Nov 7, 2015 | News
The ICJ, Lawyers for Human Rights Swaziland (LHR(S), Lawyers for Human Rights South Africa (LHR), and Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC) organized a training on strategic litigation for lawyers and human rights defenders from 6-7 November 2015 in Ezulwini.
The training was intended to empower Swazi lawyers and human rights defenders with tools for legal empowerment through litigation.
Further the training provided an opportunity for introducing the participants to international, regional and domestic mechanisms for strategic litigation and analysis of strategic litigation cases, opportunities and challenges in Swaziland.
Participants were drawn from different private law firms, human rights organisations, and the office of the Attorney General and women’s rights organisations.
To nurture regional peer learning and approaches the President of the Law Society of Lesotho Advocate Shale gave the key note presentation borrowing on lessons from other regions and Lesotho.
Resources persons included David Cote (LHR), Caroline James (SALC), Otto Saki (ICJ) and Thabiso Mavuso (Swaziland).
The expected impact is that increasingly lawyers and human rights defenders will take up strategic litigation as part of contributing to the achievement of systemic change and positive enforcement of fundamental rights and freedoms.
This training was held with the generous support of the European Union (EU) through the EU Delegation to Swaziland.
Contact:
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Regional Director for Africa, t: +27 73 131 8411, e: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
Mandla Mkhwanazi LHR Swaziland Chairperson, t: +268 7602 6320, e: m.z.mkhwanazi(a)swazi.net
Caroline James, Lawyer, Southern Africa Litigation Centre t: 27 72 200 1813, e: CarolineJ(a)salc.org.za
David Cote, Programme Manager: Strategic Litigation Programme, LHR (South Africa) t: +27 11 339 1960, e: david(a)lhr.org.za
Nov 6, 2015 | Адвокаси, Новости, Статьи, Юридические заявления
МКЮ представила вмешательство третьей стороны по делу Багирова против Азербайджане перед Европейским судом по правам человека.
В настоящем представлении МКЮ указывает на то, что особая роль адвокатов в процессе отправления правосудия, предусмотренная принципом верховенства права, предполагает, что они должны иметь возможность выполнять важные профессиональные обязанности в отсутствие необоснованных ограничений, что требует тщательной проверки любых используемых ограничений, в том числе относительно высказываний, которые адвокаты делают за пределами суда.
МКЮ также отмечает, что роль и обязанности адвокатов с точки зрения обнародования информации по общественно значимым вопросам, связанным с судебной системой, не ограничивается замечаниями по конкретным делам, которые они ведут.
Кроме того, такие замечания пользуются повышенной защитой по статье 10 Европейской Конвенции.
МКЮ считает, что критические замечания адвокатов в отношении действий (бездействия) государственных органов, несущих ответственность за содержание под стражей лица, которому были причинены увечья или смерть которого наступила, пока оно находилось под контролем данных органов, должны изначально рассматриваться как формы выражения мнения, которые пользуются юридической защитой, если не будет доказано, что они являются недобросовестными, а дисциплинарное производство в отношении адвокатов может возбуждаться только при условии всестороннего соблюдения гарантий защиты от необоснованного применения несоразмерного взыскания.
Azerbaijan-Bagirov v Azerbaijan-Advocacy-legal submission-2015-RUS (полный текст, русский)
Nov 5, 2015 | News
On the 15th anniversary of Irom Sharmila’s hunger strike, the International Commission of Jurists calls on the Indian government to repeal the Armed Forces Special Powers Act without further delay.
Irom Sharmila began a hunger strike in November 2000, calling for the repeal of the AFSPA, following the unlawful killing of 10 civilians by security forces purportedly acting under it in Malom.
“The AFSPA has facilitated gross human rights violations by the armed forces in the areas in which it is operational,” Sam Zarifi, Asia-Pacific Director of the ICJ said. “It is a repressive and draconian law that should have no place in today’s India”.
Once an area is declared “disturbed” under the AFSPA, armed forces are given a range of “special powers”. These include the power to arrest without warrant, to enter and search any premises, and in certain circumstances, “fire upon or otherwise use force, even to the causing of death”. These and other vaguely framed provisions give armed forces broad powers that are inconsistent with the government’s obligations to respect the right to life.
In addition to leading to many unlawful killings in the areas in which it has been in effect, the provisions of the AFSPA have also facilitated torture, rape and enforced disappearances.
“The AFSPA has created a culture of impunity, shielding security forces from accountability in India for crimes under international law, and making it impossible for victims of human rights violations to access justice”, Sam Zarifi said.
Under the AFSPA, governmental permission, or sanction, is required before any member of the armed forces can be prosecuted for crimes in a civilian court. Decisions regarding sanction take many years, and as yet, no member of the armed forces has been prosecuted in a civilian court.
The Indian government has often justified the need for the AFSPA as necessary to address terrorism and militancy in “disturbed areas”. “International law requires and experience shows that effective counter- terrorism measures must reinforce human rights, and not undermine and violate them,” said Sam Zarifi.
Calls for the repeal or amendment of the AFSPA –including from official bodies – have come from near and far for a number of years.
Several UN human rights bodies have recommended that the AFSPA be repealed or significantly amended. These include the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (2014), the Special Rapporteur on violence against women (2014), the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (in 2013 and again in 2015), the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders (2012), the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (2007), and the UN Human Rights Committee (1997).
In recent years, prominent Indian bodies have recognized the brutality of the AFSPA and echoed demands for repeal or amendment. The Justice Jeevan Reddy Committee set up by the Government of India to review the working of the AFSPA, has advocated its repeal. The Fifth Report of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission seconded this recommendation.
The Verma Commission, set up by the government following the gang rape in Delhi in 2012, called for the repeal of sanction provisions under the AFSPA as they relate to sexual offences. In 2015, a High Level Committee on the Status of Women also reportedly advocated its repeal.
In 2012, the Extra Judicial Execution Victims Family Association, Manipur (EEVFAM) filed a petition at the Supreme Court of India, alleging that between 1979 and 2012, 1528 people were extra-judicially executed by security forces in Manipur.
A court-appointed fact-finding commission – popularly known as the Santosh Hegde Commission – studied 6 of these cases, and found that the deaths were not lawful.
In its report, the Hegde Commission agreed with the observation of the Jeevan Reddy Commission, that the AFSPA had become “a symbol of oppression, an object of hate, and an instrument of discrimination and high-handedness.”
The case is still pending in the Supreme Court.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Sanhita Ambast, ICJ International Legal Advisor (Delhi), t: +91 9810962193; email: Sanhita.ambast(a)icj.org
Nov 4, 2015 | News
The government of Maldives must immediately revoke its suspension of human rights protections under the state of emergency declared today and restore the rule of law to the country, said the ICJ.
The Maldivian government suspended a range of constitutional protections under a 30-day state of emergency declared on 4 November, citing a threat to national security based on the allegation that “some groups are planning to use … dangerous weapons and explosives,” according to a translated version of the emergency decree obtained by the ICJ.
“The complete suspension of constitutional protections for human rights such as the right to liberty and right to free assembly goes far beyond anything that could be justified by the alleged grounds cited by the government,” said Nikhil Narayan, ICJ’s South Asia Senior Legal Adviser.
“International law strictly regulates attempts by governments to suspend or otherwise derogate from human rights on the grounds of emergency,” he added.
Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the Maldives is a State Party, expressly permits derogations only for certain human rights, and then only ‘in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation’.
“Maldivian authorities have not come close to explaining how the current situation constitutes a threat to the ‘life of the nation’, the high threshold set by international law for the derogation of rights in times of emergency,” Narayan said.
According to the emergency decree, the constitutionally protected rights that have been suspended during the state of emergency are, among others:
- Article 19: “A citizen is free to engage in any conduct or activity that is not expressly prohibited by Islamic Shari’ah or by law. No control or restraint may be exercised against any person unless it is expressly authorised by law.”
- Article 24: “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his private communications. Every person must respect these rights with respect to others.”
- Article 31: “Every person employed in the Maldives and all other workers have the freedom to stop work and to strike in order to protest.”
- Article 32: “Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly without prior permission of the state.”
- Article 41(a): “Every citizen has the freedom to enter, remain in and leave the Maldives, and to travel within the Maldives.”
- Article 45: “Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained, arrested or imprisoned except as provided by law enacted by the People’s Majlis in accordance with Article 16 of this Constitution.”
- Article 47(a) and (b): “(a) No person shall be subject to search or seizure unless there is reasonable cause. (b) Residential property shall be inviolable and shall not be entered without the consent of the resident, except to prevent immediate and serious harm to life or property, or under the express authorisation of an order of the Court.”
“The basic prohibition against arbitrary detention and imprisonment can never be derogated from,” Narayan said.
The declaration of the state of emergency also seems to target the country’s vice president, whom the president appears to regard as a political threat. The vice president is facing impeachment proceedings for his alleged role in the boat explosion which the government claims was caused by a bomb as part of a deliberate assassination attempt.
The emergency decree reduces the period provided under Article 100 of the Maldives Constitution for the vice president to respond to the impeachment charges from 14 days to 7 days.
“There seems to be a clear political motive in arbitrarily reducing the vice president’s procedural rights in the impeachment process,” added Narayan.
Additional information
The alleged threat cited by the Maldivian government refers to the announcement that Maldivian security forces had discovered weapons and explosives in two areas, and that some additional weapons were missing.
These allegations followed the purported discovery of an explosive device near the president’s palace on Monday that, following closely on last month’s explosion on a boat carrying the president and his wife, the government claims is part of an alleged assassination attempt on the president.
The government rejected the findings of an FBI investigation into the earlier boat explosion which ruled out the possibility that it was caused by a bomb.
In August 2015, following a joint fact-finding mission to the Maldives, the ICJ and South Asians for Human Rights (SAHR) documented the breakdown of the rule of law and human rights in the Maldives in a 35-page report, Justice Adrift: Rule of Law and the Political Crisis in the Maldives.
Contact:
Nikhil Narayan, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser for South Asia, t: +977 9813187821 ; e: nikhil.narayan(a)icj.org
Nov 3, 2015 | News
The ICJ and 26 other civil society organizations called today upon the Vietnamese government to comprehensively revise the draft Law on Religion to conform with the country’s obligations under international human rights law.
The groups are concerned that Vietnam’s draft Law on Belief and Religion is inconsistent with the right to freedom of religion or belief.
In its current form, the draft Law places limitations on freedom of religion or belief that extend beyond those permitted under international human rights law that is binding on Vietnam, they say.
Article 18(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Vietnam is a state party, requires the authorities to ensure that the freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief is subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary and proportionate to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
While the draft Law purports to acknowledge “the right to freedom of religion and belief” and proclaims that the “government respects and protects the freedom of religion and belief of everyone,” the provisions of the draft Law, if passed, would act as a powerful instrument of control placing sweeping, overly broad limitations on the practice of religion or belief within Vietnam, perpetuating the already repressive situation.
Contact:
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ International Legal Adviser, (Bangkok), t:+66 944701345, e-mail: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Vietnam-Draft Law on Religion-Advocacy-2015-ENG (full statement, in PDF)
