Jan 21, 2014 | News
The ICJ is deeply concerned by reports that the President of Nauru has prevented the island nation’s Chief Justice from returning to the country and expelled the sole Resident Magistrate in violation of international standards on the independence of the judiciary.
According to media reports, Nauru President Baron Waqa on January 19 removed Resident Magistrate Peter Law in violation of an injunction issued by Chief Justice Geoffrey Eames. Subsequently, Chief Justice Eames, who was in Australia at the time, had his visa cancelled. Both judicial officials are Australian citizens.
Australia administered Nauru as a dependent territory until 1968 and the two countries retain strong bilateral relations. Australian judges and magistrates often serve on Nauru Courts.
“Removing judges from office, without any process whatsoever, breaches clear international standards on the independence of the judiciary,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific. “It also jeopardizes the right of people in Nauru, especially those currently engaged in legal proceedings, to have a fair trial.”
Nauru is an island state in Micronesia in the South Pacific.
The ICJ’s Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers (CIJL) is monitoring developments.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, (Bangkok), t:+66 807819002, e-mail: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Craig Knowles, ICJ Media & Communications, (Bangkok), t:+66 819077653, e-mail: craig.knowles(a)icj.org
Jan 18, 2014 | Адвокаси, Юридические заявления
МКЮ подала заявку в Комитет по ликвидации всех форм дискриминации в отношении женщин (CEDAW) до рассмотрения объединенного третьего и четвертого периодических докладов Казахстана в соответствии со статьей 18 одноименной Конвенции.
В представлении МКЮ обращается внимание Комитета на проблемы, связанные с насилием и дискриминацией по признаку пола.
Он также включает в себя ряд широко сформулированных рекомендаций, призывающих власти в Казахстане решить эти проблемы и вступить в силу обязательства государства-участника по Конвенции.
Комитет рассмотрит объединенные третий и четвертый периодические доклады Казахстана на своей 57-й сессии в феврале 2014 года, после чего он примет заключительные замечания с изложением рекомендаций правительству Казахстана.
Kazakhstan-ICJ Submission to CEDAW-advocacy-legal submission-2014 (скачайте документ на английском, PDF)
Jan 10, 2014 | News
The ICJ calls on the Bangladeshi authorities to immediately and unconditionally drop ‘cybercrime’ charges against Nasiruddin Elan and Adilur Rahman Khan, President and Secretary of the human rights group Odhikar.
“These charges are a flagrant attempt to silence critical voices, and the Bangladeshi authorities must immediately and unconditionally drop all charges against the two human rights defenders,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia director.
On 8 January 2014, a cyber crimes tribunal in Dhaka indicted Nasiruddin Elan (picture, on centre) and Adilur Rahman Khan under section 57 (1) and (2) of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Act, 2006, for publishing “fake, distorted and defamatory” information. Khan and Elan plead innocent to the charges.
The charges relate to a report by Odhikar that alleged that security forces had killed 61 people during a rally by the Islamist group Hefazat-e Islam in May 2013. The Government disputes the casualty numbers.
The trial is set to begin on 22 January 2014. Under the terms of the newly amended ACT the two human rights defenders face a minimum of seven and maximum of 14 years imprisonment.
“The ICJ has warned that the ICT Act can be used to attack freedom of expression in Bangladesh,” said Sam Zarifi. “As predicted, the Government is now using the newly amended law to silence political and public discourse through the threat of punitive sentences and deliberately vague and overbroad offences in clear violation of international law.”
In a briefing paper released on 20 November 2013, ICJ highlighted that provisions of the 2006 ICT Act (amended 2013), particularly section 57, violate Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Bangladesh ratified on 6 September 2000: the offences prescribed are poorly defined and overbroad; the restrictions imposed on freedom of expression go beyond what is permissible under Article 19(3) of the ICCPR; and the restrictions are not necessary and proportionate to achieve a legitimate purpose.
In addition, the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders underscores that States must take all necessary measures to protect human rights defenders “against any violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary action as a consequence of his or her legitimate exercise of his or her rights.”
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Ben Schonveld, ICJ South Asia Director, t: +61 422 561834; email: ben.schonveld(a)icj.org
Additional information
Adilur Rahman Khan was arrested his home on 10 August 2013 without an arrest warrant.On August 11, a Magistrate’s Court refused his bail application and remanded him for five days of custodial interrogation.
On August 12, the High Court Division of the Supreme Court stayed the remand order and directed that Adilur Rahman be sent back to jail, where he could be interrogated ‘at the gate of the jail.’
On 4 September 2013, the Detective Branch of Police filed a charge sheet against Adilur Rahman Khan and Odhikar’s Director, Nasiruddin Elan, under Section 57 of the International Communication and Technology Act 2006. On 30 October Adilur Rahman Khan was released on bail. On 6 November 2013, a Dhaka cyber crimes tribunal rejected Nasiruddin Elan’s bail application and ordered his detention in Dhaka Central Jail. Bail was granted on 24 November by the High Court. But the bail order was finally enforced after the appellate division’s order on 3 December 2013.
Dec 19, 2013 | News
The ICJ is delighted to announce that two new Commissioners were elected in December 2013: Justice Sir Nicolas Bratza (UK) and Professor César Landa (Peru).
Justice Sir Nicolas Bratza is a former President of the European Court of Human Rights. His term on the court ended on 31 October 2012, and he resigned as a Justice of the High Court on 1 November 2012.
Professor César Landa is the Dean of the Faculty of Law at the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru. Prior to this, Processor Landa was the President of the Constitutional Court of Peru. He also served as a Judge on the Constitutional Court.
In a year of significant change within the ICJ Commission, Justice Bratza and Professor Landa are the 14th and 15th new members to join the Commission in 2013.
Biographies for all our Commissioners can be found here.
Dec 19, 2013 | Advocacy, News
The ICJ is profoundly concerned at the judgment of 11 December 2013 of the Supreme Court of India, which effectively recriminalizes consensual same-sex sexual conduct between adults in private.
The decision by India’s highest court in Suresh Kumar Koushal and another v NAZ Foundation and others overturned the 2009 decision of the Delhi High Court.
That earlier judgment had held section 377 of the Indian Penal Code to be unconstitutional to the extent that it violated the rights to equality before the law, non-discrimination, life and personal liberty guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.
Section 377 criminalized certain consensual sexual acts in private between adults that are particularly associated with same-sex conduct.
The 2009 High Court’s ruling had the effect of decriminalizing such conduct between adults in private in India.
Its decision was based on an in-depth analysis of India’s obligations under international human rights law and standards, as well as international comparative law.
The High Court had examined the scope of the rights to equality, non-discrimination and personal liberty under the Indian Constitution and determined Section 377 to be unconstitutional.
Section 377, which was enacted in 1860, is a historical relic from colonial times bequeathed to India under the British empire; it made it an offence to voluntarily have “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” with any man, woman or animal.
Those convicted are liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years or for life and a fine.
The Supreme Court decision of 11 December reversed the High Court’s courageous and much celebrated decision.
Purporting to uphold the separation of powers, the judgment of the Supreme Court overturned the High Court by ruling that it acted in excess of its judicial review jurisdiction by failing to exercise restraint and to accord the necessary deference to the Indian legislature in its review of the constitutionality of section 377.
The Court effectively holds that the provision is not inconsistent with human rights and India’s obligations under international human right law, and that it is up to the Indian Parliament to amend or repealed it.
The ICJ is deeply troubled by the reasoning of the Supreme Court judgment.
It would appear to constitute an abdication of the essential role of the judiciary in safeguarding human rights.
In this case, the Court failed to uphold and protect the rights to equality and non-discrimination; equality before the law and equal protection of the law; dignity; privacy; freedom of expression and association; family life; and the highest attainable standard of health.
The judgment is inconsistent with India’s obligations under international human rights law.
The judgment also disconcertingly dismisses without apparent reason the wealth of evidence before the court documenting how the criminalization of same-sex sexual conduct leads directly to human rights violations.
