Mar 9, 2018 | Advocacy, Open letters
The ICJ and other organisations today express concern about China’s draft UN resolution, “Promoting the International Human Rights Cause through Win-Win Cooperation”.
In a letter addressed to the Member and Observer States of the UN Human Rights Council, the organizations wrote:
“The draft resolution entitled “Promoting the International Human Rights Cause through Win-Win Cooperation” lacks balance and undermines accepted international human rights law and principles. Its adoption could undermine the ability of the Council and its mechanisms to protect and promote human rights, and risks undermining the rights of victims of human rights violations.
No resolution that purports to promote human rights but ignores victims can be considered a “win” for anyone. The right of every victim to an effective remedy, regardless of the preferences of the responsible State, lies at the very heart of any meaningful understanding of human rights, as the General Assembly, the Council, as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and human rights treaties, have repeatedly affirmed.
Cooperation between States, and between States and the Human Rights Council and its mechanisms, is an important component of the international human rights system. The version of cooperation envisioned by the draft resolution, however, finds no basis in the decades of practice of human rights at the UN or in the Institutional Building Package for the Council. “Win-win cooperation” and “a community of shared future for mankind” instead emanate specifically from the speech made by Chinese President Xi at the Palais des Nations in January 2017 and other national policy statements. Their implications have not been explained by the Chinese delegation, and reading these terms in their original context only raises greater concern about their import.
The language stating that “win-win cooperation is the only viable option” is perhaps the best example of our many concerns. Although the draft resolution does not specify in relation to what it is “the only viable option”, presumably the implication is with regard to human rights. This language of the draft resolution directly contradicts and undermines that part of the Council’s mandate, as articulated by the General Assembly in its resolution 60/251, that requires it to respond promptly and effectively to gross and systematic human rights violations.
Indeed, in all too many actual situations of gross and systematic violations faced by the Council, States responsible for human rights violations have shown no good faith to engage in any form of cooperation that could actually assist to end the violations or fulfil the rights of the victims. The draft resolution defies experience, and suggests no consequences for persistent non-cooperation.
Additionally, there is no mention in the draft concerning enforcement of States’ obligations under international human rights law by national, regional or international courts or other bodies, or even at a more general level, the need for accountability where abuses occur. As such, only impunity stands to “win” from such an approach.
Furthermore, the concept of “win-win cooperation” in the draft resolution as currently drafted clearly focuses predominantly, if not exclusively, on cooperation between States. The draft resolution does not call for States to cooperate with the Human Rights Council and its mechanisms. Neither does it call on States to refrain from committing reprisals against individuals or groups seeking to cooperate with UN human rights mechanisms to promote and protect human rights, including civil society actors and victims of human rights violations.
Our organisations call on States to reject the proposed resolution on “Promoting the International Human Rights Cause through Win-Win Cooperation” as drafted. Indeed, the problems with the text are so fundamental and far-reaching, it is difficult to see how consensus could possibly be reached without a substantial rethinking of the approach. If the proponents of the draft resolution sincerely believe that “win-win cooperation is the only viable option”, they surely cannot, at the same time, believe that it would be consistent with the draft resolution’s own terms for its adoption to be forced through on a divided vote, and should withdraw the draft resolution from consideration at the present Council session.
Signatories:
- Asian Legal Resource Center
- Amnesty International
- Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies
- Conectas
- Defend Defenders
- FIDH
- Human Rights Watch
- International Commission of Jurists
- International Service for Human Rights
The letter can be downloaded in PDF format here: UN-HRC37-OpenLetter-ChinaResolution-2018
Mar 9, 2018 | Events, News
This side event at the Human Rights Council takes place on Monday, 12 March, 16:30-18:00, room XXVII of the Palais des Nations. It is organized by Forum-Asia, and co-sponsored by the ICJ.
Speakers:
Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar
UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar
Human Rights Defenders from Myanmar
Moderator:
R. Iniyan Ilango, Forum – Asia
Mar 8, 2018 | Multimedia items, News, Video clips
Today on International Women’s Day the world looks to celebrate the achievements of women and advances made towards the realization of women’s human rights but the day is also an opportunity to address the issues that continue to disadvantage women.
In the 70th anniversary year of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights many women around the world have seen States failing to live up to their obligations to ensure that they are able to exercise their human rights.
Where women’s human rights are violated many women face discrimination, denial of equal protection of the law and other impediments in accessing the justice that they deserve.
“The ICJ has a strong commitment to addressing the obstacles women face in accessing justice,” said ICJ Acting Vice-President, Justice Radmila Dragicevic-Dicic.
“The judiciary has an important role in protecting the rights of women, but in many States there is a lack of proper awareness and understanding of issues such as gender based-violence. Many judges would benefit from judicial education on specific gender-based issues to ensure that women victims are made visible and their rights protected by domestic laws and relevant international standards,” she added.
For several years the ICJ has worked on women’s access to justice issues in different countries in all regions with a variety of stakeholders, including human rights defenders, lawyers, judges, governmental authorities and international rights experts and mechanisms.
For example, in Tunisia, the ICJ issued a memorandum calling on authorities to remove the obstacles women face in accessing justice.
The ICJ has held regional dialogues in Africa and Asia with judges and lawyers.
In Asia, one outcome of this was The Bangkok General Guidance for Judges in Applying a Gender Perspective, designed to assist judges in employing a gender perspective in deciding cases before them, which has since been adopted for use by judiciaries in Indonesia and the Philippines.
In Africa, the need for gendered perspectives in judicial decision-making was also raised in a regional report evaluating sexual and gender based violence (SGBV) and fair trial rights.
The ICJ has undertaken substantial work on women’s access to justice in the context of SGBV, including a report calling for an eradication of harmful gender stereotypes and assumptions and a Practitioners’ Guide on Women’s Access to Justice for Gender-Based Violence.
Both have been used as training tools in Asia, Africa and MENA, most recently at a workshop on SGBV in Swaziland.
Last year the ICJ released a memorandum on effective investigation and prosecution of SGBV in Morocco.
The ICJ has also undertaken trial observations during hearings in the landmark Sepur Zarco case, the first case that resulted in a conviction for sexual crimes that had occurred during Guatemala’s internal conflict in the early 1980s.
The ICJ regularly engages with the UN Human Rights Council and the UN Committee on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women to highlight issues around women’s access to justice and call on the international community to be vigilant in upholding women’s rights protections.
“The ICJ is lucky to count among its number some very impressive women human rights defenders, who bring a great deal of expertise to the work of the organization,” said Dragicevic-Dicic.
“The five most recent additions to the ICJ have further strengthened the organization’s ability to speak authoritatively on women’s rights, and I look forward to working with my new colleagues to enhance women’s access to justice,” she added.
The new additions to the ICJ include Dame Silvia Cartwright, Former Governor of New Zealand; Professor Sarah Cleveland, Constitutional and Human Rights Professor at Columbia Law School in the USA; Justice Martine Comte who has over 30 years judicial experience in France; Mikiko Otani, member of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child from Japan; and Justice Lillian Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza from the Supreme Court of Uganda.
In an interview with the ICJ, Commissioner Justice Elizabeth Evatt, a distinguished Australian lawyer, jurist and trailblazer for women in the legal profession in her country, spoke about the importance of women being able to access justice.
One of the architects of Australia’s Family Law Act of 1975, Justic Evatt told the ICJ how the Act made divorce more accessible and abolished the Common Law relics that gave men greater rights over women, however new problems have emerged since then.
Justice Evatt explained that “(the Act) was an extremely important reform for women. It made it far easier for men and women to access divorce and have their matters dealt with because the court had conciliation and counselling services and also legal aid was more readily available. But I am afraid that since those days, thing have changed. The Family Court is now beset with delays and obstacles and it is impossible for people to get legal aid. People have to take their case on their own or face huge legal costs, so having begun well, it hasn’t continued well. More resources are needed.”
Justice Evatt also considers that there is a need for the government and the judiciary to take more action to address domestic violence.
However, she noted, “there has been a change over the years with a growing awareness of both the police and the local courts, which are the main ones dealing with violence. They have become far more aware of the need to take action to protect women and prevent violence but the cure for domestic violence does not lie just with the courts but also with the whole of society.”
Watch the interview:
Mar 8, 2018 | News
The Sri Lankan government must act swiftly and in line with human rights to prosecute those responsible for recent communal violence.
Particularly for attacks against the minority Muslim community in Kandy district, while avoiding the abusive practices of the past, said the ICJ today.
Sri Lanka’s President, Maithripala Sirisena, proclaimed an island-wide state of emergency on 6th March 2018, following a curfew imposed in several areas since Monday.
The action came following a spate of attacks against members of the Muslim community that was spreading in the Kandy district, following attacks in Ampara last week, in Gintota in 2016, and Aluthgama in 2014.
“The government must show that it will bring to account those who have incited communal violence, particularly notorious figures who have been emboldened by the pervading impunity to preach hatred openly and publicly. The arrest of key suspects yesterday is a start and convictions must follow,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia director.
“But the government must ensure that its investigation is impartial and effective and follows due process of the law,” he added.
The ICJ called upon the government of Sri Lanka to swiftly prosecute those responsible for inciting and carrying out the communal violence using existing legal provisions in the Penal Code and the ICCPR Act, the latter of which prohibits advocating “national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.”
The ICJ is concerned that the Emergency Regulations issued by the President through powers under the Public Security Ordinance, confer excessively broad powers on the army and the police to search, arrest and investigate.
“Given Sri Lanka’s experience of Emergency Regulations, the government should ensure that these regulations are time-bound and comply with Sri Lanka’s international human rights obligations, including under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,” said Rawski.
The government has further restricted access to selected instant messaging applications and social media platforms “as an extraordinary but temporary response to limit the increasing spread of hate speech and violence through social media websites and phone messaging applications.”
“Blocking social media and other communication channels, even with the best of intentions, typically has the negative effect of restricting affected persons from seeking assistance, journalists from reporting around the situation and may actually undermine efforts to counter violence and hate speech. Any such measures should be narrowly targeted and limited in time,” said Rawski.
“A better approach would be for the Sri Lankan government to aggressively push back against these hateful narratives by demonstrating in actions as well as its rhetoric that Sri Lanka is a diverse country in which all of its citizens’ rights are respected and protected equally,” he added.
Background
Chapter XVIII of the Constitution and the Public Security Ordinance of Sri Lanka empowers the President to make emergency regulations in the interest of ‘public security and the preservation of public order or for the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community.’ Sri Lanka has a history of governance using emergency powers, which in the past has posed a challenge for democratic governance and human rights, providing law enforcement with wide powers, circumventing ordinary checks and balances.
The President, while justifying circumstances that led to his proclamation of a state of emergency, has stated that he “has given special instructions the Police and the tri-forces to take action in terms of these regulations, in a lawful manner in good faith while ensuring minimum disturbance to the life and well-being of people, in conformity with Fundamental Human Rights of people.”
Mar 6, 2018 | News
The ICJ is pleased to announce the addition of seven new members to the Commission.
They are Dame Silvia Cartwright (New Zealand), Professor Sarah Cleveland (USA), Justice Martine Comte (France), Justice Willy Mutunga (Kenya), Ms Mikiko Otani (Japan), Mr Wilder Tayler (Uruguay) and Justice Lillian Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza (Uganda).
“The ICJ is pleased to welcome seven new Commissioners, five of whom are women, whose wealth of experience and expertise from a diverse range of legal backgrounds will greatly add to the Commission,” said the ICJ’s Acting President, Professor Robert Goldman.
“The addition of such strong new Commissioners helps ensure that we can carry out our fundamental work in defence of the rule of law and universal human rights at a time when we are witnessing a worldwide attack on respect for human rights and dignity,” he added.
The ICJ is also pleased to announce the appointment of Professor Carlos Ayala (Venezuela) as a new Vice-President.
Professor Ayala has shown a great deal of dedication to the ICJ since his initial election to the Commission in 2012.
Amongst other roles, he has served as chairman of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights and taught constitutional, administrative and human rights law at a number of universities around the world.
“The ICJ’s ability to promote and protect human rights through the rule of law would not be possible without the dedicated Commissioners that make this organization what it is. The newly-appointed Commissioners and Vice-President will greatly enhance the ICJ and I look forward to working with them,” said Goldman.
In addition to the new appointments, Commissioners Roberta Clarke and Justice Sanji Monageng were elected to serve on the Executive Committee.
Eight Commissioners were also re-elected to serve second terms: Justice Radmila Dragicevic-Dicic (Serbia), Mr Shawan Jabarin (Palestine), Justice Egbert Myjer (Netherlands), Justice Qinisile Mabuza (Swaziland), Professor Victor Rodriguez Rescia (Costa Rica), Professor Marco Sassoli (Switzerland), Justice Stefan Trechsel (Switzerland) and Professor Rodrigo Uprimny Yepes (Colombia).
Further information on the new Commissioners
Dame Silvia Cartwright (New Zealand) was Governor-General of New Zealand from 2001-2006 and the first woman appointed to the High Court in New Zealand. She was also a judge on the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia. Amongst others, she has the following honours: Dame Commander of the British Empire (DBE) and Principal Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit (PCNZM). Dame Cartwright has served on the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and played a role in drafting the optional protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).
Professor Sarah Cleveland (USA) is the Louis Henkin Professor of Human and Constitutional Rights and faculty director of the Human Rights Institute at Columbia Law School. She is currently a member of the UN Human Rights Committee, the US member of the Venice Commission, and former counsel to the US State Department legal adviser. She also serves as coordinating reporter of the American Law Institute’s project on the Restatement (Fourth) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States.
Justice Martine Comte (France) has been a judge in France for more than 30 years, including having served as President of the Orléans Court of Appeal from 2011-2014. Prior to this her judicial career has been extensive and amongst other roles she has served as President of the Pontoise Tribunal of First Instance, President of the Bourgoin-Jallieu Court of First Instance and as Head of the Regional Administrative Department of Paris. She has also served as an Inspector of Judicial Services. Justice Comte is an Officer of the National Order of Merit and Knight of the Légion d’Honneur.
Justice Willly Mutunga (Kenya) served as Chief Justice & President of the Supreme Court, Republic of Kenya, 2011- 2016. He was the Commonwealth Secretary-General’s Special Envoy to the Maldives, 2016-17. He is an active member of the Justice Leadership Group. He has a previous career as an academic and in human rights movements in East Africa and Canada, and served as Executive Director of the Eastern Office of the Ford Foundation, 2004-2011.
Ms Mikiko Otani (Japan) Mikiko Otani is a member of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (2017-) and a former Chair of the Committee on International Human Rights of the Japan Federation of Bar Associations. Prior to being elected as a member of the CRC, she was actively involved in the reporting process for Japan under the CRC and the CEDAW, representing NGOs.
Mr Wilder Tayler (Uruguay) is a Director of the National Institution of Human Rights and Ombudsman’s Office in Uruguay. He was Secretary-General of the International Commission of Jurists from 2008-2017. Between 2007 and 2014 he was a member and Vice-Chairperson of the UN Sub-Committee on the Prevention of Torture. Mr Tayler was Legal Director of Human Rights Watch from 1997 to March 2007 and before that he worked with Amnesty International as Director of the Americas Programme and a Legal Advisor.
Justice Lillian Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza (Uganda) is a Justice of the Supreme Court of Uganda. Prior to joining the Court, she served on Uganda’s Constitutional Court for two years. Before joining the Judiciary, Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza served as Deputy Vice-Chancellor in charge of Academic Affairs at Makerere University, Uganda, where she was also a Professor of Law. She is an author of law textbooks currently in use as reference texts in East African Law Schools.
More information about all the Commissioners can be found on the Commission page.
