Jun 23, 2019 | Events, News
The ICJ joins other NGOs and UN experts in presenting a side event to the UN Human Rights Council, Thursday 27 June, 11:30am – 12:30pm, in Room VIII, Palais des Nations
Less than a week after the UN Human Rights Council adopted its most recent resolution on the safety of journalists, Saudi Arabia dispatched a hit squad to its Istanbul consulate to murder Washington Post journalist and regime critic Jamal Khashoggi.
This crime against freedom of expression shocked the world. It laid bare the chasm between the international community’s stated commitments to the safety of journalists, and the ability of UN human rights mechanisms to protect at-risk journalists, and respond quickly and effectively to support investigations into killings of journalists, and end the cycle of impunity for such attacks.
This human rights crisis is not limited to autocratic countries or nascent democracies – after several years in decline, the number of killings of journalists worldwide spiked in 2018, whilst impunity for historic cases remains troublingly high, fueling further violence. In Malta, a report by PACE Special Rapporteur Pieter Omtzigt into the killing of Daphne Caruana Galizia more than 18 months ago, highlighted serious concerns over national investigations, pointing to systemic rule of law failings in the country.
As the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, arbitrary or summary executions, Dr. Agnès Callamard, presents the findings of her independent investigation into the killing of Jamal Khashoggi to the 41st Session of the UN Human Rights Council, join us to discuss what recent attacks on journalists have taught us about gaps in prevention, protection and prosecution, and how to enhance the UN’s response to impunity.
| Panelists |
Dr. Agnès Callamard |
UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions |
|
David Kaye |
UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression |
|
Hatice Cengiz |
Fiancée of Jamal Khashoggi |
|
Pieter Omtzigt |
Special Rapporteur, Council of Europe |
|
Rob Mahoney |
Deputy Executive Director, Committee to Protect Journalists |
|
Yahya Assiri |
Founder and Director, ALQST |
| Moderator |
Thomas Hughes |
Executive Director, ARTICLE 19 |
Jun 23, 2019 | Events, News
This side event will take place on Friday 28 June 2019, from 13:00-14:00, in Room XXI, at the Palais des Nations.
There has been an increase in serious human rights violations in Kashmir, particularly since 2016. This has coincided with shrinking space for human rights reporting and advocacy at the national level, with human rights defenders facing unprecedented threats and reprisals.
The escalating violence, coupled with systemic impunity for perpetrators, has made it imperative for the human rights situation in Kashmir to be highlighted at the international level, including at the UN.
This event aims to bring to the forefront the human rights aspect of the conflict and discuss possible strategies through which the international community can play a more effective role in ensuring the promotion and protection of human rights in the region.
Keynote Address
Hon. Judge Navanethem Pillay: Former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (2008-2014)
Moderator
Sam Zarifi: ICJ Secretary General
Speakers
Juliette Rousselot: Program Officer for South Asia, International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
Gerard Staberock: Secretary General, World Organization Against Torture (OMCT)
Dr. Angana Chatterji: Co-chair, Initiative on Political Conflict, Gender and People’s Rights, Center for Race and Gender, University of California, Berkeley
Kashmir-HRC-Event-2019-ENG (Flyer in PDF)
Jun 21, 2019 | News, Publications, Reports, Workshop reports
The ICJ has today published a report on indigenous and other traditional or customary justice systems in Asia.
The report is based on discussions at the 2018 Geneva Forum of Judges & Lawyers which was convened in Bangkok, Thailand, in December.
The Bangkok meeting brought together judges, lawyers, and other legal experts from around the Asia-Pacific region, from both formal State justice systems and indigenous and other traditional or customary systems.
Participants reaffirmed the potential for indigenous and other traditional or customary justice mechanisms to contribute to the realization of equal and effective access to justice, particularly for indigenous, rural, poor and other marginalised populations.
Participants stressed the importance of sustained consultations and engagement directly with indigenous justice systems, to encourage their development in harmony with international human rights standards and in coordination with more official or formal national legal institutions.
Participants also highlighted the opportunities and risks associated with similar forms of constructive engagement with other, non-indigenous, traditional or customary justice systems. The relevance of UN Sustainable Development Goal 16 was also highlighted.
Participants further agreed that States must at the same time ensure that formal systems are also made more accessible, both in practical and in cultural terms, to relevant communities.
The report urges that, in line with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, constitutional or other legal provisions should recognize the role of indigenous justice systems, within an overall framework for protection and promotion of international human rights standards.
Indigenous peoples and States should jointly consider means for improved coordination and collaboration between indigenous and non-indigenous justice systems, with a view to seeing the different systems work in harmony to provide effective access to justice and protection of human rights for all people.
The report cautions however, that a similar approach may or may not be appropriate in relation to certain other traditional and customary justice systems not covered by the UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The report also outlines experiences from a number of countries around the region, both in terms of existing obstacles to equal access to justice, and the possibilities for constructive engagement.
It also identifies a number of legal and policy questions of continuing controversy, including on the relationship between indigenous and other traditional or customary justice systems, and the official State justice system, and how international human rights and rule of law standards should be applied.
The UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a key participant in the Bangkok meeting, has announced that her report to the Human Rights Council in September 2019 will focus on indigenous justice systems.
The interactive dialogue on her report will be an important opportunity for States and civil society to further exchange views on the best means of implementing the relevant provisions of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the diversity of contexts around the world.
The Geneva Forum global and regional consultations, the Special Rapporteur’s report and associated dialogue, and the ICJ’s own research, global experience and expertise, will provide a foundation for the development by the ICJ of further legal, policy and practical guidance to be published in 2020.
The report summarizing discussions at the 2018 Forum should be read in conjunction with the separately published and periodically updated Traditional and Customary Justice Systems: Selected International Sources, which compiles relevant treaty provisions, standards, conclusions and recommendations of UN and other expert bodies, as well as the Report of the 2017 Forum.
The Geneva Forum is an annual global meeting of senior judges, lawyers, prosecutors and other legal and United Nations experts, convened by the ICJ through its Geneva-based Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, with the support of the Canton and Republic of Geneva (Switzerland) and other partners.
Each year, participants and the ICJ discuss an issue relevant to the independence and role of judges, lawyers and prosecutors, with a view to developing and disseminating practical guidance for practitioners.
Contact
matt.pollard(a)icj.org
Universal-Trad Custom Justice GF 2018-Publications-Thematic reports-2019-ENG (full report in PDF)
Jun 15, 2019 | News
The ICJ welcomes the recent judgment of the Tanzanian High Court condemning the Tanzanian government’s actions leading to the suspension of the SADC Tribunal and the denuding of its crucial role in maintaining the rule of law and protecting human rights in the Southern African region.
Following on a decision of the South African Constitutional Court in December 2018, the decision brings increased scrutiny to the legality and legitimacy of the decision of the SADC Summit to effectively disband the SADC Tribunal in 2010 and thereby “eviscerate the possibility of the States ever being held to account for perceived human rights violations, non-adherence to the rule of law or undemocratic practices”.
“The Tanzanian court’s decision once again raises fundamental questions about the legality and legitimacy of the SADC Summit’s attempt to strip the SADC Tribunal of its powers, following on decisions relating to land reform in Zimbabwe that upset leaders of SADC states. The ICJ endorses the views of the Tanzanian and South African courts that all decisions taken by SADC States must comply with the SADC Treaty, the right of victims of human rights abuses to access justice and the rule of law,” said Arnold Tsunga, the ICJ’s Africa Director.
The Tanzanian Court’s decision is premised on the finding that the SADC Treaty is, in terms of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, binding on all SADC member States and obligations in terms of it must be performed in good faith by all executive officials.
Having set up and empowered the SADC Tribunal to adjudicate disputes in terms of the Treaty, the Court held that “State parties including Tanzania are obliged to give effect to the Tribunal, without which the existence of the Community itself remains doubtful”.
The Court likened the system of governance set out in the Treaty to a domestic doctrine of separation of powers, noting that the Tribunal is part of an intricate set of checks and balances set out in the Treaty.
The case was brought to Court by the Tanganyika Law Society in order to hold the Tanzanian government accountable to the Constitution, the SADC Treaty and “other international law human rights norms”.
The Law Society alleged that the Tanzanian government’s actions violate the right to access to justice and are therefore “inimical to the rule of law”.
The Court’s decision makes repeated reference to international human rights law norms including United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the African Charter concluding that crucial commitments in terms of the standards set out in these documents were violated by the Tanzanian government.
The Court reasoned that in terms of international law the State is obliged to “ensure observance of [international human rights law principles] in the conduct of its international relations”.
This, crucially, meant that State parties to the SADC Treaty must, in their conduct pertaining to international relations “ensure protection of fundamental human rights of the individual” (emphasis in original).
The SADC Summit’s attempts to protect individuals from accessing the SADC Tribunal for the purposes of vindicating their rights therefore amounted to an unlawful encroachment on individuals’ rights in terms of domestic and international human rights law.
“The Court’s decision is a strong endorsement of the universality of international human rights principles as well as the need for strong checks and balances on power in all domestic, regional and international platforms established to ensure access to remedies for rights violations. The ICJ encourages the SADC leaders to individually and collectively take note of the decisions of the Tanzanian and South African courts and take immediate action to ensure full and effective operation of an independent SADC Tribunal capable of receiving and adjudicating individual complaints,” Tsunga added.
Contact:
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Africa Director, t: +263777283249 ; e: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
Timothy Fish Hodgson, ICJ Legal Adviser, t: +27828719905 ; e: timothy.hodgson(a)icj.org
Jun 13, 2019 | News
The ICJ today applauded the 11 June judgment of the Botswana High Court striking down criminal law provisions criminalizing same-sex relations.
Rightly, the Court considered that, notwithstanding the fact that the provisions at issues on their face criminalized consensual anal penetration, irrespective of the gender of those involved, the law did in fact target and disproportionately affect same-sex relations.
The judgment follows shortly after the Kenyan High Court refused to invalidate an almost identical criminal provision in judgment handed down on 24 May.
“The Botswana High Court’s judgment reaffirms the universality of the rights to be free from discrimination, dignity, privacy and equality, and directly rebuts the often-made false claim that homosexuality is ‘un-African’,” said ICJ Africa Director Arnold Tsunga.
“The ICJ commends the Court, and encourages all African states to repeal archaic criminal provisions criminalizing same-sex sexual intercourse often introduced into their legal systems by colonial powers,” he added.
In a decision referencing international human rights law and standards, and citing a growing wave of global jurisprudence on the unconstitutionality of the criminalization of consensual same-sex relations, identity and expression, the Court concluded that sections 164(a); 164(c), 165 and 167 of the Botswana Penal Code violated the rights to dignity, liberty and equality of homosexual men.
Letsweletse Motshidiemang, a 24 year-old university student who identifies as homosexual, and is currently in a relationship with a man, brought the case before the Court. Advocacy organization “Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals Of Botswana” (LEGABIBO) was admitted as amicus curiae, and supported Motshidiemang’s case.
Despite partial legislative recognition of the need to protect people’s rights, regardless of sexual orientation, and comments made by Botswana President Mokgweetsi Masisi late last year that, “there are also many people of same sex relationships in this country, who have been violated and have also suffered in silence for fear of being discriminated. Just like other citizens, they deserve to have their rights protected”, the Attorney General (AG) had opposed Motshidiemang’s challenge, describing the case as “cry babies”.
In a fitting rebuke of this position, the Court indicated that the AG had not produced a “scintilla or iota of justification” for its defense of the offending provisions and, instead relied on “bare assertion and/or speculations” about public morality.
Given the substantial evidence presented to the Court by the applicant and amicus curiae about the harmful effects of continued criminalization of same-sex relations, the Court observed that it “perpetuates stigma and shame against homosexuals and renders them recluse and outcasts”, finding that “there is no victim in consensual same sex intercourse inter se adults”.
Concluding that such discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons violates sexual autonomy and their “right to choose a sexual partner” the Court found that the provisions go “to the core of [homosexual persons’] worth as a human being[s] and “pollutes compassion” in Botswanan society.
“The judgment is a victory for LGBT persons in Botswana whose consistent advocacy ground firmly in human rights should be applauded. This judgment should catalyze further action from the Botswana authorities to ensure the full enjoyment of all human rights by LGBT persons in Botswana,” said Tsunga.
Contact:
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Africa Director, t: +63 77 728 3249 ; e: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
Timothy Fish Hodgson, ICJ Legal Adviser, t: +27828719905 ; e: timothy.hodgson(a)icj.org
