# The Gambia - United States Department of State

- The Gambia HomeReportsBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices&#8230;The Gambia				hide	document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", function(event) {	if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}});																							2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: The Gambia																																					Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																																																																																							Download Report																																																							Translations																																																																 In this section										/																							EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																																													EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																															Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person																																																									a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings																																																																											b. Disappearance																																																																											c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses																																																																			Prison and Detention Center Conditions																																																																																																																		d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention																																																																			Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees																																																																																																																		e. Denial of Fair Public Trial																																																																			Trial Procedures																																																								Political Prisoners and Detainees																																																																																																																		f. Transnational Repression																																																																											g. Property Seizure and Restitution																																																																											h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence																																																																																	Section 2. Respect for Civil Liberties																																																									a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media																																																																			Internet Freedom																																																																																																																		b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association																																																																											c. Freedom of Religion																																																																											d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country																																																																											e. Protection of Refugees																																																																																	Section 3. Freedom to Participate in the Political Process																																																									Elections and Political Participation																																																																																	Section 4. Corruption in Government																															Section 5. Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights																															Section 6. Discrimination and Societal Abuses																																																									Women																																																																											Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination																																																																											Children																																																																											Antisemitism																																																																											Trafficking in Persons																																																																											Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics																																																																											Persons with Disabilities																																																																											Other Societal Violence and Discrimination																																																																																	Section 7. Worker Rights																																																									a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining																																																																											b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor																																																																											c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment																																																																											d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																																																											e. Acceptable Conditions of Work																																																																																																							EXECUTIVE SUMMARY				There were no significant changes in the human rights situation in The Gambia during the year.Significant human rights issues included credible reports of:  harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; serious government corruption; extensive gender-based violence, including domestic or intimate partner violence, sexual violence, child, early, and forced marriage, female genital mutilation/cutting, and other forms of such violence; and laws criminalizing consensual same-sex sexual conduct between adults, although rarely enforced.The government took credible steps to identify and punish officials who may have committed human rights abuses.																														Section 1.													 Respect for the Integrity of the Person												    																																																a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings										There were no reports the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings, including extrajudicial killings, during the year.																																				b. Disappearance										There were no reports of disappearances by or on behalf of government authorities.Families of individuals detained during the Jammeh regime continued to demand information on their missing relatives and ask that those responsible for abuses be held accountable.																																				c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses										The constitution and the law prohibited such practices, and unlike in 2022, there were no credible reports government officials employed them.  Nevertheless, impunity was a problem in the security forces for abuses committed during the Jammeh era.																Prison and Detention Center Conditions						Prison conditions were harsh and life threatening due to food shortages, gross overcrowding, lack of medical care, and poor sanitary conditions.Abusive Physical Conditions:  Gross overcrowding was a problem in some facilities, particularly in the remand wing of the Mile 2 Prison in Banjul, where police held detainees pending trial.  Food, potable water, sanitation, heating, ventilation, and medical care were inadequate.Administration:  Authorities conducted investigations of credible allegations of mistreatment.Independent Monitoring:  The government granted unrestricted access to all prisons to the Office of the Ombudsman and local and international nongovernmental organizations.																										d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention										The constitution and law prohibited arbitrary arrest and detention and provided for the right of any person to challenge the lawfulness of their arrest or detention in court.  The government generally observed these requirements.																Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees						The law required a detainee be charged or released within 72 hours.  There was a functioning bail system.  In some cases, officials did not allow detainees prompt access to a lawyer.  The judiciary provided lawyers at public expense only to indigent persons charged with capital crimes, such as murder, for which the death penalty could be imposed.																										e. Denial of Fair Public Trial										The constitution and law provided for an independent judiciary, and the government generally respected judicial independence and impartiality.																Trial Procedures						The law provided for the right to a fair and public trial, and the judiciary generally enforced this right.  Officials did not always promptly inform defendants of the charges against them.  Case backlogs hampered the right to a timely trial.						Political Prisoners and Detainees						There were no reports of political prisoners or detainees.																										f. Transnational Repression										Not applicable.																																				g. Property Seizure and Restitution										Not applicable.																																				h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence										The constitution and law prohibited such actions, and there were no reports the government failed to respect these prohibitions.																																					Section 2.													 Respect for Civil Liberties												    																																																a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media										The constitution and law provided for freedom of expression, including for members of the press and other media, and the government generally respected this right.  An independent press, an effective judiciary, and a functioning democratic political system combined to promote freedom of expression, including for media members.Freedom of Expression:  On October 9, authorities arrested prominent human rights activist Madi Jobarteh, reportedly for antigovernment social media statements.  On October 11, authorities released Jobarteh on bail.  On November 9, police charged him with “seditious intention, incitement to violence, and false publication and broadcasting.”  At year’s end, Jobarteh remained free on bail.Violence and Harassment:  In October, at political rallies during a national tour, President Adama Barrow criticized media organizations he believed opposed his party and told audiences he planned to detain those who expressed opposition to the government and warned of “crackdowns” on free speech.  Following this, the president’s office issued a statement that appeared to walk back Barrow’s rhetoric, explaining he was merely calling for civility and his words were taken out of context.  The statement called for “all Gambians” to uphold positive democratic values and offered reassurances press freedom would prevail, although with the proviso that “troublemakers,” “bullies,” and persons engaging in “hate speech” would be held accountable.																Internet Freedom						The government did not restrict or disrupt access to the internet or censor online content.																										b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association										The law provided for the freedoms of peaceful assembly and association, and the government generally respected these rights.																																				c. Freedom of Religion										See the Department of State’s International Religious Freedom Report at  https://www.state.gov/religiousfreedomreport/.																																				d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country										The law provided for freedom of internal movement, foreign travel, emigration, and repatriation, and the government generally respected these related rights.In-country Movement:  Police and immigration personnel frequently set up security checkpoints.  Individuals found to be without proper identification were subject to detention or fines or forced to pay bribes.																																				e. Protection of Refugees										The government cooperated with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and other humanitarian organizations in providing protection and assistance to refugees, returning refugees, or asylum seekers, as well as other persons of concern.Access to Asylum:  The law provided for the granting of asylum or refugee status, and the government had a system for providing protection to refugees.Durable Solutions:  The country hosted approximately 4,000 Senegalese refugees.  The government made slow progress towards naturalization or permanent residency status for these refugees.																																					Section 3.													 Freedom to Participate in the Political Process												    																						The law provided citizens the ability to choose their government in free and fair periodic elections held by secret ballot and based on universal and equal suffrage.																										Elections and Political Participation										Abuses or Irregularities in Recent Elections:  National elections were widely reported to be fair and largely free of abuses and irregularities, although attempts to buy and suppress votes were common practices.  International and domestic observers of the 2021 presidential elections noted election officials struggled at times to provide adequate crowd control, sufficient electricity to tally results, and clear communication concerning the counting process.Participation of Women and Members of Marginalized or Vulnerable Groups:  Political parties did not encourage women to run for office and relegated them to supporting roles in political campaigns and party offices.  Cultural and societal barriers, particularly home and family responsibilities, including childcare, significantly restricted women’s participation.  Religious and societal views also restricted lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex (LGBTQI+) persons from openly participating in politics.																																					Section 4.													 Corruption in Government												    																						The law provided criminal penalties for corruption by officials, and the government generally implemented the law effectively.  There were numerous reports of government corruption.Corruption:  There were numerous allegations of corruption made by media and civil society organizations, including misuse of public funds by government officials in their respective institutions.  On March 8, a court convicted a former permanent secretary at the Ministry of Fisheries and Water Resources of accepting bribes from a Chinese fishing company.  An investigative reporter exposed the bribery.  On October 11, authorities charged three senior officials from the Ministry of Health with official corruption, economic crimes, theft, and forgery.  On October 13, a local municipality put 14 staff on administrative leave pending investigation into allegations of mismanagement of funds and theft of tax revenue.  Additionally, on October 31, the municipality recommended immediate removal of the municipal CEO and director of finance, accusing the two, and the former chairman, of serious financial misdealing.For additional information concerning corruption in the country, please see the Department of State’s Investment Climate Statement for the country and the Department of State’s International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, which includes information on financial crimes.																											Section 5.													 Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights												    																						A number of domestic and international human rights groups generally operated without government restriction to monitor or investigate human rights conditions or cases and publish their findings.  Government officials were often cooperative and responsive to these groups.Government Human Rights Bodies:  The Office of the Ombudsman operated a National Human Rights Unit (NHRU) with a mandate to promote and protect human rights and support vulnerable groups.  The NHRU addressed complaints regarding unlawful dismissal, termination of employment, unfair treatment, and illegal arrest and detention.  Observers considered the NHRU to be effective and independent.The National Human Rights Commission was an independent government body whose mission was to promote, protect, and improve the rule of law, human rights standards, and fundamental human rights and freedoms through law, policy, education, and partnership.  Observers considered it to be generally effective and independent.The Ministry of Justice implemented recommendations from the Truth, Reconciliation, and Reparations Commission regarding human rights abuses of the Jammeh era, and with civil society groups began to develop a legal framework to hold abusers accountable.  In March, the National Assembly passed the Prohibition of Torture Act, and in an extraordinary session in November, passed the Victims Reparations Act and the Ban from Public Office Act.																											Section 6.													 Discrimination and Societal Abuses												    																																																Women										Rape and Domestic Violence:  The law criminalized rape without reference to gender and criminalized domestic violence.  The penalty for rape was life imprisonment.  The maximum penalty for attempted rape was seven years’ imprisonment.  The penalty for domestic violence was two years’ imprisonment, a substantial fine, or both.  In addition, a court could order compensation for the survivors of domestic violence.  The government did not enforce these provisions effectively.Rape and domestic violence were widespread problems that often went unreported due to survivors’ fear of reprisal, unequal power relationships, stigma, discrimination, and pressure from family and friends not to report abuses.The Ministry of Women’s Affairs, Children, and Social Welfare operated a survivors’ shelter and cooperated with UN agencies and civil society organizations to address gender-based violence, including a hotline and one-stop centers at various hospitals across the country for immediate medical attention for survivors.Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C):  The law banned FGM/C of girls and women.  Survivors and witnesses rarely reported abuses because they were uncomfortable implicating family or community members.  According to United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), 75 percent of girls and women between ages 15 and 49 had undergone some form of FGM/C as of 2020.In August, authorities prosecuted three women for FGM/C abuses of young girls ages four months to one year.  A court fined the women 15,000 dalasi ($247).  A prominent Islamic religious leader paid the fines for them, claiming the fight against FGM/C was against Islam and he would continue to defend the practice.  Civil society organizations and the UNFPA country office increased engagements and public awareness campaigns on the harmful effects of the practice.Other Forms of Gender-based Violence or Harassment:  Sexual harassment was widespread but not commonly reported due to discrimination, social stigma, and unwillingness to challenge the offenders.  The law prohibited sexual harassment and stipulated a one-year mandatory prison sentence for abuses.  Survivors of sexual harassment in the workplace had to resign to pursue redress through court action, which was limited to compensation.Discrimination:  The constitution and law provided for equality of all persons, including gender equality.  The law prohibited discrimination in employment, access to credit, owning and managing a business, housing, or education.  Authorities generally enforced the law.  Marriage, divorce, child custody and inheritance were guided by Islamic law for Muslims; Islamic law did not provide the same legal status and rights for women.  The government enforced Islamic law effectively.Employment in the formal sector was open to women at the same salary rates as men; however, societal discrimination continued, and women generally worked in such low-wage pursuits as food vending and subsistence farming.Reproductive Rights:  There were no reports of coerced abortion or involuntary sterilization on the part of government authorities.Barriers impeding access to sexual and reproductive health services included religious reasons, cultural taboos, limited formal education with high illiteracy rates, low wages, and poor infrastructure, particularly in more rural areas of the country.  Access to both routine and emergency health care, including access to emergency contraception as part of family planning method mix, was limited due to lack of capacity in all sectors of the health-care field.The government attempted to provide access to sexual and reproductive health services for survivors of sexual violence, but residents in rural areas had very limited access to basic health care.  Emergency contraception was available as part of the clinical management of rape cases, but limited to urban areas, with inconsistent supplies at pharmacies and medical centers.According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the country’s maternal mortality rate in 2020 was 458 per 100,000 live births.  The WHO identified hemorrhage, anemia, early pregnancy, and obstructed labor as the main causes of maternal mortality.  FGM/C negatively impacted reproductive and maternal morbidity.Girls often missed school if they were unable to afford menstruation products.  Girls who became pregnant while in school were unlikely to return after giving birth.																																				Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination										The law prohibited specific types of racial and ethnic discrimination.  Political candidates were forbidden from stoking tribal or ethnic tensions.  The government did not effectively administer these laws.																																				Children										Education:  Girls comprised approximately one-half of primary school students but only one-third of high school students, often due to a societal preference for boys’ education.Child Abuse:  There were laws against child abuse.  The government generally enforced these laws effectively.Child, Early, and Forced Marriage:  The legal minimum age for marriage was 18.  Although government campaigns in several areas of the country, particularly in remote villages, sought to create awareness of the law, there were no reports of the government enforcing it.Sexual Exploitation of Children:  The law prohibited commercial sexual exploitation, sale, grooming, or using children for commercial sexual exploitation, including child sex trafficking, and practices related to child pornography.  Authorities sought to enforce the law but did not do so effectively.  The minimum age for consensual sex was 18.																																				Antisemitism										There was no known Jewish community, and there were no reports of antisemitic incidents.																																				Trafficking in Persons										See the Department of State’s Trafficking in Persons Report at  https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.																																				Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics										Criminalization:  The law criminalized consensual same-sex sexual conduct between adults by punishing “aggravated homosexuality,” acts “against the order of nature,” and “gross indecency.”  The law also punished so-called cross-dressing.  Authorities did not enforce these provisions.Violence and Harassment:  There were no reports police or other government agents did not incite, perpetrate, condone, or tolerate violence or harassment against LGBTQI+ persons or those reporting such abuses.  Human rights activists reported LGBTQI+ persons feared harassment, attacks, and intimidation by political and religious leaders if they disclosed their sexual orientation or gender identity.Discrimination:  The law did not prohibit discrimination by state or nonstate actors based on sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or sex characteristics.  The law did not explicitly recognize LGBTQI+ couples or their families.  LGBTQI+ persons could face societal discrimination if they disclosed their status.  Some LGBTQI+ persons reported stigmatization and some health care workers’ refusal to honor privacy resulted in diminished access to HIV and AIDS care.  LGBTQI+ persons reported discrimination in employment.Availability of Legal Gender Recognition:  Legal gender recognition was not available.Involuntary or Coercive Medical or Psychological Practices:  There were no reports of the practice of so-called conversion therapy.  Medically unnecessary and irreversible “normalization” surgeries were not performed on children or on nonconsenting adult intersex persons.Restrictions of Freedom of Expression, Association, or Peaceful Assembly:  There were no legal restrictions on individuals speaking or media reporting on LGBTQI+ matters or on LGBTQI+ organizations registering or convening events, but LGBTQI+ individuals did not engage in public messaging, public or private meetings, or organizational efforts due to heavy social pressure and the risk of violence and harassment.																																				Persons with Disabilities										Persons with disabilities did not have access to education, employment, health services, public buildings, and transportation on an equal basis with others.  The constitution prohibited discrimination against or exploitation of persons with disabilities, although it did not specify what types of access were protected.  The government generally enforced the law effectively.  Government information and communication on disability concerns were not always provided in accessible formats.Persons with disabilities experienced discrimination in employment.Children with disabilities attended school through secondary education at a lower rate than other children.																																				Other Societal Violence and Discrimination										Although there were no documented incidents of HIV-related stigma and discrimination in employment, housing, or access to education or health care, stigma and discrimination existed.  Societal discrimination against persons with HIV and AIDS and fear of rejection by partners and relatives sometimes hindered identification and treatment.  The government response was unclear.																																					Section 7.													 Worker Rights												    																																																a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining										The law provided that workers, except for civil servants, domestic workers, court officers, and certain other categories of workers, were free to form and join independent unions, bargain collectively, and conduct legal strikes.  The law did not prohibit antiunion discrimination.  In particular, a broad range of essential service employees, including in the military, police, health, ambulance, prison, water, electricity, and radio and telecommunication sectors, were prohibited from forming unions or going on strike.  Additionally, the law authorized the minister responsible for labor matters to exclude any other category of workers from the protection of the law.  Unions had to register to be recognized.  The law required a minimum membership of 50 workers for the registration of a trade union, a threshold few workplaces could meet.  In 2021, the International Labor Organization (ILO) noted the processes for recognizing unions as having the status to bargain, and for organizing secret ballot union elections, were not consistent with the country’s obligations under relevant ILO conventions.  The ILO also noted the categories of workers deprived of the right to form unions under the law were exceedingly broad.The law also stated the registrar of unions had to give the commissioner of labor written notice 14 days before beginning an industrial action (28 days for actions involving essential services).  An employer could apply for a court injunction to prohibit industrial action deemed to be in pursuit of a political objective.  The court also could forbid action judged to be in breach of a collectively agreed procedure for settlement of industrial disputes.The government did not consistently enforce the laws governing freedom of association, collective bargaining, and the right to strike.  Penalties for violations of freedom of association, collective bargaining, and the right to strike were commensurate with those for analogous violations such as civil rights offenses but were rarely applied.Although trade unions were small and fragmented, collective bargaining occurred.  Union members negotiated without government interference but often lacked experience, organization, and professionalism and turned to the government for assistance.																																				b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor										See the Department of State’s annual Trafficking in Persons Report at  https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.																																				c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment										See the Department of Labor’s Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor  https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/resources/reports/child-labor/findings/&nbsp;.																																				d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																														e. Acceptable Conditions of Work										Wage and Hour Laws:  The law provided minimum wages in six sectors:  commerce, artisans, transport, port operations, agriculture, and fisheries, covering 20 percent of workers.  The minimum wage was less than the national poverty level.The basic legal workweek was 40 hours but could be extended up to 48 hours including overtime work.  Alleged violations of wage, hour, and overtime laws were common in the informal sector.Occupational Safety and Health:  Occupational safety and health (OSH) standards were appropriate for the main industries in the country.  Government OSH experts did not proactively identify unsafe conditions.  The law did not prevent possible termination for workers who removed themselves from unsafe conditions.  Violations of health and safety standards were common in the service, construction, agricultural, and domestic labor sectors.Wage, Hour, and OSH Enforcement:  The Department of Labour enforced minimum wage, overtime, and OSH regulations.  The government did not enforce the law.  Penalties were not commensurate with those for similar violations such as fraud or negligence, and penalties were rarely applied.  The number of inspectors was insufficient to enforce compliance, although inspectors did have the right to make unannounced inspections and initiate sanctions.  The government did not apply labor laws in the large informal sector, which accounted for approximately 66 percent of workers.																																				    							View report by:																				Afghanistan											Albania											Algeria											Andorra											Angola											Antigua and Barbuda											Argentina											Armenia											Australia											Austria											Azerbaijan											Bahrain											Bangladesh											Barbados											Belarus											Belgium											Belize											Benin											Bhutan											Bolivia											Bosnia and Herzegovina											Botswana											Brazil											Brunei											Bulgaria											Burkina Faso											Burma											Burundi											Cabo Verde											Cambodia											Cameroon											Canada											Central African Republic											Chad											Chile											China (Includes Hong Kong, Macau, and Tibet)											Colombia											Comoros											Costa Rica											Côte d&#8217;Ivoire											Croatia											Cuba											Cyprus											Czech Republic											Democratic Republic of the Congo											Denmark											Djibouti											Dominica											Dominican Republic											Ecuador											Egypt											El Salvador											Equatorial Guinea											Eritrea											Estonia											Eswatini											Ethiopia											Fiji											Finland											France											Gabon											Georgia											Germany											Ghana											Greece											Grenada											Guatemala											Guinea											Guinea-Bissau											Guyana											Haiti											Honduras											Hungary											Iceland											India											Indonesia											Iran											Iraq											Ireland											Israel, West Bank and Gaza											Italy											Jamaica											Japan											Jordan											Kazakhstan											Kenya											Kiribati											Kosovo											Kuwait											Kyrgyz Republic											Laos											Latvia											Lebanon											Lesotho											Liberia											Libya											Liechtenstein											Lithuania											Luxembourg											Madagascar											Malawi											Malaysia											Maldives											Mali											Malta											Marshall Islands											Mauritania											Mauritius											Mexico											Micronesia											Moldova											Monaco											Mongolia											Montenegro											Morocco											Mozambique											Namibia											Nauru											Nepal											New Zealand											Nicaragua											Niger											Nigeria											North Korea											North Macedonia											Norway											Oman											Pakistan											Palau											Panama											Papua New Guinea											Paraguay											Peru											Philippines											Poland											Portugal											Qatar											Republic of the Congo											Romania											Russia											Rwanda											Saint Kitts and Nevis											Saint Lucia											Saint Vincent and the Grenadines											Samoa											San Marino											Sao Tome and Principe											Saudi Arabia											Senegal											Serbia											Seychelles											Sierra Leone											Singapore											Slovakia											Slovenia											Solomon Islands											Somalia											South Africa											South Korea											South Sudan											Spain											Sri Lanka											Sudan											Suriname											Sweden											Switzerland											Syria											Taiwan											Tajikistan											Tanzania											Thailand											The Gambia											The Netherlands											Timor-Leste											Togo											The Bahamas											Tonga											Trinidad and Tobago											Tunisia											Turkey (Türkiye)											Turkmenistan											Tuvalu											Uganda											Ukraine											United Arab Emirates											United Kingdom											Uruguay											Uzbekistan											Vanuatu											Venezuela											Vietnam											Yemen											Zambia											Zimbabwe															Build A Custom Report																						On This Page				search													>																										EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person																																							a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings																																																						b. Disappearance																																																						c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses																																																				Prison and Detention Center Conditions																																																																																				d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention																																																				Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees																																																																																				e. Denial of Fair Public Trial																																																				Trial Procedures																																												Political Prisoners and Detainees																																																																																				f. Transnational Repression																																																						g. Property Seizure and Restitution																																																						h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence																																																			Section 2. Respect for Civil Liberties																																							a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media																																																				Internet Freedom																																																																																				b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association																																																						c. Freedom of Religion																																																						d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country																																																						e. Protection of Refugees																																																			Section 3. Freedom to Participate in the Political Process																																							Elections and Political Participation																																																			Section 4. Corruption in Government																Section 5. Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights																Section 6. Discrimination and Societal Abuses																																							Women																																																						Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination																																																						Children																																																						Antisemitism																																																						Trafficking in Persons																																																						Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics																																																						Persons with Disabilities																																																						Other Societal Violence and Discrimination																																																			Section 7. Worker Rights																																							a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining																																																						b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor																																																						c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment																																																						d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																																						e. Acceptable Conditions of Work																																																									Tags																					Bureau of African Affairs																								Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																								The Gambia
- Liberian Songs Amplify Calls for Justice Across West Africa Beth Van Schaack, Ambassador-at-Large for Global Criminal JusticeOffice of Global Criminal JusticeOn March 5, Liberian legislators erupted in applause and song, chanting “war crimes court” and “we want justice!” The enthusiastic display came after the House of Representatives of Liberia passed a resolution to create a special court: a War and Economic Crimes Court. And on April 9, the Liberian Senate responded to the house’s call for them to pass a similar resolution. They did so, overwhelmingly, to include votes for the resolution by two longstanding opponents and former warlords, Senators Prince Yormie Johnson and Thomas Yaya Nimely. The Liberian people now eagerly await President Boakai to sign the bill into law and set up the court, as he pledged to do to the country when taking office in January.   Ambassador at Large for Global Criminal Justice Beth Van Schaack takes part in a traditional handshake with Liberian President Joseph Boakai in Monrovia, which includes ending with a snap. The momentum toward justice for the people of Liberia has been spurred by recent legislation passed creating a War and Economic Crimes Court. (Photo Courtesy of the Office of Global Criminal Justice)Liberia&#8217;s Path ForwardAfter Liberia’s civil wars ended in 2003, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission released recommendations on how the country should move forward after the violence.  This included the recommendation to create a court of some sort to prosecute war crimes and other atrocities committed during the wars. So far, however, there has been no accountability in Liberia for the perpetrators of the worst crimes or justice for victims. The new resolution is an important step toward prosecuting those crimes and ending a culture of impunity where criminals are not punished.   Across West Africa and around the world, the United States is helping communities have difficult conversations about how to build a more peaceful future after the commission of atrocities of the past. My recent trip to Liberia and The Gambia was heartening in this respect and reassured me that, in a world beset by vexing conflict and appalling mass violence, calls for justice will not go unanswered.  Healing Societal Trauma in The GambiaIn The Gambia, I joined conversations with victims of former president Yahya Jammeh’s authoritarian regime. These brave advocates have led the effort to bring wrongdoers to account and begin to heal the societal trauma left by decades of serious human rights violations. During my visit, we saw real progress: representatives from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) joined their Gambian counterparts to continue work establishing a hybrid court that will prosecute alleged perpetrators. The United States is bringing broad support to help in this effort. In addition to my own office’s programing in The Gambia—the Department of Justice to USAID to the Embassy Banjul team—we are all working closely with both victim advocates and policymakers to help the country move forward along the long path to justice.  Pursuing justice for mass atrocities is truly a global effort: in addition to its efforts at home, The Gambia has brought a case in the International Court of Justice on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation accusing Burma of violating its obligations under the Genocide Convention in its horrific treatment of Rohingya. The Gambia’s leadership shows that through a coordinated international effort, human rights violators will be held to account. We, too, remain deeply committed to being a part of that initiative.  Ongoing Diplomatic WorkOur diplomats on the ground worldwide provide vital forward momentum in this crucial work. Wherever they can, they elevate victims’ voices and offer technical support and funding.  In Ukraine, for example, they are assisting as international and Ukrainian investigators gather evidence of unconscionable war crimes and other atrocities committed by Russian officials and forces. In Colombia, they are helping transitional justice institutions include hard-to-reach survivor communities and address mass violence during the country’s 50-year war.   When those who commit grievous human rights violations not only avoid prosecution but continue to hold high-level positions in government, it sends a message of impunity that undermines faith in public institutions and prevents deep wounds from healing.    We pair those overseas efforts with continual work here at home.  In April, we brought many of our partners from Ethiopia, The Gambia, and Liberia to the United States to be part of a conversation about how our country has addressed its own legacies of violence and discrimination, with visits to Washington, Tulsa, and Montgomery. We are also working across the government to ensure that perpetrators of atrocity crimes cannot hide their ill-gotten gains in the United States or flood our markets with goods produced through forced labor or other atrocities. Together with our partners in the Department of Justice we will continue longstanding efforts to identify, seize, and return stolen wealth to victimized communities around the globe. The Department of Justice also prosecutes individuals in the United States who have made false claims on their immigration forms about their involvement in human rights abuses worldwide.  Civil society representatives have emphasized to me that when those who committed war crimes even decades ago do not face justice, it exerts a corrosive effect on society, leading to corruption and a faltering rule of law. When those who commit grievous human rights violations not only avoid prosecution but continue to hold high-level positions in government, it sends a message of impunity that undermines faith in public institutions and prevents deep wounds from healing.    Insisting on justice and restoring accountability are vital to upholding the rules-based international order and providing a measure of relief to victims of the gravest crimes know to humanity. The progress I observed in West Africa represents an important step forward on the lengthy but essential journey of transitional justice, one to which the United States remains committed worldwide.  About the Author:  Dr. Beth Van Schaack is Ambassador at Large for Global Criminal Justice at the State Department. The Office of Global Criminal Justice advises the Secretary of State and the Under Secretary of State for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights on issues related to war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. In particular, the Office helps formulate U.S. policy on the prevention of, responses to, and accountability for mass atrocities. To learn more about Ambassador Van Schaack’s work, follow @StateDept_GCJ on Twitter/X.
- Remarks at Opening of Joint ECOWAS/Gambia Technical Committee HomeOffice of Global Criminal Justice Remarks &amp; Releases&#8230;Remarks at Opening of Joint ECOWAS/Gambia Technical Committee				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Remarks at Opening of Joint ECOWAS/Gambia Technical Committee																																		Remarks																														February 29, 2024																																							Good morning. Thank you to the organizers for bringing us together on this important occasion. It is an honor to be here with all of you on my second trip to the Smiling Coast among so many distinguished delegates, experts, advocates, justice architects, and friends.&nbsp;The last time I visited, October 2022, was a hopeful time: the Truth, Reconciliation, and Reparations Commission (TRRC) had finished its mandate, and work was beginning on how to implement its recommendations, including those on criminal justice.&nbsp;How even more inspiring it is to be here now and see how far your work has come. I want to offer my congratulations to all of you, particularly Minister Jallow and his team at the Ministry of Justice, for the impressive progress you have made thus far. It’s inspiring to be a part of this launch of the ECOWAS/Gambia Technical Committee as it begins the process of bringing the hybrid court into being.When considering the history of The Gambia, I am always struck by your bravery in facing the past. The TRRC heard from more than 400 witnesses who unflinchingly recounted the horrors committed during the Jammeh regime. It takes incredible courage for victims to come forward and tell their stories and for a nation to create the space for them to do so safely and openly.&nbsp;Hearing the victims recount abuses was a deeply troubling but necessary step on the path toward obtaining justice. Every Gambian knew of the terrible crimes that took place during those dark years, but the bravery of the victims publicly telling their stories showed that the damage was much broader and deeper than feared.&nbsp;More of this courage will be needed in the journey ahead, but I am confident that you are up to the challenge. I pledge that the United States will stand with you as you tackle those challenges.&nbsp;I just came from Freetown, where I gave a keynote address at a conference celebrating the history and legacy of the Special Court for Sierra Leone. I noted in my remarks that the Special Court broke ground as the first hybrid tribunal created between by way of a treaty between a member state and the United Nations and set the stage for future hybrid courts designed to draw from international expertise while remaining tailored to the local context and victims’ needs.Along with civil society organizations from The Gambia, I had the pleasure of telling the attendees in Freetown how The Gambia and ECOWAS are building upon this legacy. You are taking the values and lessons of that Court—the inclusion of regional and international actors to build expertise and capacity while ensuring Gambian leadership and context—and breaking new ground through this collaboration. This new court will make history too, as the first to be created with ECOWAS. From the minute this idea was raised, it was clear it is an innovative and fitting solution for the justice challenges The Gambia faces and the crimes of the Jammeh era.&nbsp;Hybridizing a court with ECOWAS will ensure not only that it is created within the Gambian context, but also that it will be fully regionally and culturally suited to West Africa, truly an African solution. It demonstrates how states and actors in the region can come together to deliver justice and to heal.&nbsp;Respect for human rights is a foundational principle in The Gambia, core to this nation’s values. Indeed, over 40 years ago, Chief Justice Jallow led the drafting of the Banjul Charter on Human and Peoples&#8217; Rights. The work you are doing today will help vindicate the principles written a generation ago. You have already taken steps in this direction not only domestically but by bringing the case against Burma in the International Court of Justice for violating the Genocide Convention in its treatment of Rohingya. Already, The Gambia stands for justice.&nbsp;Partnering with ECOWAS also acknowledges that the damage Jammeh and his conspirators wrought did not stop at The Gambia’s borders but rather reached beyond The Gambia and affected the entire region. The most prominent example of this is the murder by Jammeh’s Junglers of approximately fifty West African migrants, Ghanaians and citizens of several other states. Atrocities like those committed by Jammeh and his despotic regime do not just impact the direct victims, but rather are affronts to our collective humanity. The deeply personal TRRC testimony by Jammeh’s victims laid bare the lasting legacy of these crimes.&nbsp;I commend ECOWAS for recognizing that these collective harms reverberated across the region. Ensuring accountability for such crimes sends a message that these atrocities will not be tolerated, that perpetrators will be brought to justice, and that peace in all ECOWAS states depends on justice. West Africa as a whole will be better for this work.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Special Court for Sierra Leone also broke ground in its trial of Charles Taylor, the first hybrid court to try a former head of state. Fearing destabilization if Taylor’s trial was held in Freetown, the Court moved the trial to The Hague. This, of course, carries lessons that I hope will resonate with Yahya Jammeh himself. That all of ECOWAS is coming together to support justice, creating any number of venues for a leadership trial, sends a strong message: Jammeh and his supporters cannot use the threat of destabilization if he returns home to avoid facing justice. He can simply be tried elsewhere in a Gambian-led proceeding. And Jammeh must face justice. The Taylor trial demonstrates that he can, and your efforts here today demonstrate that he will and that no one is above the law.&nbsp;This is not to say that any of your next steps will be easy. Transitional justice is always challenging, it will take time, and it will require you to face a difficult history and make hard decisions about the future.&nbsp;Criminal accountability is one component of transitional justice, but for The Gambia to thrive after its terrible history, prosecutions must be coordinated with other tools. The recently passed Victims’ Reparations Act built upon the groundwork for a reparations program. The Ban from Public Office Bill set the stage for crucial institutional changes. These tools—legislative, social, societal—must be deployed together to support reform and provide holistic redress for victims. No legislative act or parliamentary bill can fully restore what this country has lost, but these developments will contribute to national healing.This is also an opportunity to strengthen your democracy and respect for the rule of law. Periods of oppression and dictatorships like the Jammeh regime decimate democratic institutions, and there are still gaps in Gambian laws and the Constitution. The future hybrid court can contribute to capacity building, education, and reform to create a more just nation. In contrast, failure to address atrocity crimes leads to a culture of impunity that can facilitate corruption and failure to respect the rule of law.&nbsp;Finally, transitional justice must, above all, be victim-centric. Outreach, education, coordination with civil society, and ensuring adequate protection for victims and witnesses will be essential to demonstrate to The Gambian people that such abuses are not tolerated and to build trust in the democratic Gambian state.&nbsp;After this trip I will continue on to Liberia, where I will carry lessons from The Gambia. They are sorely needed. The Liberian Truth and Reconciliation Commission, like yours, was admirable, but there your countries diverge. None of the Liberian TRC’s recommendations has been implemented, and to this day not one person has been held accountable for war crimes in Liberian courts. Instead, courts abroad have stepped in to dispense justice. Furthermore, those accused of some of the most atrocious acts remain in positions of power in the Liberian government. And those fighting for justice too often face threats to their safety. Impunity hinders accountability and creates conditions that help foster corruption and insecurity.&nbsp;Liberia is just one example of the devastating impact of impunity across the African continent; we need only look to Ethiopia, Sudan, South Sudan, and the Great Lakes, to name just a few. Gambian leadership on transitional justice is greatly needed.&nbsp;In closing, the United States will remain your steadfast partner throughout this journey. For years we have provided comprehensive assistance to The Gambia’s criminal justice system, building the country’s capacity to hold wrongdoers accountable. We are grateful for the partnership we have found throughout the justice system here, and your work gives me confidence in your ability to succeed on the hard road ahead. We look forward to continuing to stand with you as you take on these significant but essential challenges.&nbsp;I hope to hear from all of you, as we continue our partnership, about what more we can do to support your efforts to bring justice to all Gambians and continue your leadership worldwide. Your courage in creating the TRRC and facing the past, and your innovative work in creating this regionally-supported hybrid court, will be a model for the rest of the continent and the world.&nbsp;Thank you again for including me in this groundbreaking event and for the work you are doing for justice, not just here, but everywhere.&nbsp;						Tags																					Office of Global Criminal Justice																								The Gambia
- The Gambia National Day Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of StateOn behalf of the Government of the United States of America, I extend my congratulations to the people of The Gambia on the 59th anniversary of your independence.On this occasion, we reaffirm our enduring partnership and friendship with the people and government of The Gambia. I look forward to expanding our close partnership on a wide range of initiatives which aim to strengthen democracy, advance gender equality, promote human rights, support regional stability and security, ensure good governance, and further develop bilateral economic ties to the benefit of both the people of the United States of America and The Gambia.The United States appreciates that the government and people of The Gambia will remain our steadfast partner against those who seek to repress fundamental freedoms and undermine the international rules-based order. I value your support on the global stage as a sign of our commitment to building a peaceful and prosperous world.I look forward to working together to build even stronger ties in the years ahead.
- Congratulations to the People of Gambia on Transitional Justice Legislation Beth Van Schaack, Ambassador-at-Large for Global Criminal JusticeOffice of Global Criminal JusticeGood morning from Washington D.C., where I recently had the pleasure of meeting with Chief Justice Hassan Jallow of the Gambian Supreme Court.This is just a quick message to convey how thrilled I am to see that the Gambian National Assembly has passed two crucial bills. These pieces of legislation will advance transitional justice and address the legacy of abuses and repression carried out by the Jammeh regime, as comprehensively chronicled by the Truth, Reconciliation, and Reparations Commission.The Victims&#8217; Reparations Act will create real avenues of redress for victims, and the Ban from Public Office Bill will help ensure that those most recommended for such action by the TRRC will be removed from office.  We understand that additional plans underway include the development of a Special Accountability Mechanism and partnering with ECOWAS on the creation of a hybrid court. We commend The Gambian judicial and political leadership of the administration of President Barrow on these important commitments and their sustained dedication to transitional justice.But these developments are just a first step.  We urge the Government of The Gambia to stay the course and continue this progress towards accountability.I was lucky enough to visit The Gambia last year, and I was struck bythe dedication of victims&#8217; groups, who have tirelessly fought for justice,the honesty the whole country has displayed in facing its past, andthe bravery of Gambians as they work for accountability and to restore a more peaceful and secure nation.In closing, I want to extend my congratulations to The Gambia for the progress it has made on its domestic transitional justice efforts but also for being a leader in international justice as well. This has been demonstrated most recently today as several states joined The Gambia in its groundbreaking suit before the International Corut of Justice against Myanmar under the Genocide Convention.People all over the world can learn from The Gambia&#8217;s frank acknowledgement of its history, the courage of its people, and their creativity and dedication in pursuing an inclusive transitional justice program for all Gambians.As you continue on this journey, please know that the United States stands with you. We look forward to continuing to partner with you, to support you, and to applaud you as you to work for justice.
- The Gambia (22-629.1) – Millennium Challenge Corporation Threshold Program Grant Agreement Office of Treaty AffairsForeign Assistance:  Millennium ChallengeSigned at Washington and Banjul November 4 and 16, 2021; entered into force June 29, 2022.With Annexes.
- The United States Convenes Country Representatives and Other Stakeholders to Promote Inclusive and Rights-Respecting Digital Policy Office of the SpokespersonOn September 20, the United States, as the 2023 Chair of the Freedom Online Coalition (FOC), convened Ministers from the Coalition’s member states, key Group of 77 (G77) partners on technology policy, and other relevant stakeholders for a high-level event on the margins of the 78th Session of the United Nations General Assembly.  The FOC is an intergovernmental coalition committed to promoting and protecting human rights online.The event was co-hosted by U.S. Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights Uzra Zeya and Ambassador-at-Large for Cyberspace and Digital Policy Nathaniel Fick.  Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken provided keynote remarks highlighting the priorities of the United States and partners on rights-respecting and inclusive approaches to digital technologies in order to achieve the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals and emphasizing the importance of global coordination on these issues.  Secretary Blinken announced the United States’ commitment under its FOC Chairship to advance the development of a governmental pledge relating to the responsible use and procurement of artificial intelligence systems. Foreign Minister Hanke Bruins Slot of the Netherlands also provided remarks and announced that the Netherlands will take over the chairship of the FOC in 2024.The moderated roundtable discussion featured interventions from Cabo Verde, Czechia, Denmark, the Gambia, India, The Maldives, and the United Kingdom in addition to the International Telecommunications Union’s Secretary General and representatives of the FOC’s independent multistakeholder Advisory Network, Wikimedia Foundation, the Association for Progressive Communication, Microsoft, and Google.  Panelists discussed key challenges and opportunities relating to advancing connectivity, promoting access and inclusion, and using technology as an enabler of rights.  The convening reaffirmed the United States’ commitment to promote inclusive and rights-respecting digital policy together with Coalition members, and to explore opportunities to collaborate with key G77 governments in pursuit of these efforts.View the event recording, outputs, and statements from FOC Ministers .
- Embassy Luanda Launches the Dinheiro Digital é Melhor Project to Increase Financial Inclusion Office of the SpokespersonThe U.S. Embassy in Angola launched the Dinheiro Digital é Melhor project with mobile operator Africell to improve and expand the use of mobile money applications, making it easier to send and receive money.  This two-year, nearly $5 million project, funded through the U.S. Government Agency for International Development (USAID), will support the Government of Angola’s objective to increase financial inclusion and the U.S. Government’s contribution to the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII).  U.S. Ambassador to Angola and São Tomé e Príncipe, Tulinabo S. Mushingi, and PGII Senior Advisor Danae Pauli attended the official launch at the Africell headquarters in Luanda.  Angolan Secretary of State for Technical and Professional Learning, Gildo Matias, Secretary of State for Science, Technology and Innovation, Alice de Almeida, and National Director of Business and Planning, Laercio Cândido, also attended the launch, as well as representatives from international agencies, civil society, the private sector, and local media.Building on President Biden’s commitment at the 2023 G7 Summit to support development of the Lobito Corridor and the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation’s existing financing for Africell in the DRC, Sierra Leone, and the Gambia, this project represents an expansion of the US government’s partnership with Angola to support sustainable economic development by empowering the Angolan people.   The Dinheiro Digital é Melhor Project in particular will empower ordinary Angolans to conveniently make and receive payments at their fingertips, bridging the gap between individuals and financial services, and breaking down barriers and reaching those previously excluded from the formal financial system.For information about the Dinheiro Digital é Melhor project, please contact the U.S. Embassy Press, Culture and Education Section at pressluanda@state.gov or call 222-641-134.
- Remarks at the Federalist Society 2023 National Security Symposium  Beth Van Schaack, Ambassador-at-Large for Global Criminal JusticeOffice of Global Criminal JusticeWashington, D.C.The Federalist SocietyGood afternoon. Thanks to the Federalist Society for organizing and Jones Day for hosting the 2023 National Security Symposium. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you as the sixth U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Global Criminal Justice.For those of you unfamiliar with our office, GCJ advises the Secretary of State and the Under Secretary of State for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights on issues related to war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. In particular, GCJ helps formulate U.S. policy on the prevention of, responses to, and accountability for mass atrocities.I embrace my role as the Ambassador-at-Large for Global Criminal Justice. Since being sworn in on March 17, 2022, I have traveled to Africa—specifically The Gambia, Liberia, Ethiopia, and the Central African Republic—where are important justice efforts underway; to South America—such as to Colombia, which is emerging from more than 50 years of war and is engaged in a sophisticated experiment in transitional justice; and to Asia—such has meeting with Rohingya justice actors in Cox’s Bazar in Bangladesh to hear more about their priorities and expectations for justice.But, as you would expect, I have been very engaged with this panel’s topic, atrocity accountability related to the ongoing Russia-Ukraine armed conflict.My remarks will outline my office’s approach—and several the commitments of the U.S. Government—towards accountability, following which I look forward to Professors Rabkin and Newton providing their perspective and to hearing the views folks assembled here to gain a better understanding of how effectively the U.S. government has articulated what we are doing and why in terms of accountability for the war crimes and other atrocities being committed in connection with Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine.My office, in collaboration with other parts of the U.S. government and many international partners, is proceeding along five pathways to justice in an effort to uphold international norms and to ensure those responsible for the abuses we see in Ukraine are held to account. The First Pathway focuses on Ukraine’s domestic capacity. The Second Pathway supports strategic litigation in other national courts. The Third Pathway involves international institutions and courts. The Fourth Pathway focuses on the crime of aggression. And the Final Pathway leads here to the United States.The First pathway aims to increase the capacity of Ukrainian institutions to document, investigate, and prosecute war crimes in Ukrainian courts.The Ukrainian Office of the Prosecutor General has recorded tens of thousands of incidents that may constitute prosecutable crimes. I want to highlight two programs designed to assist the Prosecutor General with this monumental undertaking.The first is the Atrocity Crimes Advisory Group or ACA and the second is a training program focused on war crimes investigative techniques.In May 2022, the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, established the ACA, a multilateral initiative to provide strategic advice and operational assistance to Ukraine’s Office of the Prosecutor General in the investigation and prosecution of atrocity crimes committed in Ukraine. The ACA is intended to streamline multinational efforts and encourage the expeditious deployment of financial resources and skilled personnel to respond to the needs of the Office of the Prosecutor General as the legally constituted authority in Ukraine responsible for the prosecution of war crimes in its own territory.Through the ACA, we are providing expert technical assistance, capacity building, and comprehensive training in international criminal law and practice drawn from the world’s war crimes tribunals and units to assist Ukrainian investigators and prosecutors in Kyiv and out in the field. This includes focused attention to the scourge of conflict-related sexual violence that has been widely documented by the United Nations and other bodies.In addition to the ACA, we are also providing training on war crimes investigative techniques. The State Department and the Department of Justice are partnering with Ukraine’s National Police of Ukraine and State Border Guard Service to provide training and mentoring, including on tactical and criminal investigative assistance and forensics and evidence collection—all foundational skills for war crimes prosecutions.The second pathway is aimed at supporting strategic litigation around the world. We are providing that support in a variety of ways, three of which I will highlight: the Conflict Observatory, supporting Ukrainian Civil Society Documentation Tracing forcible transfers and deportations, and assisting Ukrainian prisoners of war.In May 2022, the State Department announced the launch of the Conflict Observatory, an independent research entity that uses commercially and publicly available information and geospatial data to identify, track, and document possible atrocities in Ukraine committed by members of Russia’s military and its proxy forces.We are also assisting ongoing Ukrainian civil society efforts to gather, document, and analyze evidence of atrocities perpetrated in the context of Russia’s current aggression against Ukraine in a trauma-informed and survivor-centric way, consistent with international evidentiary standards. In a new paradigm of public-private partnership, these civil society groups are sharing such evidence with accountability mechanisms, including the Office of the Prosecutor General and national investigative authorities, as well as international mechanisms and domestic courts outside Ukraine.In Europe, we have witnessed the mass mobilization of prosecutorial and investigative efforts to coordinate strategies, track potential defendants, and share information and evidence. Several European states have formed a Joint Investigative Team (JIT) to streamline their activities. The United States supports these efforts through memoranda of understanding with different States, and by working with civil society organizations that are providing potential evidence to national authorities.Lastly, the State Department is supporting a program that traces and documents cases of individuals, including Ukrainian prisoners of war and civilians, subjected to forced transfers and deportations to Russia and territories under its control, and, whenever possible, provides them with legal assistance.The third pathway involves international institutions and courts. In terms of international institutions, the United States has supported, among others,the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry or COI on Ukraine, the U.N. Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Moscow Mechanism.The United States worked with a cross-regional group of countries to help establish the COI and renew its mandate on April 4, 2023. The COI issued its first written report on October 18, 2022, finding that war crimes and violations of human rights and international humanitarian law have been committed in Ukraine since February 24, 2022. The COI issued its second report on March 16, 2023, finding war crimes, indiscriminate attacks on infrastructure, systematic and widespread torture show disregard for civilians.Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the United States and likeminded countries have invoked the OSCE’s Moscow Mechanism four times with respect to Russia: three times to examine Russia’s atrocities and abuses in Ukraine and once to examine the deteriorating human rights situation within Russia. A fifth invocation focused on Belarus.Shifting to the international courts, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has opened an investigation into the Situation in Ukraine, which received an unprecedented number of state referrals. Since then, two arrest warrants have now been issued for the illegal transfer and deportation of Ukrainian children into Russia.In the fiscal year 2023 Omnibus, the United States Congress enacted bipartisan legislation to support the ICC’s investigation in Ukraine. This bipartisan legislation provides enhanced authority for the Executive Branch to assist the ICC in its efforts to prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Ukraine.Prosecutions for the crime of aggression offer a fourth pathway to justice. Most of the previous efforts involve Russia to account for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other atrocities carried out in Ukraine. There are also compelling reasons to prosecute the crime of aggression in light of Russia’s efforts at territorial acquisition and the political subjugation of the Ukrainian people. Permitting impunity for Russia’s illegal war of aggression will embolden other actors to engage in similar blatant violations of state sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence in manifest breach of the UN Charter.We thus support the development of a Special Tribunal on the crime of aggression against Ukraine in the form of an internationalized court that is rooted in Ukraine’s judicial system, with international elements. We envision such a court having significant international support— particularly from our partners in Europe—and likely located in The Hague. Rooting such a Special Tribunal in Ukraine’s domestic judicial system will provide the clearest legal and practical path to establishing a new tribunal. This kind of model—an internationalized national court—will facilitate broader international support and demonstrate Ukraine’s global leadership in ensuring accountability for the crime of aggression. An internationalized model also builds upon the example of other successful justice mechanisms.We remain committed to working with Ukraine, and countries around the world, to stand up and support such an internationalized national tribunal and maximize the ability to achieve meaningful accountability for the crime of aggression.The final pathway leads here to the United States. This pathway involves strengthening U.S. law and ensuring that the United States does not become a safe haven to those who commit international crimes, such as those being committed daily in Ukraine. In January 2023, Congress took a significant and long overdue step in this direction by passing The Justice for Victims of War Crimes Act to enhance the federal war crimes statute.But there is more that can be done to provide U.S. prosecutors with the tools they need to prosecute international crimes. As Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco recently testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the United States lacks a statute criminalizing crimes against humanity. Crimes against humanity encompass certain abuses—including murder, torture, and rape—committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population and pursuant to or in furtherance of a state or organizational policy to commit such an attack.Passing crimes against humanity legislation will better align U.S. law with that of our friends and allies and empower U.S. prosecutors and investigators to prosecute the whole range of international crimes. Over 100 countries already have laws criminalizing crimes against humanity. The United States is out of step with the community of nations.The United States’ lack of a crimes against humanity statute weakens our ability to lead on international criminal justice and undermines our commitment to supporting justice and accountability for atrocity crimes. It also leaves the United States unprepared to deal with the range of potential atrocities occurring in Ukraine and other situations, which could leave the United States a safe harbor for perpetrators who come into U.S. jurisdiction.Many atrocity crimes are not captured by the U.S. war crimes or genocide statutes, and having a crimes against humanity statute is necessary to secure criminal accountability. One does not need to look hard for examples of these crimes occurring in ongoing atrocity situations today.At the recent discussions in the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly on the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on crimes against humanity, Russia called out countries like the United States that lack a domestic crimes against humanity statute. Russia claimed that such countries should focus first and foremost on developing domestic legislation. On this, I agree. The administration strongly supports the enactment of legislation criminalizing crimes against humanity and allowing the Department of Justice to pursue prosecutions for these crimes.In closing, as President Zelenskyy so aptly noted last month, there can be no secure or lasting peace without justice in Ukraine. Justice for the millions who have had their lives disrupted and destroyed as a result of the senseless, unprovoked, and illegal war of territorial conquest launched by Vladimir Putin. Holding Russia to account for its war crimes and other atrocities within Ukraine and against its peopleis foundational to the defense of U.S. values and the maintenance of a peaceful, just, and secure world. With that I thank you and look forward to our conversation.
- The Gambia HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2023 Fiscal Transparency Report&#8230;The Gambia				hide	document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", function(event) {	if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}});																							2023 Fiscal Transparency Report: The Gambia																																					Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs																																																																																																				 In this section																																												Government-by-Government Assessments: The Gambia																																												Government-by-Government Assessments: The Gambia				During the review period, the government’s budget and information on debt obligations were widely and easily accessible to the public, including online.  The budget was substantially complete and generally reliable.  The supreme audit institution reviewed the government’s accounts and made its reports publicly available.  The government specified in law the criteria and procedures for awarding natural resource extraction contracts and licenses but did not appear to follow those regulations in practice.  Basic information on natural resource extraction awards was not always publicly available.The Gambia’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:Following natural resource extraction regulations in practice; andMaking basic information on natural resource extraction contracts publicly available.																												    							View report by:																				Afghanistan											Algeria											Angola											Azerbaijan											Bahrain											Bangladesh											Benin											Burma											Burundi											Cambodia											Cameroon											Central African Republic											Chad											China, People’s Republic of											Comoros											Congo, Democratic Republic of											Congo, Republic of the											Djibouti											Egypt											Equatorial Guinea											Eswatini											Ethiopia											Gabon											The Gambia											Guinea											Guinea-Bissau											Iraq											Laos											Lebanon											Lesotho											Liberia											Libya											Madagascar											Malawi											Mali											Maldives											Mauritania											Mongolia											Mozambique											Niger											Oman											Pakistan											Palestinian Authority											Papua New Guinea											Rwanda											Sao Tome and Principe											Saudi Arabia											Senegal											Sierra Leone											Somalia											South Africa											South Sudan											Sudan											Tajikistan											Tanzania											Turkmenistan											Ukraine											Uzbekistan											Vietnam											Yemen											Zambia											Zimbabwe																										On This Page				search													>																										Government-by-Government Assessments: The Gambia																	Tags																					Bureau of African Affairs																								Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs																								Division for International Finance and Development																								The Gambia