Sample Request For Course Approval Form - Academic Affairs: Fill & Download for Free

As per the latest news, new IIMs plan to replace Group Discussion (GD) with written test (WAT) and they may use the older scores of IIMs for admissions. The new Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs) started since 2010, following some of the older IIM’s like IIM-A, B, L, etc. will replace the group discussion (GD) stage of their admissions with a written essay test.They also plan to use the score of WAT taken by older IIM’s, i.e. if a student has already appeared for the written tests of some of the older IIMs, he or she will not need to take the written test separately for the new IIMs. Either way, the personal interview will still be taken by the new IIMs.Over the years, GD is gradually getting shunned by the IIMs and WAT is being conducted before PI.Writing ability and time constrainNow that essay writing is gaining importance in the admission criteria of IIMs’ the main concern is the time limit. While writing an essay for admission to a top B-school, the focus should be on the time. IIM Bangalore gives 30 minutes to write the essay, while IIM Lucknow gives 15 minutes and the time for writing the essay is as little as 10 minutes in IIM Ahmedabad.Here, the key will be to write as fast as possible in order to finish the essay. Don’t waste much time on thinking and planning the structure of the essay, else you will not be able to complete it. For this, you will need sufficient practice.According to a student of IIM Ahmedabad, the best way to practice is by picking up one current-affairs topic every day and writing as much as you can for 10 minutes. Your focus should be on starting the essay and putting in as many important points as possible. There is no compulsion to present the matter in impressive or flowery language. Instead, accuracy and correctness of spelling and grammar take precedence. The essay’s evaluation is based on the number of new ideas or points you can produce in the given time, the different angles from which you can analyze the topic and the logic behind each argument.It is important to develop the ability to think and articulate quickly. For B-school panelists, essays are tools to see how you structure your thoughts and produce them in the least amount of time. Apart from IIMs, other prominent B-schools like XLRI and IIFT also use Essay Writing to assess candidates.Read More Written Ability Topics (WAT)Weightage for GD, PI and WATThe weightage to the PI and Written Ability Test at IIM Lucknow will be as follows:ComponentsWeightsWritten Ability Test10Personal Interview40Total50(The minimum requirement for getting a pass in Personal Interview is 12 out of 40 marks.)Weightage for CAT score, Class XII, graduation and work experience for PGPThe weightages are as follows:ComponentsWeightsAggregate CAT - 201538Class - XII Marks2Graduation Marks3Work Experience2Diversity Factor : Academic Discipline(D Fa)3Diversity Factor: Gender (DFb)2Total50Final Merit ListIIM-L’s admission policy document states: “The sum of the scores in all the eight components will be taken as the final score of a candidate for arriving at the merit list(s) for final selection to the PGP / PGP-ABM of IIML.Top 10 Business School Essay Writing Tips1.Don't Use Company Jargon:As a prospective business student, you have probably spent the past few years in a corporate environment with its own in-house terminology. Remember that you are writing for a reader who hasn't attended your company's meetings or contributed to its products. You should certainly describe various aspects of your professional life--your leadership skills, your career trajectory, your triumph in the face of obstacles, and so on--but do so in language that is as accessible to your reader as it is to you. Imagine that you are composing a document for a customer who must decide whether to buy a particular product: you. Write clearly and personably.And if you are a fresher, go for the common language you have been using in your school days rather than the jargons you came across while a conversation with your friend who is corporate now or any of your relative.2. Don't Bore the Reader. Be Interesting.Admissions officers have to read hundreds of essays, and they must often skim. Abstract rumination has no place in an admission process essay. Admissions officers aren't looking for a new way to view the world; they're looking for a new way to view you, the prospective student.The best way to grip your reader is to begin the essay with a captivating snapshot. Notice how the blunt, jarring "after" sentence creates intrigue and keeps the reader's interest.Before: I am a compilation of many years of experiences gained from overcoming the relentless struggles of life.After: I was six years old, the eldest of six children in the Bronx, when my father was murdered.3. Do Use Personal Detail. Show, Don't Tell!Good essays are concrete and grounded in personal detail. They do not merely assert "I learned my lesson" or that "these lessons are useful both on and off the field." They show it through personal detail. "Show, don't tell" means that if you want to relate a personal quality, do so through your experiences without merely asserting it.Before: If it were not for a strong support system which instilled into me strong family values and morals, I would not be where I am today.After: Although my grandmother and I didn't have a car or running water, we still lived far more comfortably than did the other families I knew. I learned an important lesson: My grandmother made the most of what little she had, and she was known and respected for her generosity. Even at that age, I recognized the value she placed on maximizing her resources and helping those around her.The first example is vague and could have been written by anybody. But the second sentence evokes a vivid image of something that actually happened, placing the reader in the experience of the student.4.Be Concise. Don't Be Wordy.Wordiness not only takes up valuable space, but also confuses the important ideas you're trying to convey. Short sentences are more forceful because they are direct and to the point. Certain phrases, such as "the fact that," are usually unnecessary. Notice how the revised version focuses on active verbs rather than forms of "to be" and adverbs and adjectives.Before: My recognition of the fact that the project was finally over was a deeply satisfying moment that will forever linger in my memory.After: Completing the project at last gave me an enduring sense of fulfillment.5.Do Address Your Weaknesses. Don't Dwell on Them.At some point while writing the essay on personal topic, you will have an opportunity to explain deficiencies in your record, and you should take advantage of it. Be sure to explain them adequately: "I partied too much to do well on tests" will not help your reputation. The best tactic is to spin the negatives into positives by stressing your attempts to improve; for example, mention your poor first-quarter grades briefly, and then describe what you did to bring them up.Before: My grade point average provides an incomplete evaluation of my potential and of the person I am today, since it fails to reveal my passion and determined spirit which make me unique and an asset to the _______ School of Business.After: Though my overall grade point average was disappointing, I am confident that the upward trend in my academic transcript will continue in business school. Furthermore, my success on the CAT/XAT/etc and in the corporate world since graduation reinforces my conviction that I have a keen business sense--one that I hope to develop at the _______ School of Business.6.Do Vary Your Sentences and Use Transitions.The best essays contain a variety of sentence lengths mixed within any given paragraph. Also, remember that transition is not limited to words like nevertheless, furthermore or consequently. Good transition flows from the natural thought progression of your argument.Before: I started playing piano when I was eight years old. I worked hard to learn difficult pieces. I began to love music.After: I started playing the piano at the age of eight. As I learned to play more difficult pieces, my appreciation for music deepened.7.Do Use Active Voice Verbs.Passive-voice expressions are verb phrases in which the subject receives the action expressed in the verb. Passive voice employs a form of the word to be, such as was or were. Overuse of the passive voice makes prose seem flat and uninteresting.Before: The lessons that have prepared me for my career as an executive were taught to me by my mother.After: My mother taught me lessons that will prove invaluable in my career as an executive.8.Do Seek Multiple Opinions.Ask your friends and family to keep these questions in mind:Does my essay have one central theme?Does my introduction engage the reader? Does my conclusion provide closure?Do my introduction and conclusion avoid summary?Do I use concrete experiences as supporting details?Have I used active-voice verbs wherever possible?Is my sentence structure varied, or do I use all long or short sentences?Are there any clichés, such as "cutting-edge" or "learned my lesson"?Do I use transitions appropriately?What about the essay is memorable?What's the worst part of the essay?What parts of the essay need elaboration or are unclear?What parts of the essay do not support my main argument?Is every single sentence crucial to the essay? This must be the case.What does the essay reveal about my personality?9.Don't Wander. Do Stay Focused.Many students try to turn the personal essay into a complete autobiography. Not surprisingly, they find it difficult to pack so much information into such a short essay, and their essays end up sounding more like a list of experiences than a coherent, well-organized thought. Make sure that every sentence in your essay exists solely to support one central theme.10. Do Revise, Revise And Revise.The first step in an improving any essay is to cut, cut, and cut some more.Some important sample essays are as follows, although they are only indicative and not to be considered as the only way of writing on those topics. One should exercise his or her own thoughts as well. To help you understand and co-relate, the ending of some topics are not what it should be. We hope you can identify and complete them in your words.Values ChallengedOne has to understand sub-continental culture regarding marriage in order to understand this particular crisis. Marriages are classified into two groups: 'settled' marriage and 'love' marriage. In a 'settled' marriage, the groom's family chooses the bride, and if bride's family accepts the groom, the two families get together and fix the marriage. The bride and the groom may or may not meet each other before the marriage.In a 'love' marriage, two persons fall in love and get married, with or without the permission of their families. This is considered a social crime, and the newlyweds are forced to leave their families.After I came back from the US, I met my sweetheart who was attending medical school. We courted each other for years, and when she graduated we figured it was time to marry. I asked my family to select the woman of my choice so as to marry the woman I love without upsetting social norms.When my mother proposed my fiancée's family, her mother wanted to see me personally. I assumed she would consider me a suitable candidate for her daughter's husband since I come from a good family and since I am qualified to maintain a family.However, rather than looking for qualities in me that might make her daughter happy, she demanded that I posses an MBA degree before I marry her daughter. Apparently, all of her relatives' and friends' daughters got married to either MBAs or Ph.D.'s.I was dumbfounded. I would have gladly given the moon to her daughter, but I was not about to earn an MBA to satisfy this woman's irrational craving. How would an MBA help me to become a better husband? Even though I intended to pursue an MBA anyway, I could not agree to her demand. I told her that I would never earn an MBA. As a result, I couldn't marry the woman of my dreams.I stayed true to my personal values, and it cost me the woman I love.Media InfluenceCRITICALLY ASSESS THE WAYS IN WHICH THE MEDIA CAN BE SAID TO INFLUENCE OR HAVE EFFECTS ON SOCIETY.The Mass Media is a unique feature of modern society; its development has accompanied an increase in the magnitude and complexity of societal actions and engagements, rapid social change, technological innovation, rising personal income and standard of life and the decline of some traditional forms of control and authority.There is an association between the development of mass media and social change, although the degree and direction of this association is still debated upon even after years of study into media influence. Many of the consequences, either detrimental or beneficial, which have been attributed to the mass media, are almost undoubtedly due to other tendencies within society.Few sociologists would refute the importance of the mass media, and mass communications as a whole, as being a major factor in the construction and circulation of social understanding and social imagery in modern societies. Therefore it is argued that the mass media is used as “an instrument”, both more powerful and more flexible than anything in previous existence, for influencing people into certain modes of belief and understanding within society.The question of media’s influence on society and its cultural framework has often been debated upon from leading theorists to anyone with any form of media connections, but to contemplate that the character of Chulbul Pandey from Dabang or student group of Rang De Basanti can have an influence on an audience members attitude, beliefs or interpretations of society is a very simplistic and debatable version of the truth.The media does influence, but using more diverse and subtle roles of impact. Some theorists suggest that it is even a case of society influencing the media and not the more widespread and presumed version.Presidential Vs. Parliamentary Democracy: A DebateTwo of the most popular types of democracy are the presidential and parliamentary government systems.A nation's type of government refers to how that state's executive, legislative, and judicial organs are organized. All nations need some sort of government to avoid anarchy. Democratic governments are those that permit the nation's citizens to manage their government either directly or through elected representatives. This is opposed to authoritarian governments that limit or prohibit the direct participation of its citizens. Two of the most popular types of democratic governments are the presidential and parliamentary systems.The office of President characterizes the presidential system. The President is both the chief executive and the head of state. The President is unique in that he or she is elected independently of the legislature. The powers invested in the President are usually balanced against those vested in the legislature. In the American presidential system, the legislature must debate and pass various bills. The President has the power to veto the bill, preventing its adoption. However, the legislature may override the President's veto if they can muster enough votes. The American President's broadest powers rest in foreign affairs. The President has the right to deploy the military in most situations, but does not have the right to officially declare war. More recently the American President requested the right to approve treaties without the consent of the legislature. The American Congress denied this bill and was able to override the President's veto.In parliamentary governments the head of state and the chief executive are two separate offices. Many times the head of state functions in a primarily ceremonial role, while the chief executive is the head of the nation's legislature. The most striking difference between presidential and parliamentary systems is in the election of the chief executive. In parliament systems, the chief executive is not chosen by the people but by the legislature. Typically the majority party in the parliament chooses the chief executive, known as the Prime Minister. However, in some parliaments there are so many parties represented that none hold a majority. Parliament members must decide among themselves whom to elect as Prime Minister. The fusion of the legislative and executive branches in the parliamentary system tends to lead to more discipline among political party members. Party members in parliaments almost always vote strictly along party lines. Presidential systems, on the contrary, are less disciplined and legislators are free to vote their conscious with fewer repercussions from their party. Debate styles also differ between the two systems. Presidential system legislators make use of a filibuster, or the right to prolong speeches to delay legislative action. Parliamentary systems will call for cloture or an end to debate so voting can begin.Most European nations follow the parliamentary system of government. Britain is the most well known parliamentary system. Because Great Britain was once a pure monarchy, the function of the head of state was given to the royal family, while the role of chief executive was established with Parliament. Some parliaments, however, do not have a history of monarchy. Israel is a parliamentary system with a president. The president, however, does not hold the same power as a president in a presidential system, but functions as the head of state. In both presidential and parliamentary systems, the chief executive can be removed from office by the legislature. Parliamentary systems use a "˜vote of no confidence' where a majority of parliament members vote to remove the Prime Minister from office. A new election is then called. In presidential systems, a similar process is used where legislators vote to impeach the President from office.Since the fall of the Soviet Union, democracy has begun to flourish around the world. As emerging nations struggle to identify themselves, they are also debating which form of democracy is best for them. Depending on the nation and its citizens, they may choose the more classic parliamentary system or the less rigid presidential system. They could also blend to two popular systems together to create the hybrid government that works best for them.Corruption in India“Corruption is Social Evil - Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”In its simplest sense, corruption may be defined as an act of bribery or misuse of public position or power for the fulfillment of selfish motives or to gain personal gratifications. It has also been defined as "Misuse of authority as a result of consideration of personal gain which need not be monetary".In recent Centuries India has earned a place among the THREE most corrupt countries in the world. Corruption in India is a consequence of the nexus between Bureaucracy, politics and criminals. India is now no longer considered a soft state. It has now become a consideration state where everything can be had for a consideration. Today, the number of ministers with an honest image can be counted on fingers. At one time, bribe was paid for getting wrong things done but now bribe is paid for getting right things done at right time.It is well established that politicians are extremely corrupt the world over. In fact, people are surprised to find an honest politician. These corrupt politicians go scot-free, unharmed and unpunished. Leaders like Lal Bahadur Shastri or Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel are a rare breed now who had very little bank balance at the time of death.The list of scams and scandals in the country is endless. Now recently before the start of 2010 Common Wealth Games, Corruption played major role in common wealth games organisation. The Bofors payoff scandal of 1986 involved a total amount of Rs 1750 crore in purchase of guns from a Swedish firm for the Army. The Cement scandal of 1982 involved the Chief Minister of Maharashtra, the Sugar Scandal of 1994 involved a Union Minister of State for food, the Urea Scam and of course no one can forget Hawala Scandal of 1991, the Coffin-gate, fodder scam in Bihar or the Stamp scandal which shocked not only the political arena but the entire society.Is it possible to contain corruption in our society? Corruption is a cancer, which every Indian must strive to cure. Many new leaders when come into power declare their determination to eradicate corruption but soon they themselves become corrupt and start amassing huge wealth.There are many myths about corruption, which have to be exploded if we really want to combat it. Some of these myths are: Corruption is a way of life and nothing can be done about it. Only people from underdeveloped or developing countries are prone to corruption. We will have to guard against all these crude fallacies while planning measures to fight corruption.It is not possible to kill or remove the corruption by improving the Social-economic conditions of the country. Because we all know that the most of the people who are corrupted are not economically or socially backward, surely they will be having a notable social status."Despite a decade of progress in establishing anti-corruption laws and regulations, these results indicate that much remains to be done before we see meaningful improvements in the lives of the world's poorest citizens."The following steps should be considered to eradicate corruption:Greedy business people and unscrupulous investors should stop bribing the political elites. Don’t be either at the receiving or at the bribing end. Political elites should stop putting their private gains before the welfare of citizens and economic development of their regions. Government should include a chapter in text books related to corruption and its desire consequences.We all need to stop talking about Corruption only and start taking initiatives and be brave in ourselves. Corruption is going to end only when people like us stand up and speak out.If we do not take step forward to remove corruption from root, the word developing country will always be attached with our country INDIA. So we, the common man, should find some solution for removing corruption from our INDIA and hence we will also prove ourselves helpful in making our country developed.And it is possible - today’s generation is willing to change this system. And soon corruption will be out from our country. Every person should consider this as his or her own responsibility to avoid and defeat corruption“A strong youth movement in the country only can remove corruption and each student should take a vow to begin this exercise courageously within the family” - Former President- Dr.A.P.J.Abdul KalamHow Do You Measure Success In Life?Reaching the top of the tree in one's chosen occupation or profession is the usual standard by which success in life is measured, at least in the Western world. However many Asians would reject this criterion. The contemplative religions assert that success is only measurable in terms of religious advancement and of the acquisition of the virtues. Thus, success would be in inverse ratio to material advancement.Most of the world accepts the definition of material advancement, its objectives being affluence and perhaps power over others, both being the most important means of self-expression. Some are born into positions which already confer affluence and power, so success to them might lie merely in the preservation of the family business or estate and perhaps its enhancement for the benefit of the next generation. Most people have to work hard to achieve success.The western concept of success is not always satisfying and some people, at the height of their affluence and power, reject it in favor of the simple life. This happens for a variety of reasons. Beyond a certain point the acquisition of money proves unsatisfactory. The difference between the lifestyle available to a millionaire and that available to a billionaire is marginal. Unhappily money making can become an obsession, and some very wealthy people become very mean. Money also creates anxiety since it usually has to be put at risk if more is to be made. Other anxieties may be created when a large number of people become dependent on a financial empire.Money confers power which may corrupt. It is often made at the disadvantage of others, and it may damage a business man's relationships both with his peers and with his subordinates. These pressures and anxieties often have a detrimental effect on health and on family life. One's wife and children are inevitably neglected and unhappy. The children of successful capitalists or career workaholics sometimes reject everything the father offers and want to start a life of their own where they could get and give that love and care they always missed and which was replaced by materialistic things.You can complete this essay in your own words…..Let us now cover some essay topics that have appeared in the past in B-schools entrances. These topics are very popular and have a high chance of getting repeated:-National affairs:India has the largest pool of talented manpower but very few innovations and patented productsAllowing Foreign Universities in India is bad for India's education systemIndia versus Bharat: a divided nationHow should women empower themselves?More than one billion Indians: A gigantic problem or a sea of opportunitiesPolitical Issues:Voting should be made compulsoryBanning politicians with criminal records from contesting elections is against their rightFight against corruptionWomen's Reservation BillUnion Budget is useless and recession puts it off trackEconomy/ Business Issues:Recession is the mother of innovationShould Petroleum Subsidy go away?Discuss the role of Public Private Partnership in India's Economic GrowthForeign direct investment will revitalize the education systemBusinesses should concentrate on making profits and not address social and environmental IssuesInternational Issues:India to become a superpower in near futureChina's relations with India vis-a-vis PakistanDoes India have a role in Afghanistan? DiscussThis list of past Essay Topics above will help you understand what are the areas to study, the topics asked are and how to go about preparations. It is recommended that you read newspaper and listen to news so that you're well tuned with current affairs.Essay as a precursor to PI:The essay you wrote in the first half of the personal assessment round can generate some questions in the interview round. The panel could ask you questions about the essay and you have to defend it. Questions on the topic can also be asked, which means you will need to know a lot about the topic. If you don’t know something, simply admit it.This was a complete module on WAT which is the latest buzz-word in town for MBA aspirants. MBA Entrance Exams 2016/17 has especially made this module to throw sufficient light on this topic. We are very hopeful that once you go through all the topics discussed in the module, you will be well prepared to face the WAT of any institute or college.

Here I find some China’s response to the problem of Xinjiang.Translated by Google Translate.Three articles and the problem on news UN demands 'unfettered access' for China Uighur region visit.1."The claims that China has detained millions of Uighurs in Xinjiang are appearing more and more frequently, but few reviews have been conducted. As long as you carefully observe how this number is obtained, you will find that the data is seriously flawed." Recently, The US independent news website "Grayzone" published an article titled "China Detains Millions of Uighurs? US-Supported Non-Governmental Organizations and Extreme Right Wing Researchers Have Serious Problems Against Beijing's Allegations". By the way, "nearly one million Uyghurs have been detained" has become almost "common sense" in the context of Western media. In fact, it can't bear the scrutiny of how it was concocted.This article points out that although this unusual claim is regarded as impeccable in the West, in fact, it is based on two highly suspicious "researches".The first study, "Chinese Human Rights Defenders (CHRD)" supported by the US government, was obtained only through interviews with 8 people. According to reports, in 2018, CHRD stated in a report submitted to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, “It is estimated that about 1 million Uighurs were sent to the“ re-education ”detention camp, and about 2 million people were Xinjiang ’s 're-education' project. "It is worth mentioning that in the reports of Western media, this so-called report is often misinterpreted as a report written by the United Nations, but the" grey zone "website was as early as August 2018. Specifically, "No, the United Nations has not issued a report saying that China has a" large-scale detention camp "for Uighur Muslims", and the author elaborates on this in detail.In addition, according to CHRD, this number is "based on interviews and limited data." The report relentlessly revealed the truth: "Although CHRD said that it interviewed dozens of Uyghurs during the study, their assessment was actually based on interviews with 8 Uyghurs.""Based on such a ridiculously small sample of research conducted in an area with a total population of 20 million people, CHRD 'calculated' that at least 10% of the villagers are currently detained in re-education detention camps and 20% are forced to participate In re-education camps located in villages or townships, a total of 30% of the people are in two types of camps. "It is reported that, in this way, CHRD applied these estimated ratios to the entire Xinjiang, and then obtained the The figures mentioned in the report: 1 million people were detained in "re-education detention camps", and 2 million people were "forced to participate in re-education courses during the day or night."The "gray zone" also pointed out that the United States not only relies on the data provided by CHRD, but also directly finances its operations. According to previous reports in the "Grey Zone", CHRD has received a lot of financial support from the National Democracy Foundation (NED), an institution in Washington that intervenes in regime change. The US State Department, the US Agency for International Development, and the CIA all have close ties.According to the "Gray Zone" article, the second suspicious study relied on unreliable media reports and speculations. The author is a pole named Adrian Zengzi (Chinese name "郑国恩"). Right fundamentalist Christian. According to the beginning of the "Grey Zone" website, this Christian believes that he is "led by God" and has a "mission" against China. He is also a senior researcher on China issues for the far-right organization "Communist Victims Memorial Foundation" established by the US government in 1983.In September 2018, Zheng Guoen published an article in the "Central Asian Investigation" magazine, saying, "It is estimated that the total number of detainees in Xinjiang exceeds 1 million." According to the "Grey Zone", Zheng Guoen obtained this number based on a report by Istiqlal TV, a Uighur exile media organization based in Turkey. The TV station once released an unconfirmed "relearned number of re-educated detainees" table allegedly "leaked" by Chinese authorities, saying that "as of spring 2018, the total number of detainees in 68 counties in Xinjiang reached 892,000 ". But according to the "Grey Zone", Istiqlal TV is not a fair news organization at all. It promotes separatism while receiving various extremists. Among them, the regulars who often appear on this TV station are the leaders of "East Turkistan" named Abdul Kader Yafuquan.Perhaps the basis quoted is so absurd that he can't even look down on himself. Zheng Guoen admits that his estimate is "not certain". Nevertheless, he insisted that his "guess is reasonable". What is even more weird is that, as time goes by, Zheng Guoen is constantly exaggerating his estimate of the number of detained Uighurs.Regarding the statement of Zheng Guoen and his followers, a spokesman for the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region's government spoke earlier this month in an exclusive interview with a reporter from Global Times-Global Network. Backbone, in the name of so-called experts, they made out-of-the-box and purely fabricated remarks against Xinjiang, distorting Xinjiang's ability to smear, and intended to cooperate with US anti-China forces to attack Xinjiang. The spokesperson also pointed out that the practice of Zheng Guoen and others is no longer an issue in the academic field, but a disguise of discrediting in the name of academic research. This is also a common tactic used by some people in the United States.In fact, Global Times-Global Network reporters have noticed that there are more than one media outlets such as the "grey zone" that reveals how their Western counterparts concocted rumours on the Xinjiang issue to discredit China. The US Workers ’World Party website on December 18, titled" Behind the US Anti-China Public Opinion Attack ", revealed how the United States" deeply hostile to the "Belt and Road" and tried every possible means to destroy China's plan. "This article pointed out that since 2017, no terrorist attacks have occurred in Xinjiang. On the contrary, the United States occupied Afghanistan and invaded Iraq, resulting in the displacement of countless people and the destruction of social progress, education, medical care and infrastructure. The article pointed out the essence of the U.S. report on Xinjiang in a pinch: “How many reports about China ’s Xinjiang are used to divert the world ’s attention from war crimes committed by the United States?”2.At a regular press conference of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on December 4, a reporter asked: The US House of Representatives discussed and passed the "2019 Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act" this morning. US Congressman Smith said that the Chinese government detained millions of people in Xinjiang on a large scale, and that the crackdowns it conducted were called "modern concentration camps." US Speaker Pelosi said that China ’s treatment of Uighurs has angered the collective conscience of the world. What is China's comment?Hua Chunying ’s response was straightforward: The US side selectively forgot the cruel behavior of its persecution and slaughter of the Indians, turned a blind eye to the bloody history and tragic reality of the Indians, but had no bottom line on China ’s successful minority policies, especially the Xinjiang-related policies. Slanders smear.Hua Chunying: I do n’t know how do you think of the US Congressmen? I heard that many US lawmakers do not even have passports, have not come to China to see it, and have never been to Xinjiang. How can they represent 1.4 billion Chinese people or 25 million Xinjiang people? It is too self-righteous and arrogant to make unreasonable accusations of the situation in Xinjiang and completely inconsistent with the facts.On the issue of ethnic minorities, these American lawmakers and politicians tell China "conscience", it is really too ignorant, too shameless, and too hypocritical. Do these American politicians really forget? ! The 200-year history of American development is itself a history of blood and tears for Indians. The Indians were originally the natural owners of the American continent. In the nearly 100 years of the 19th century, the US military expelled and killed Indians through the Westward Movement, invaded millions of square kilometers of Indian land, and seized countless natural resources. The US government also implements a policy of compulsory assimilation of the Indians, and expels, slaughters and persecutes the Indians for a long time, and does not give the Indians the civil rights it deserves. Today, the number of Indians in the United States accounts for only 2.09% of the total population of the United States, and the situation is extremely embarrassing. The Indians have a very backward infrastructure, lack of water and electricity, and lack of access to the Internet. Regarding these shocking facts, don't the relevant US legislators and politicians really know? Where is their conscience?China implements a system of regional ethnic autonomy, upholds the equality and unity of all ethnic groups, respects and protects freedom of religious belief in accordance with law, protects normal religious activities, and safeguards the legitimate rights and interests of religious groups, venues for religious activities, and religious citizens. People of all ethnic groups in Xinjiang enjoy equal legal status and the rights granted by the Constitution and laws to elections and elections, participation in state affairs management, freedom of religious belief, education, use of their own languages, and inheritance of their traditional culture.The Xinjiang-related issue is by no means a human rights issue, an ethnic issue, or a religious issue, but an anti-secession and anti-terrorism issue. Since the 1990s, especially after the "September 11" incident, the "three forces" have created thousands of violent terrorist cases in Xinjiang and other places, resulting in a large number of innocent people's lives and property losses. In particular, the "7.5" incident in Xinjiang, which shocked the world, killed 197 people and injured more than 1,700. Xinjiang ’s education and training work on the basis of drawing on and absorbing the international community ’s anti-terrorism experience is precisely in response to the United Nations Action Plan to Prevent Violent Extremism. I do n’t know if the US congressmen have read it seriously? Perhaps they never cared about what resolution or plan of action the United Nations had adopted. The United Nations Action Plan to Prevent Violent Extremism points out that poverty, unemployment, lack of employment opportunities and low education, and the arbitrary distortion and use of religious beliefs, ethnic differences, and political ideological systems by violent extremist groups are the background of violent extremism. And cause. The Action Plan proposes that people of violent extremist groups should be provided with educational opportunities, vocational training resources, and economic opportunities to encourage them to break away from violent extremist groups. To this end, many countries in the world have set up "de-extreme centers" and "education transformation centers" to carry out de-extremist transformation. Some countries educate and transform terrorists and high-risk groups at the prison and community levels. There are also countries, as I mentioned yesterday, such as the United Kingdom, through the "transformation and secession" project, requiring terrorists to participate in training, and set up isolation centers to prevent the spread of extreme violent terror ideas in prison.Practice has proved that the measures taken by Xinjiang in China are precisely a positive response to the UN's relevant action plans and beneficial exploration and practice. Everyone knows that the current security situation in Xinjiang has clearly improved, and there have been no terrorist attacks for three consecutive years. The preventive counter-terrorism and de-radicalization efforts undertaken by China have won the support and support of the people of all ethnic groups in Xinjiang, as well as the general support and positive evaluation of the international community. The efforts and results achieved by China in combating terrorism and depolarization are worthy of appreciation and learning from the US instead of discrediting.The United States has selectively forgotten the cruel acts of its persecution and slaughter of Indians, and turned a blind eye to the history and tragic reality of the Indians ’blood and tears. However, it has made a bottomless slur on China ’s successful minority policies, especially the Xinjiang-related policies, and attempted to use the The Xinjiang issue provokes China ’s ethnic relations, undermines Xinjiang ’s prosperity and stability, and prevents China ’s development and growth. This can only further expose the US ’s double standards on the issue of counter-terrorism. In the final analysis, what is the situation in Xinjiang, only Xinjiang's 25 million people of all ethnic groups have the most say, and only 1.4 billion Chinese people have the most say. Those US lawmakers cannot represent the interests of all the American people. How can they represent the Chinese people and the Chinese people in Xinjiang? Why do they judge us?In recent years, under the banner of human rights and counter-terrorism, the United States has ignited wars and launched wars everywhere in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, resulting in millions of innocent civilian casualties and a large number of refugees displaced. This kind of behavior by the United States that completely scorns the lives and development rights of people in other countries really angers the conscience and anger of people with conscience all over the world! It must be pointed out that terrorism and extremism are the common enemies of human society, and counter-terrorism and de-extremism are the common responsibilities of the international community. The "September 11" incident is not far away. The US side should not heal the scars and forget the pain. If the United States continues to play with double standards on the issue of counter-terrorism, or even attempts to infringe on the sovereignty and security of other countries, it will end up eating its own fruits and harming the interests of the United States.Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesperson's Office3.How many reports about Xinjiang in China are used to divert the world ’s attention to war crimes committed by the United States?An article on the US Workers ’World Party website on December 18, original title: Behind US Anti-China Public Opinion Attacks Various facts about Xinjiang To assess the claims about Xinjiang in China, it is important to clarify some facts first. Xinjiang is located in western China, where there are different ethnic groups and borders with several Central Asian countries including Afghanistan and Pakistan. What happened in Xinjiang today must be viewed in the context of Central Asia.(Screenshot of the report of the US "Workers World Party" website)Xinjiang is China's ambitious logistics center under the ambitious “Belt and Road” initiative, and a gateway to Central Asia and West Asia and European markets. The US government is deeply hostile to the “Belt and Road” initiative and tries its best to destroy China's plan. This is the same as the United States creating naval threats in the South China Sea and supporting the separatist forces in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Tibet. It is all content that the US military "turns to" Asia.The United States and its partner media claim that the Chinese government has shut down millions of people (mainly Uighurs) in concentration camps. Such reports use the United Nations as a source of information. This was questioned by a detailed investigation report written by Ben Norton and others. The report is titled "No, the United Nations has not issued a report saying that China has a" large-scale detention camp "against Uighur Muslims." They revealed that this widely circulated statement was entirely based on the American Guy McDougall's allegations from no source. This person is a member of an "independent committee" whose name sounds official. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights confirmed that no United Nations agencies or officials have made such allegations against China.(On July 21, the Information Office of the State Council published a white paper on "Some Historical Issues in Xinjiang", which clarified the international misunderstandings about Xinjiang's nationalities, religions, and cultural history, one by one, for the kind people to distinguish right from wrong, and also to let those malicious The instigators closed their noisy mouths.)After this deceptive news was widely circulated, the report of the "Chinese Human Rights Defenders Network" in Washington jumped out. The organization ’s funding comes mainly from the National Democracy Foundation, which is associated with the CIA, and the latter is a major source of funding for the “regime change” operations of the United States around the world. The organization has the same address as "Human Rights Watch" in Washington. The latter has always been the main source of US attacks on China. The other source of the sensational report, "World Peace Conference", was also funded by the National Democracy Foundation.Over the past 40 years, the CIA has recruited and trained Uighur mercenaries in Afghanistan, intending to use them to launch terrorist attacks on China. Chechens from the Caucasus were recruited for the same reason. The two groups were sent to Syria to participate in the US regime change operation. These fanatics, together with other small groups, form the backbone of the "Islamic State" and "Al-Qaida" organizations. After the "September 11" terrorist attack, the forces assisted by the American intelligence agencies became enemies of the United States. Among the Al-Qaida prisoners captured by the United States in Afghanistan were Uighurs from Xinjiang, who were held in Guantanamo prison for several years without charge.The occupation of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq by the United States have resulted in the displacement of countless people and the destruction of social progress, education, health care and infrastructure. Driven by the US plan to overthrow the Syrian government, more than 100,000 foreign mercenaries and religious fanatics joined the war. One-third of Syrians fled their homes and millions of refugees poured into Europe ... How many reports about Xinjiang in China were used to divert the world ’s attention from war crimes committed by the United States?(Data map of US military in Iraq, source: Al Jazeera)The US Senate report confirmed that senior US officials approved the "detention and interrogation plan" torture project. Of the 6,000 pages, only 525 pages of abstracts were disclosed, but it was enough to prove the cruelty and prevalence of this plan.China is determined to take a different path in dealing with fanatical organizations weaponized by religious extremism. To deal with the problem of religious extremism, it is not to create a more backward situation through bombing, but to establish large vocational education and training centers to communicate with the people through education, skill training and rapid economic and infrastructure development. Since the re-education project started in 2017, no terrorist attacks have occurred in Xinjiang.In July, 22 countries (mostly Western countries) issued a statement slamming China's large-scale "detention" of Muslims in Xinjiang. But there is no signature of a Muslim-majority state in the statement. A few days later, a much larger group of 34 countries issued a statement in support of China ’s policies. Now, the group has expanded to 54 countries. They all expressed firm support for China's anti-terrorism and de-radicalization measures in Xinjiang. More than a dozen member states from the United Nations Islamic Cooperation Organization signed the statement.Another statement submitted to the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly on October 31 showed that some diplomats, international organizations, officials and journalists visited Xinjiang and witnessed the progress of human rights and the results of counter-terrorism and depolarization. The statement said: "What they saw and heard in Xinjiang is completely different from what the (Western) media reported."(From August 28 to September 1, Yemen, South Africa, Zambia, Mozambique and other eight permanent representatives in Geneva and major diplomats visited a farmer in Shufu County, Kashgar.)Source: Global Times-Global Network / Author Sara Flanders, Translated by Qiao HengPS: Wait, this is an article on the US Workers, it is translated in Chinese then translated in English…4. About UN demands 'unfettered access' for China Uighur region visitA team preparing for the United Nations rights chief Michelle Bachelet's possible visit to the tightly controlled Muslim-majority Chinese region of Xinjiang this year should be given "unfettered access", she said on Thursday."We will seek to analyse in-depth the human rights situation in China, including the situation of members of the Uighur minority," she said, addressing the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.Bachelet welcomed the invitation from China to tour the region but added: "We will continue to request unfettered access for an advance team in preparation for this proposed visit."China invite Bachelet. It’s all ok.China has come under international criticism for its treatment of the Uighurs, with activists and witnesses saying it is trying to forcibly integrate the mostly Muslim ethnic group and strip them of their Islamic heritage.Subjective opinion, not said by the United Nations but the United StatesBeijing has described internment camps - in which an estimated one million Uighurs and other mostly Muslim ethnic Turkic minorities have been held - as educational.An article above introduces this rumor from the United States and has nothing to do with the United Nations.China's ambassador to the UN, Chen Xu, on Wednesday dismissed abuse allegations as "unacceptable", and said there had been "economic, social and human rights progress in Xinjiang".As article 3 para. 2 says, UN never accused China about this.We all know abusing allegations is "unacceptable". You should tell me what allegation, at least saying “these allegations”, denoting the allegation above."We are looking forward to the visit of the High Commissioner Mrs Bachelet to China, including to Xinjiang this year, and we are working closely with her office on detailed arrangements for her visit," he said.Bachelet first asked Beijing in December 2018 for permission to carry out a fact-finding mission in Xinjiang.Beijing has previously said it would welcome UN officials to Xinjiang on the condition they stay out of the country's internal affairs.The UN rights chief typically only undertakes national visits provided the host government offers guarantees on certain conditions, including unfettered access to key sites and the right to speak with activists.Back to the United Nations.There is no sentence in this news saying that the United Nations accused China of the problem of Xinjiang, but inexplicably insert two subjective opinions.Sources这攻击新疆的大帽子，就这么编的？（被）光速打脸是种怎样的体验？ - 知乎美国不断攻击中国新疆政策，真实意图暴露了！

The longest running civil court case has been led by James Martin (USA) since 14 December 1972, when the issue in the Martin v. Sample case was filed; it was then appealed to the US Supreme Court, Washington, DC, USA in October 1981, and docketed as case number 81-6884, on 14 June 1982. Following a summons by the Selective Service System (Pennsylvania, USA), Mr Martin attended a three-day pre-induction physical exam to assess his fitness for military service in the Vietnam War; he was subsequently classified as disabled. The original filed case (which remains active today), regards the subsequent academic and professional discrimination and interference experienced by Mr Martin following this detainment (11-13 December 1972) for medical testing - an issue that Mr Martin, the Office for Civil Rights and the US Department of Education, argues violates the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which forbids discrimination on the basis of alleged or of actual medical history. The original case, (Martin v Sample, 459 US 850, 74 L ed 2s 98, 103 S Ct 111) -where Mr Sample was the president of the college that Mr Martin was enrolled in at the time - remains active as of 11 December 2006 (when this record was approved).The above date (14 December 1972) is the date of the decision from the Selective Service, following their issuance of the summons to me, directing Mr Martin to appear at the pre-induction examination. (The case was filed with the issuance of the summons, which occurred before 14 December 1972).Landmarks in law: McLibel and the longest trial in British legal historyHelen Steel and David Morris took on the US fast food giant in a lengthy David v Goliath battle in courtHelen Steel and David Morris, after winning their case in the European Court of Human Rights. Photograph: Martin Argles/The GuardianPublic concern over the ethical practices of large corporates is growing: protestors have recently found themselves at the sharp end of the law, with Extinction Rebellion protestors arrested and other campaigners slapped with injunctions. But in the 1990s, the actions of a small group of environmentalists gave rise to what became the longest-running trial in British legal history.McDonald’s Corporation v Steel & Morris [1997], dubbed “McLibel”, followed a libel action brought by US fast food giant McDonald’s against Helen Steel, David Morris and three others over a leaflet they had distributed criticising the company’s practices. The three others apologised and were not sued, but Steel and Morris fought the case in a David v Goliath battle.In a 762-page judgment, Mr Justice Bell, who sat without a jury, rejected the claims in the leaflet that McDonald’s was to blame for starvation in developing countries or had used lethal poisons to destroy vast areas of rainforest. But he found that the company had “pretended to a positive nutritional benefit which their food did not match”, exploited children in its advertising, and helped to “depress wages in the catering trade”.Landmarks in law: Sally Bercow and the first major 'Twibel' caseThe judge ruled that the pair had libelled the corporation and ordered them to pay £60,000 damages, reduced on appeal to £40,000. They refused to pay, and McDonald’s has not pursued them for the money.The case was branded a PR disaster for McDonald’s, and became the subject of a documentary by Franny Armstrong and Ken Loach.Steele was a part-time bar-worker earning a maximum of £65 a week, and Morris was an unemployed postman who was responsible for the day-to-day care of his son, then aged four. At the time, McDonald’s had worldwide sales of about $30bn.Despite the huge economic disparity, Steel and Morris were denied legal aid and forced to fight the case by themselves with occasional unpaid help from lawyers. A fighting fund of around £40,000 from public donations paid for witness airfares, court costs and other expenses.In contrast, McDonald’s was represented by a huge team of leading lawyers and racked up legal bills estimated at £10m.The trial ran for two-and-a-half years. The transcripts ran to approximately 20,000 pages and there were about 40,000 pages of documentary evidence, while some 130 witnesses gave oral evidence – 59 for the defendants, 71 for McDonald’s.The pair sought to appeal to the Court of Appeal and to the House of Lords, which was then the country’s highest court. In September 2004, meanwhile, they launched an action against the UK government at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, claiming that the lack of legal aid breached their rights to a fair trial as guaranteed under article 6 of the Human Rights Convention.In Steel & Morris v United Kingdom, the court ruled unanimously that the pair had been denied a fair trial and awarded a judgement of £57,000 against the UK government.Steel remembers that at the start of the initial case they were given some basic legal advice. “That advice was ‘don’t do it – you’re on a hiding to nothing’, because even if we had plenty of resources, it was up to us to prove the truth of everything that was said in the leaflet,” she says.That was a huge task for Steel, who did not write any of the pamphlet and was not even in the group when it was written. “When all you are doing is handing out leaflets it’s a tall order to then have to become experts,” she says. “The case dominated our lives from 1993 until the verdict in 1996. It was a full-time job around the clock. When we got home from court we had to prepare for the next day.Landmarks in law: the case that shone a spotlight on domestic violence“It was exhausting, but there was an important principle at stake: wealthy companies should not be able to silence people and control what they say about their practices, which are then not subject to scrutiny.”Before their case, she says, McDonald’s had threatened to sue other organisations for libel, which had then all backed down and apologised. “The company created a climate of fear of a libel writ so its business practices went unchallenged, which is not healthy in a democratic society,” she says.But she adds: “If I’d have known then what was involved, I’m not sure that I’d have gone ahead.”Mark Stephens, now a partner at law firm Howard Kennedy, was one of the band of lawyers who helped the pair without charge throughout the case. He says the lack of legal aid resulted in a gross inequality of arms and was also a total false economy. A case that should have lasted three weeks went on for months, preventing other cases from being heard.The case, he says, was “an abject lesson in how not to do it” from the point of view of McDonald’s. “Bringing the case in the early days of the internet meant that many more people came to know what was in the leaflets. The whole thing was madness.”The case became the longest trial in English legal history, but according to Stephens it would not even be heard today. Instead, it would be struck for not meeting the “serious harm” threshold introduced in the Defamation Act 2013.The company would have to show that the statements complained about had caused or were likely to cause serious harm in the form of serious financial loss. And as Stephens says: “In the modern era, handing out around 60 leaflets outside one store wouldn’t serious cause harm.”Since you're here ...... we have a small favour to ask. Millions have turned to the Guardian for vital, independent, quality journalism throughout a turbulent, challenging and historic 2020. Readers in 180 countries around the world, including India, now support us financially. Will you join them?We believe everyone deserves access to information that’s grounded in science and truth, and analysis rooted in authority and integrity. That’s why we made a different choice: to keep our reporting open for all readers, regardless of where they live or what they can afford to pay. This means more people can be better informed, united, and inspired to take meaningful action.In these perilous times, a truth-seeking global news organisation like the Guardian is essential. We have no shareholders or billionaire owner, meaning our journalism is free from commercial and political influence – this makes us different. When it’s never been more important, our independence allows us to fearlessly investigate, challenge and expose those in power.Amid the various intersecting crises of 2020 – from Covid-19 to police brutality – the Guardian has not, and will never, sideline the climate emergency. We are determined to uphold our reputation for producing urgent, powerful, high-impact reporting on the environment that’s read by millions around the world.We’ve made institutional progress too, working hard to live up to the climate promises we made in 2019. We no longer take advertising from fossil fuel companies, and we’re on course to achieve net zero emissions by 2030.If there were ever a time to join us, it is now. Your funding powers our journalism, it protects our independence, and ensures we can remain open for all. You can support us through these challenging economic times and enable real-world impact.The Longest Trial in History: Court Refuses to Impose CounselBy Coalition for International Justice (CIJ)In a written decision dated April 4, 2003, the Trial Chamber in the Milosevic case held, '[I]n the present circumstances, the accused has the right to defend himself in person.' It then denied the prosecution's motion to impose counsel on Milosevic.With this ruling, the Court assured the trial will continue in the manner it has proceeded for the last 14 months. That includes an abbreviated schedule (half days and four-day weekends every two weeks) to reduce stress on the accused; unanticipated, extended adjournments for Milosevic's illnesses; often irrelevant and tendentious cross examination, necessarily requiring additional cross examination by the amici; cross examination of witnesses for the maximum time allowed by the Court, including cross examination of nearly all 92 bis witnesses (whose direct evidence is submitted in writing); lack of agreement on even the most noncontroversial facts, requiring the prosecution to prove everything. In other words, the longest trial in history.In making its ruling, the Trial Court found that the plain meaning of the ICTY statute gives the accused the right to defend himself. Article 21 (4) provides in pertinent part, 'The accused shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees . . . . (d) to be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing. . . .'The Court recognized that civil law (inquisitorial) systems often require that criminal accused facing serious charges be represented by counsel, whether or not the accused agrees. The court, however, adopted the rule prevalent in common law (adversarial) systems, stating that the ICTY is 'essentially adversarial.' In doing so, the Court quoted extensively from a decision of the United States Supreme Court, which held that imposition of counsel without an accused's consent violates the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Faretta v. California, 422 US 806 (1975)). Even without a Sixth Amendment governing ICTY procedure, the Trial Court found Faretta's reasoning persuasive.In Faretta, Justice Stewart wrote for a divided Supreme Court: 'We confront here a nearly universal conviction, on the part of our people as well as our courts, that forcing a lawyer upon an unwilling defendant is contrary to his basic right to defend himself if he truly wants to do so.' The Supreme Court found that '[t]he language and spirit of the Sixth Amendment contemplate that counsel, like the other defence tools guaranteed by the Amendment, shall be an aid to a willing defendant -- not an organ of the State interposed between an unwilling defendant and his right to defend himself personally. To thrust counsel upon the accused, against his considered wish, thus violates the logic of the Amendment. In such a case, counsel is not an assistant, but a master . . . .' 'To force a lawyer on a defendant can only lead him to believe that the law contrives against him.'In adopting this reasoning, the Trial Chamber did not analyze whether and to what extent the U.S. Constitutional guarantee anticipates and is based on an accused's right to trial by jury, and whether this undermines the reasoning when applied to non-jury proceedings, such as trials before the ICTY. Nor did the Trial Chamber address the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court based its holding on 'the inestimable worth of free choice' recognized in the U.S. Constitution and by the Court as higher than the defendant's right to a fair trial (which, arguably in most cases, requires the assistance of professional counsel). Given the extremity of the U.S. valuation of independence and free choice, the Trial Chamber might have considered whether that should be adopted by a system of international justice, particularly one concerned with criminal conduct under a formerly socialist and civil legal system.The Trial Chamber went on to mention a 'further, practical reason for the right to self-representation in common law.' In the adversarial system, the prosecution and defense present the case to the judge as opponents. This clash of opposites is supposed to reveal the truth to the decision-maker (most often a jury, though the Trial Chamber solely concerned itself with professional judges). In the inquisitorial system, the judge serves more of an investigative function, questioning the parties and witnesses in an attempt to find the truth.According to the Milosevic Trial Chamber, '[I]n an adversarial system, the imposition of defence counsel on an unwilling accused would effectively deprive that accused of the possibility of putting forward a defense.' The Court does not explain how this occurs, but goes on to discuss an accused's 'obligation of 'putting a case,' i.e. putting forward the defence version of events if it differs from that put forward by a witness . . . .' The Court said that 'obligation' could not be fulfilled where the accused doesn't tell counsel what defence to put forward.The Court's characterization of an adversarial system where the accused tells his counsel what defense to put forward does not reflect all adversarial systems. In the U.S., e.g., decisions involving strategy, including what witnesses to call, are generally considereed matters for counsel. S/he need not consult with their client and may make decisions the client disagrees with. Decisions which are solely the province of the accused including whether or not to plead guilty, to waive a jury trial and to testify on his own behalf. Moreover, in the U.S. the accused has no 'obligation' to defend himself. The obligation of putting forward a case is solely that of the prosecution.A reading of ICTY rules indicates an accused before the Tribunal has a similar right not to bring a defense, as well as to bring a bad one. Rules 84-86, describing the conduct of the trial including the accused's role, are permissive. For example, 'Each party is entitled to call witnesses and present evidence.' 'Each party may make an opening statement.' 'The accused shall not be compelled to make a solemn declaration. . . .' '[T]he defense may make a closing argument.' [emphases added]The Trial Chamber also rested its decision on guarantees provided to criminal defendants by certain international and regional conventions. For example, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), adopted by 146 nations, provides that a criminal defendant has the right 'to be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing; . . .' The new International Criminal Court statute uses similar language: the accused has the right 'to be present at the trial, to conduct the defence in person or through legal assistance of the accused's choosing, [. . .],' subject, however, to limitations if the accused is disruptive in the courtroom.The Trial Chamber noted that the European Commission on Human Rights (ECHR) has held that the right to defend oneself is not absolute. 'The ECHR said that 'it is for the courts to decide whether the interests of justice require that the accused be defended by counsel appointed by them. When appointing defence counsel the national courts must certainly have regard to the defendant's wishes [. . .]. However, they can override those wishes when there are relevant and sufficient grounds for holding that this is necessary in the interests of justice.''The Milosevic Court nevertheless found the case in which the ECHR so held to be different on the facts (distinguishable) from the Milosevic case and, therefore, not controlling.* Instead, the Trial Chamber turned to a decision of the Human Rights Commission (HRC) of the United Nations, interpreting the ICCPR. Despite the brevity of its reasoning, the Trial Chamber found it 'highly relevant to the correct interpretation of Article 21 (4) (a) of the [ICTY] Statute, especially since this provision is identical to Article 14 (3) (d) of the ICCPR.' The Milosevic Court found that the HRC decision 'confirms the right to self-defence and rejects the imposition of defence counsel on an unwilling accused.'Again, the Court buttressed its finding on practical considerations. If counsel were imposed on Milosevic, the Court speculated, the accused could refuse to instruct the counsel as to the defence to adopt, thereby rendering counsel impotent, in the court's view. In the alternative, Judge May wrote for the Court, the Trial Chamber could allow Milosevic to 'make submissions and question witnesses, in which case, the defence counsel could do no more than the Amici Curiae.' As noted above, however, the degree to which counsel can decide what defense to adopt over the accused's objections or without his input has not been established by the Tribunal.Noting that Milosevic is competent to defend himself and that he had rejected the Court's advice that it was in his best interest to be assisted by counsel, the Court concluded he was 'entitled to defend himself in person.' Perhaps considering the practicalities once more, i.e. how Milosevic might react to its ruling, the Court added that the right to defend oneself is not absolute. It pointed to ICTY Rule 80 (B) which provides that a persistently disruptive accused can be removed from the courtroom, following a warning, and the proceedings can be continued without him. The Trial Chamber stressed, 'Clearly, an accused whose behaviour has resulted in his removal from the courtroom pursuant to Rule 80 (B) of the Rules, has also relinquished his right to defend himself in person.'While distinguishing the case on its facts, the Chamber also referred to a decision (Barayagwiza) in its sister institution, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), where a Trial Chamber held there may be circumstances 'where it is in the interests of justice to appoint counsel [against the accused's will].' Having left itself this 'out,' the Chamber declared, 'No such circumstances have, as yet, arisen in this trial.' The opinion continues, 'However, as the Trial Chamber has said, it will keep the position under review.'The Chamber did not discuss other limitations on the right of self-representation, including those regularly imposed at the ICTY. Perhaps the idea that rights are conditioned by wealth has become so second-nature that the lack of choice for those who cannot afford counsel remains invisible. It is true in common law jurisdictions, such as the United States, as well. While extending the right of counsel to the poor and recognizing the state has to pay for it if it is to be meaningful, the United States Supreme Court and the U.S. Congress nevertheless concluded that if the state is paying, the state gets to choose. The ICTY adheres to that distinction, despite its guarantee that accused shall be entitled to specified rights 'in full equality.' Article 21 (4).The Milosevic Trial Chamber's decision to deny the prosecution's request that it impose counsel on the accused is not entirely clear. It appears to follow the U.S. rule, despite the fact that rule is derived from the U.S. Constitution. On the other hand, in seeking to preserve its options with an obstreperous accused, the Chamber holds out the possibility that the interests of justice might trump the rights of the accused under the right circumstances (which have yet to occur). Given that another accused awaiting trial insists on his right to defend himself (Vojislav Seselj), and that the prosecution in that case has applied to another Trial Chamber for counsel to be imposed on the accused, the issue is likely to end up before the Appeals Chamber at some point. In the meantime, the Milosevic case will proceed as it has for the last 14 months -- with the likelihood of having the distinction of being the longest trial in history.*Decisions of other international bodies are not controlling as such, but act as a guide for the ICTY in deciding questions of law.'Longest trial in history': Palestinian NGO worker's case resumes for 129th timeOver the past four years, Muhammed al-Halabi's family says Israeli authorities interrogated and tortured the father of five accused of funnelling money to HamasHalabi (C), was returning from a meeting in Jerusalem in June 2016 when he was arrested at the Erez border checkpoint (AFP)The former director of a charity in the Gaza Strip, accused of funnelling donations to Hamas and its military wing, attended his 129th hearing in Be’er Sheva District Court on Wednesday.Muhammed al-Halabi, 41, was working for the US-based organisation World Vision in Gaza when he was detained by Israeli intelligence and security in June 2016 at the Erez border checkpoint on his way home after a routine meeting in Jerusalem.'All the eyewitnesses and even the officials at World Vision gave proof that he was innocent. But this is not what the prosecution is looking for'- Hamed, Muhammed al-Halibi's brotherAccording to Halabi’s father, Khalil, Muhammed was picked up in a joint operation carried out by the Shin Bet security service, the Israeli army and Israeli police.Over the past four years, he has experienced interrogations and court hearings and according to the Palestinian Authority’s agency for detainees, has been subjected to the “longest trial in the history" of Palestinian detainees held in Israeli prisons.On Wednesday, his long-running case resumed again but ended quickly, Halabi's family told Middle East Eye.“Today’s hearing was cancelled shortly after it started because the witnesses were not present,” his brother, Hamed, said. “The prosecution then threatened that any witnesses who come from Gaza to give their testimony will be detained.”“They do not want anyone to prove them wrong. All the eyewitnesses and even the officials at World Vision gave proof that he was innocent. But this is not what the prosecution is looking for,” he said.His father said that in one of the court hearings, the judge threatened Halabi, saying that if he would not confess that he collaborated with Hamas, she would sentence him to “long-term imprisonment”.“She threatened him and tried to force him to confirm the accusations in front of everyone,” he said.Since his detention, Halabi, a father of five from the Jabalya refugee camp in the northern Gaza Strip, has refused to sign confessions that he used his position at World Vision to fund Hamas, according to his family.World Vision is the largest evangelical Christian charity in the world and has provided support to Palestinians in Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with local operations for more than 40 years.Following Halabi’s detention, the US-based charity denied the accusations, arguing that it had “no reason to believe” Israel’s claims that he had diverted funds.Ongoing torture, says familyDuring his detention, Halabi’s family said that he has undergone several interrogations and been subjected to “horrific torture” in which Israeli intelligence officers slapped him, hung him from the ceiling for prolonged periods of time, kicked him in his genitals, stripped him naked, and denied him sleep.“We can never call or contact him. None of us is allowed to see him except his mother who gets to meet him once in several months,” his father told MEE.Palestinian children hold posters of al-Halabi during a protest to support him in Rafah in August 2016 (AFP)“What do you expect his condition would be? He has been criminalised and subjected to humiliation and ill-treatment for years.”According to his father, the interrogation and torture of his son have never stopped since his detention in 2016.“The last time his mother saw him was last August. She said he had lost much of his weight and was in pain due to the torture,” his father said.“After several demands to be transferred to the hospital for having severe pain in the head and ears, Muhammed was moved in a vehicle for three days, only to meet the doctor who tore up his medical report and told him he was lying.”‘Delegitimising’ humanitarian workThe Israeli authorities have strictly tightened restrictions on human rights and aid organisations operating in the occupied Palestinian territories during the past five years, including by applying restrictive measures on financial transactions and deporting workers of international organisations.In a report published in January, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) said that attempts to “delegitimise” humanitarian and human rights organisations have been increasing significantly with the apparent support of the Israeli government during the past few years.OCHA added that “targeted defamation and smear campaigns allege violations of counter-terrorism legislation and international law, or political action against Israel”.The Israeli authorities have also been trying to deport US citizen Omar Shakir, Israel-Palestine director at Human Rights Watch (HRW).The Israeli Ministry of Interior revoked Shakir’s work permit in May 2018, accusing him of supporting the Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement before he joined HRW.Will western governments push back against Israel's assault on civil society?Ben WhiteAccording to Shakir, the Ministry of Strategic Affairs, which said he shared BDS content on social media, also cited his work at HRW to make their case.The attempt to deport Shakir is one of several cases in which Israeli authorities have deported human rights workers.In August 2016, Pam Bailey, director of We Are Not Numbers and former international secretary of the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, was detained and interrogated by the Israeli Border Police at Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion Airport on her way to the Gaza Strip before being deported back to the United States.The American human rights activist was then given a 10-year ban, joining a growing number of international NGO workers who are denied permits to visit Israel and the Palestinian territory.A former employee at World Vision, who preferred to remain anonymous, told MEE that the accusations against Halabi were part of attempts to halt the organisation’s work in the Palestinian territory, including the Gaza Strip.“Following the detention of Halabi, an external audit was conducted by one of the Big Four auditors,” she said, referring to the nickname for the world’s largest accounting firms. “The firm’s report concluded that there was no diversion of funds.”“There was a political attack on the organisation given that one of its main offices is in the United States,” she continued. “The Israeli lobby in the US must have played a major role in impeding the work of the organisation.”Halabi’s family concurs. “They know very well that he is innocent, but they cannot release him after four years of interrogation and torture and prove themselves wrong,” his father concluded.