Question: Who was Brent Bennet's associate implicated alongside him in a human rights case regarding a jail in Afghanistan?

Context articles: Human Rights Review Tribunal
Bytes for All v. Federation of Pakistan
Yésica Sánchez Maya
Chiragov and Others v. Armenia
Human rights in Afghanistan
Church of Scientology Moscow v. Russia
Human rights in the United Kingdom
Brent Bennett
Loizidou v. Turkey
Jonathan Idema

The Human Rights Review Tribunal is a statutorily established institution fundamental to the application, determination and up holding of human rights in New Zealand.
 The tribunal is established under the New Zealand Human Rights Act 1993.
 The Human Rights Review Tribunal is one of two key human rights bodies in New Zealand and provides the mechanism for adjudication and resolution of human rights issues.
 The jurisdiction of the tribunal extends to cover matters from domestic human rights law, principles given in the Privacy Act 1993 and the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994.
 Complaints may be bought by the Director of Human Rights or where it is deemed not appropriate to do so, a citizen may proceed with a claim at their own cost.
 The tribunal has the power to grant a wide range of remedies and in making a determination, is not required to give effect to technicalities but rather, the substantial merits of the case.
 The Human Rights Review tribunal also holds special status within the array of tribunals in New Zealands domestic legal system, with a far more significant legal jurisdiction than other inter partes tribunals.
 This special status reflects the fact that decisions of the tribunal can have substantial political and societal implications.
Bytes for All v. Federation of Pakistan, (958/2013) commonly known as the YouTube case is a 2013 Lahore High Court case regarding Internet freedom and censorship in Pakistan.
 The case was filed by Pakistani non-profit human rights organization BytesForAll, Pakistan, and argued by lawyer Yasser Latif Hamdani.
 In this case, BytesForAll challenges internet filtering and surveillance by the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority, especially regarding YouTube.
Yésica Sánchez Maya (born 13 November 1977 in Mexico City, Mexico) is a human rights attorney who works in Oaxaca, Mexico.
 In 2003, she began serving as president of the Mexican League for the Defense of Human Rights (LIMEDDH) in Oaxaca.
 In 2006, when a teacher's strike erupted in Oaxaca she was threatened for defending clients and an arrest warrant was issued when she spoke out about the violence and human rights abuses the state was engaging in.
 In 2008, she left LIMEDDH and founded the Consortium for Parliamentary Dialogue and Equality, for which she serves as Deputy Director, and works on a wide variety of issues including economic and politic inequality, femicide, education, and other human rights issues.
 She has testified at a hearing by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights about violence against women in the region, sexual minorities, and indigenous women, including the Mixe and has attended hearings and presented reports to both the United Nations and the Organization of American States regarding forced disappearances, torture, and violence against women.
 In 2011, Sánchez Maya and other human rights activists were able to pressure Oaxacan legislators to pass Law for the Defense of Human Rights to limit state intimidation and protect citizen's rights.
 In 2012, she sought the office of state Ombudsman for the Defence of Human Rights of the People of Oaxaca (DDHPO) and had the support of NGOs and citizens, but the appointment went to Arturo Peimbert.
 Sánchez Maya has been vocal in criticism of the ombudsman for failure to implement the Victims Act and convene the Committee of Victims.
 In 2015, Sánchez Maya was advocating for laws to protect journalists and human rights defenders from threats and violence.
 She stated that this year, the number of incidents has risen markedly.
Chiragov v. Armenia was an international human rights case regarding the rights to property to Azeri nationals in the Nagorno-Karabakh region after the majority-Armenian region was occupied by liberating Armenian forces.
 The judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on the case originated in an application (no. 13216/05) against the Republic of Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by six Azerbaijani nationals on 6 April 2005.
 The applicants alleged, in particular, that they were prevented from returning to the district of Lachin in territory occupied by the respondent Government, that they were thus unable to enjoy their property and homes located there, and that they had not received any compensation for their losses.
Human rights in Afghanistan is a topic of some controversy and conflict.
 While the Taliban were well known for numerous human rights abuses, several human rights violations continue to take place in the post-Taliban government era.
 Afghanistan has an interesting strong human rights framework within its constitution.
 A bill of rights is enshrined in chapter two of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan's constitution.
 It comprises 38 articles.
 The right to life and liberty are constitutionally protected as are the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence for all persons.
 This gives the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan a strong human rights framework that is guaranteed to all citizens.
The Church of Scientology Moscow v Russia [2007] ECHR 258 is a European Court of Human Rights case, concerning Article 11 of the Convention.
 In the case the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg condemned Moscow City Government's refusal to consider the Church of Scientology of Moscow for registration as a religious organisation, and as a result found that Russia had violated the rights of the Church of Scientology under Articles 11 (the right to freedom of association) when "read in the light of Article 9" (the right to freedom of religion).
 Specifically, the Court determined that, in denying consideration of registration to the Church of Scientology of Moscow, the Moscow authorities "did not act in good faith and neglected their duty of neutrality and impartiality vis-à-vis the applicant's religious community".
 The Court also awarded the Church €10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and €15,000 for costs and expenses.
Human rights in the United Kingdom are set out in common law, with its strongest roots being in the Bill of Rights 1689, as well as legislation of European institutions: the EU and the European Court of Human Rights.
 At the same time, it has been alleged that the UK has also had a history of both "de jure" and "de facto" discrimination, and, in recent history, occasional violations of basic human rights, particularly in times of national security crises, or regarding the rights of migrants, the unemployed, and the disabled.
 In recent years, however, British human rights legislation has been criticised by some for what they perceive as excessive attention to the human rights of offenders at the expense of those of victims; high-profile cases, such as those of Learco Chindamo and the 2006 Afghan hijackers, have attracted controversy, sparking calls for the review of the Human Rights Act 1998 and other legislation.
 David Cameron in his second ministry announced plans to replace the Human rights Act with a "British Bill of Rights".
Brent Bennett is a former US Army paratrooper who was convicted by an Afghan court on 15 September 2004 for participating in torture and kidnapping, and for running a private jail in Kabul.
 Bennett and his associate Jonathan Idema had been operating as independent security contractors in Afghanistan, but had been representing themselves to the American and international media, members of the US military, and Afghan nationals as US government-sponsored covert operatives to track and apprehend Osama Bin Laden and senior Taliban officials.
 The government has repeatedly denied the validity of their claims.
Loizidou v. Turkey is a landmark legal case regarding the rights of refugees wishing to return to their former homes and properties.
 The European Court of Human Rights ruled that Mrs. Titina Loizidou, and consequently all other refugees, have the right to return to their former properties.
 The ECHR ruled that Turkey had violated Mrs. Loizidou's human rights, that she should be allowed to return to her home and that Turkey should pay damages to her.
 Turkey initially ignored this ruling.
Jonathan Keith "Jack" Idema (May 30, 1956January 21, 2012) was a former U.S. Army reserve special operations non-commissioned officer with a controversial history.
 In September 2004 he was found guilty of running a private prison in Afghanistan and torturing Afghan citizens.
 At the time, Idema had been portraying himself as a U.S. government-sponsored special forces operative on a mission to apprehend terrorists. However, the U.S. government has repeatedly denied most of such claims.