, which provided the names and locations of prominent Tutsis and encouraged ordinary civilians to take part in the mass killing. The critics, on the other hand, point out that the convention only refer to incitement of actual crime which is illegal almost anywhere whether the speech is related to hate crime or not, and therefore, irrelevant to the issue of hate speech restriction which AI endorse.

Guantánamo Bay comments
In the foreword ^[23] to AI's Report 2005 ^[24], the Secretary General, Irene Khan, referred to the Guantánamo Bay prison as "the gulag of our times, entrenching the practice of arbitrary and indefinite detention in violation of international law. Trials by military commissions have made a mockery of justice and due process." In the subsequent press conference, she added, "If Guantanamo evokes images of Soviet repression, "ghost detainees" – or the incommunicado detention of unregistered detainees - bring back the practice of "disappearances" so popular with Latin American dictators in the past. According to US official sources there could be over 100 ghost detainees held by the US. In 2004, thousands of people were held by the US in Iraq, hundreds in Afghanistan and undisclosed numbers in undisclosed locations. AI is calling on the US Administration to "close Guantanamo and disclose the rest". What we mean by this is: either release the prisoners or charge and prosecute them with due process." ^[25]

U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld called the comments "reprehensible", Vice President Dick Cheney said he was "offended", and President Bush called the report "absurd". The Washington Post editorialized that "lately the organization has tended to save its most vitriolic condemnations not for the world's dictators but for the United States." ^[26]

However, Edmund McWilliams, a retired senior US Foreign Service Officer who monitored Soviet and Vietnamese abuse of prisoners in their "gulags", defended Amnesty International's comparison. "I note that abuses that I reported on in those inhumane systems parallel abuses reported in Guantanamo, at the Bagram air base in Afghanistan and at the Abu Ghraib prison: prisoners suspended from the ceiling and beaten to death; widespread "waterboarding"; prisoners "disappeared" to preclude monitoring by the International Committee of the Red Cross -- and all with almost no senior-level accountability." ^[27]

Notes

Further reading

External links

• Amnesty International website
• Amnesty International UK section
• Amnesty International USA section
• Amnesty International Canadian section
• Amnesty International Australian section
• Amnesty International New Zealand section
• Irrepressible, an Amnesty International campaign
• Make Some Noise, Amnesty International's campaign around music with a message
• Amnesty International Calls For Retrial of Mumia-Abu Jamal
• The Control Arms Campaign
• "The Best Hope for Peace in Darfur" recorded on April 19, 2006 at The New York Society for Ethical Culture, mp3 format
• Slideshow of pictures from the denounce torture rally and annual general meeting at Portland, Oregon.
• Article 19 website

Critical viewpoints

• Amnesty Int’l redefines ‘war crimes’ - Alan Dershowitz, Jerusalem Post, August 30, 2006
• Amnesty continues to distort human rights rhetoric to attack Israeli actions in Lebanon NGO Monitor