Mar 1, 2021 | Advocacy, News
Between December 2020 and February 2021, the ICJ co-hosted a series of workshops for government authorities, medical professionals and lawyers in the southern border provinces of Thailand on how to conduct investigations into alleged unlawful killings and enforced disappearances.
Thailand’s southern border provinces of Pattani, Yala, Narathiwat and four districts of Songkhla have been affected by a longstanding ethno-nationalist insurgency, which has involved conflict between certain Malay groups and Thai military and security forces. Special security laws have been enacted and applied to the deep south. Over recent years, there are reports of widespread human rights violations, including violations of due process and fair trial rights, torture, ill-treatment while in custody, arbitrary detention and extrajudicial killings continue to emerge. Investigations into these allegations, prosecutions of perpetrators and provision of remedies and reparations to victims remain slow.
The first workshop was organized between 21 and 22 December 2020 in Songkhla province for authorities from Thailand’s southern border provinces. The event focused on how investigations into unlawful deaths should be conducted in accordance with international human rights law and standards, with a particular focus on the revised Minnesota Protocol (2016), which the ICJ assisted in producing.
The workshop was co-hosted with Thailand’s Ministry of Justice, the Embassy of New Zealand in Bangkok, and the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). The participants included 48 judges, public prosecutors, police investigators, representatives of the Ministry of Justice’s Department of Special Investigation (DSI), the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), the Narcotics Control Board (ONCB) and observers from the Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC) Region 4 Forward.
The second workshop was organized on 23 and 24 December 2020 in Pattani province for medical professionals in the same region. The event introduced participants to the international human rights law and standards governing the effective investigation and documentation of torture and other ill- treatment, including the revised Minnesota Protocol (2016) and the Istanbul Protocol (1999), and emphasized the important role of medical professionals in the documentation of torture.
The workshop was co-hosted with Thailand’s Ministry of Justice and the OHCHR. The participants included 28 medical professionals from district and military hospitals and detention centres.
Between January and February 2021, the ICJ also developed training videos for defence lawyers and civil society representatives in the southern border provinces. The videos focused on the use of forensic evidence in cases of alleged unlawful killings and how international human rights law and standards, particularly the revised Minnesota Protocol (2016) and ICJ’s Practitioners’ Guide No. 14, can assist defence lawyers when preparing for criminal proceedings and challenging the forensic evidence of prosecution witnesses.
The project was jointly implemented with the OHCHR, Cross-Cultural Foundation, Muslim Attorney Centre Foundation and the Embassy of New Zealand in Bangkok. Participants included 21 defence lawyers and civil society representatives from Thailand’s southern border provinces.
Speakers at the three workshops included:
- Amornrat Lekvichai, Thailand’s Institute of Forensic Science;
- Badar Fafukh, Human Rights Officer, OHCHR Regional Office for South-East Asia;
- Duangsamorn Chudeechan, Thailand’s Institute of Forensic Science;
- Duarte Nuno Vieira, Full Professor, Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra and Chairman of the Scientific Advisory Board of the International Criminal Court;
- Gisle Kvanvig, Head of UN Police Secretariat, Norwegian Center for Human Rights;
- Howard Varney, Senior Programme Advisor, International Center for Transitional Justice;
- Ivar Fahsing, Expert on investigation and Human Rights, Norwegian Center of Human Rights;
- Porntip Rojanasunan, member of the Expert Advisory Panel of the revision of the Minnesota Protocol;
- Sanhawan Srisod, ICJ Associate Legal Adviser;
- Stephen Cordner, Professor Emeritus, Department of Forensic Medicine, Monash University and editor of the Forensic Science sections of the 2016 Minnesota Protocol;
- Steve Wood, Senior Liaison Officer and Regional Coordinator, New Zealand Police National HQ;
- Stuart Casey-Maslen, Honorary Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Pretoria and Research Coordinator of the Minnesota Protocol;
- Thomas Wenzel, Full Professor, Faculty of Medicine, University of Vienna; and
- Vitit Muntarbhorn, Professor Emeritus, Faculty of Law, Chulalongkorn University and Former ICJ Commissioner.
The workshops are part of the ICJ’s ongoing efforts under the Global Accountability Initiative to ensure the domestic implementation of international law and standards on the investigation of potentially unlawful deaths and enforced disappearances.
In Thailand, since 2017, the ICJ has held several national and regional-level workshops on the same topics with justice sector actors, defence lawyers and civil society representatives.
Contact
Sanhawan Srisod, ICJ Associate Legal Adviser, Asia & the Pacific Programme, e: sanhawan.srisod(a)icj.org
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Director, Global Redress and Accountability; e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
See also
Thailand: launch of the revised Minnesota Protocol
Feb 25, 2021 | News
The verdict of the Higher Regional Court in Koblenz, Germany, convicting a former Syrian official of crimes against humanity, is a significant breakthrough in the fight against impunity for the crimes committed in Syria over the last 10 years, the ICJ said today.
“For the first time since the beginning of the Syrian regime’s bloody, rampant and relentless repression, a Syrian official has finally been held to account for his participation in the regime’s crimes,” said Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ’s MENA Programme. “While this may seem a small token for victims, it is a resounding warning for other Syrian officials that justice may soon catch up with them.”
On 24 February 2021, Eyad A. was found guilty of aiding and abetting crimes against humanity, including torture and arbitrary deprivation of liberty, and sentenced to four and a half years in prison. Among other things, his conviction is related to the detention of at least 30 Syrians after anti-government demonstrations erupted in March 2011.
“This is an important step in the fight for justice for victims and survivors of gross human rights violations in Syria,” said Bernabia.
Eyad A. was prosecuted together with Anwar R., the former director of investigations at Branch 251 — a Syrian intelligence branch in Damascus notorious for subjecting detainees to systematic torture and other ill-treatment.
Anwar R. was charged with supervising the systematic torture of over 4,000 people, which resulted in the death of 58 people between 2011 and his defection in 2012. His trial is still ongoing.
The proceedings against Eyad A. and Anwar R. were conducted under the principle of universal jurisdiction, which allows Germany and other States to prosecute an accused person for serious crimes under international law, even when such crimes have been committed abroad and neither the victims, nor the accused are nationals of that country.
“States must act individually and collectively to fill the accountability gap in Syria,” added Benarbia. “They must support United Nations accountability mechanisms, including the IIIM, and seek out, prosecute and punish those responsible for the atrocities committed in the country.”
Contact
Said Benarbia, Director, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3817; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Asser Khattab, Research and Communications Officer, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, e: asser.khattab(a)icj.org
Download
Syria-Impunity-Statement-2021-ENG (in English)
Syria-Impunity-Statement-2021-ARA (in Arabic)
Feb 23, 2021 | Editorial, Noticias
Una opinión editorial de César Landa, Comisionado de la CIJ
Desde el 2020 la pandemia del Covid-19 ha dejado millones de infectados y muertos en el mundo. Frente a ello, la rápida producción de las vacunas en algunos de los países centrales occidentales, su autorización de emergencia por sus gobiernos, y la inequitativa distribución a nivel internacional y nacional ha puesto en evidencia graves problemas al Estado de Derecho en la protección del derecho a la salud.
El acceso a las vacunas, al ser un bien escaso y con una alta demanda en el mundo, es mostrado como un logro nacional por los gobiernos latinoamericanos, como en el caso del Perú. Pero, es el caso señalar que desde los ensayos clínicos de la vacuna Sinopharm, la prensa peruana ha descubierto que, entre setiembre y enero, se han beneficiado de la vacunación de forma anticipada y en secreto, cerca de 500 personajes de la élite política peruana, como el ex Presidente Vizcarra, dos ministras, candidatos al Congreso, etc; autoridades de las dos universidades encargadas de los ensayos clínicos, y; la alta burocracia del Ministerio de Salud y la Cancillería, entre otros. Claro está, desplazando al personal médico y a las poblaciones vulnerables más necesitadas de la vacuna.
Lo cual pone en evidencia la necesidad de atender la cuestión de la vacuna como un medicamento esencial con un enfoque de derechos humanos, esto es de acceso universal y equitativo, como ha postulado la CIJ. Lo cual demanda de ciertos estándares en la compra de las vacunas –eficaces y seguras-. Por ejemplo, la compra a distintos proveedores; que las negociaciones sean transparentes –sin cláusulas de confidencialidad- para evitar diferentes prácticas de corrupción; que se garantice el acceso no discriminatorio a las vacunas para todas las personas, incluidas las más vulnerables –indocumentadas, presos, etc.-, y; se desarrolle instancias de control de los procesos de vacunación público y privado, con acceso a recursos judiciales efectivos en casos de violación del derecho del acceso equitativo a la vacuna.
La vacunación masiva contra el Covid-19, tanto en el hemisferio norte como en el hemisferio sur, es una de las medidas sanitarias principales para evitar la propagación de una siguiente ola del virus a escala mundial. Más aún, ayudará a revertir los graves efectos que la pandemia tiene para el pleno ejercicio de las libertades y derechos clásicos –libertad de tránsito, derecho de reunión, libertad personal, etc.-, como sobre todo para los derechos económicos, sociales y culturales –salud, trabajo, educación, etc.-, especialmente para las poblaciones más vulnerables.
Es imposible garantizar que todo el mundo tenga acceso inmediato a una vacuna contra la COVID-19. Pero, tampoco es posible que a la fecha más de 130 países no hayan recibido/adquirido alguna de las vacunas. Lo cual, en buena medida, es el resultado de que diez países han acaparado la adquisición del 75% del total de las vacunas en el mundo, según lo ha informado el Secretario General de las Naciones Unidas.
La producción y distribución masiva de las vacunas implica enormes costos financieros, por ello, solo los países centrales occidentales pueden invertir en los laboratorios de las grandes corporaciones químico-farmacéuticas. Solo así, se han podido desarrollar en tiempo récord las vacunas que cuentan con consolidados procedimientos administrativos y sanitarios de control e incluso de emergencia para validarlas. También han entrado en competencia las vacunas de países en desarrollo como China, Rusia e India. Las cuales cuentan con procesos paralelos o autónomos de investigación, producción, validación y comercialización de sus vacunas.
De modo que, se presentan dos desafíos a ser resueltos en el marco de los derechos humanos universales. Uno, la implementación de un sistema internacional de protección de la salud que promueva la distribución de la vacuna a los países en desarrollo y más vulnerables que aún no han importado ninguna vacuna, utilizando el Mecanismo Mundial de Vacunas COVAX, respaldado por la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS).
Dos, la prioridad nacional para las primeras vacunas es al personal sanitario y a los trabajadores que prestan los cuidados de emergencia. Asimismo, tienen prioridad las personas que presentan mayores riesgos de desarrollar una afección grave si se infectan con el Covid-19. Esto cubre cualquier causa como la edad, la existencia de patologías previas y la pobreza. También incluye a los pueblos indígenas, las minorías raciales, los migrantes, los refugiados, los desplazados, los reclusos y otras poblaciones marginadas y desfavorecidas.
Aunque, por el momento, la vacuna es un bien esencial y escaso, ello no justifica a los gobernantes a garantizar la salud y/o vida de sus ciudadanos de manera exclusiva. La humanidad no puede retornar, incluso transitoriamente, a un estado de naturaleza hobbesiano, donde “el hombre es lobo del hombre”; sino que, precisamente en estas aciagas circunstancias para la salud y la vida de miles de millones de seres humanos, corresponde apelar a la solidaridad internacional basada en la dignidad humana.
Descarga la opinión editorial en Inglés y Español.
Feb 22, 2021 | News
The ICJ has joined 21 other organizations to urge the Member States of the Human Rights Council to pass a strong resolution at the 46th Session, affirming an international commitment to protect human rights and justice in Sri Lanka.The letter reads:
To the Member States of the Human Rights Council
We, the undersigned organizations, urge the Member States of the Human Rights Council to pass a strong resolution at the 46th Session, affirming an international commitment to protect human rights and justice in Sri Lanka, with a particular focus on victims. The deteriorating human rights and accountability context in Sri Lanka is documented in detail in the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ damning January 2021 report as well as a joint assessment released by ten UN Special Procedures mandates earlier this month. The High Commissioner highlighted that “nearly 12 years on from the end of the war, domestic initiatives for accountability and reconciliation have repeatedly failed to produce results.” Just as concerning, the High Commissioner stressed the emergence of “early warning signs of a deteriorating human rights situation and a significant heightened risk of future violations.” Given the Government of Sri Lanka’s failure to comply with the State’s human rights obligations and implement agreed-upon accountability efforts and the need for urgent preventative action, it is essential that a new resolution detail immediate, concrete, and independent international efforts, including enhancing monitoring by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), creating an independent international mechanism to collect and preserve evidence of past and ongoing violations and abuses, and prioritizing support to civil society initiatives.
Multiple UN bodies and dozens of civil society organizations have documented grave human rights violations and abuses in Sri Lanka. The 26-year war between the Government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) witnessed serious violations – including allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity – by both parties. The toll on civilians was particularly high in the final stage of the conflict, when tens of thousands of Tamil civilians were killed, primarily by Government forces’ shelling of “No Fire Zones.” Following the end of the war, the country remained over-militarized and human rights abuses continued, including extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, arbitrary detention, torture, sexual violence, and harassment and persecution of journalists, activists, and government critics. Sri Lanka’s Tamil and Muslim populations have disproportionately suffered from these continuing violations and abuses, as they face institutionalized discrimination and higher levels of targeted state-sponsored violence.
Sri Lanka’s domestic accountability efforts have failed. As noted by the High Commissioner, numerous commissions of inquiry established by successive governments have “failed to credibly establish the truth and ensure accountability” and domestic investigations have failed to bring “a single emblematic case . . . to a successful conclusion or conviction.” Furthermore, despite co-sponsoring HRC Resolution 30/1 in 2015, which provided a comprehensive roadmap of measures to ensure justice and accountability, the Government of Sri Lanka “remains in a state of denial about the past, with truth-seeking efforts aborted and the highest State officials refusing to make any acknowledgment of past crimes.” The High Commissioner highlighted how “the failure to deal with the past continues to have devastating effects on tens of thousands of survivors.”
In the past year, prospects for domestic justice and accountability efforts in Sri Lanka have dimmed entirely. Gotabaya Rajapaksa – the former Secretary to the Ministry of Defense who oversaw the brutal end to Sri Lanka’s war – was elected President in November 2019. As one of its first acts on the international stage, the new Rajapaksa administration announced its withdrawal from HRC Resolution 30/1, part of a series of steps that led the High Commissioner to conclude that “[t]he Government has now demonstrated its inability and unwillingness to pursue a meaningful path towards accountability for international crimes and serious human rights violations.” The Government has also “proactively obstructed or sought to stop ongoing investigations and criminal trials to prevent accountability for past crimes,” promoted credibly accused war criminals, increased militarization of civilian institutions, reversed Constitutional safeguards, increasingly employed and promoted majoritarian and exclusionary rhetoric, increased surveillance and obstruction of civil society, and exacerbated human rights concerns.
In a joint assessment released earlier this month, ten UN Special Procedures mandates echoed the High Commissioner’s concern that the human rights and accountability context had further regressed in Sri Lanka, concluding, “[t]here is little hope that any domestic accountability measures will progress or achieve any degree of credibility.” They emphasized the “extremely disheartening” fact that their conclusions echo those of UN experts in 2009, who found “impunity has been allowed to go unabated throughout Sri Lanka. The fear of reprisals against victims and witnesses, together with a lack of effective investigations and prosecutions, has led to a circle of impunity that must be broken.” We share the High Commissioner’s and Special Procedures’ concerns that continued reliance on the Government of Sri Lanka to improve human rights and accountability will prove futile and dangerous. As both history and recent events in Sri Lanka have shown, if left unchecked, the Government will be emboldened to continue its abuses and further entrench impunity.
Given Sri Lanka’s long history of violations and failed domestic efforts to advance justice, and the warning signs of increased future abuses, it is critical that the Human Rights Council pass a strong resolution affirming its commitment to meaningful justice and accountability for serious human rights violations and abuses and crimes under international law in Sri Lanka. We join the High Commissioner and Special Procedures mandates in calling on Member States to pass a new resolution that strengthens the High Commissioner’s monitoring and reporting on Sri Lanka, prioritizes support to civil society initiatives assisting victims and their families, and establishes and supports a dedicated capacity to collect and preserve evidence. The dedicated capacity should come in the form of an independent international investigative mechanism. We also join the High Commissioner’s call for Member States to pursue alternative avenues for accountability and justice, including “taking steps towards the referral of the situation in Sri Lanka to the International Criminal Court,” the pursuit of “investigation and prosecution of international crimes” in national courts using extraterritorial and universal jurisdiction, and the imposition of targeted sanctions, including asset freezes and travel bans against State officials accused of grave human rights violations.
A strong resolution with concrete action by the Human Rights Council and UN human rights bodies will not only signal to the Government of Sri Lanka that continuing impunity and abuses are not acceptable, but will also affirm for survivors that the United Nations is committed to securing justice for the harms they experienced.
The text of the letter and the list of signatories is available here.
Feb 22, 2021 | Advocacy, News
On 13 and 20 February 2021, the ICJ, jointly with Centre for Civil and Political Rights (CCPR Centre), held two consultative sessions on international law and standards relating to the right to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and the use of force in law enforcement operations.
The discussions took place against the backdrop of recent widescale protests in Thailand, in which people exercising the rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression were met with sometimes unlawful force by security units.
Twenty-five Thai and international lawyers, civil society representatives and academics attended both discussion sessions, some participants in person and others online.
The 13 February session focused on relevant international law and standards relating to the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and the use of force in law enforcement operations, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Thailand is a party, The sessions were led by Daisuke Shirane, CCPR Centre Asia Pacific Coordinator; Badar Farrukh, OHCHR Regional Office for South-East Asia Human Rights Officer; and Chonlathan Supphaiboonlerd, ICJ Associate Legal Adviser.
Participants considered the exercise in practice of the rights to freedom of expression and information, rights that have recently been unduly restricted in Thailand. Such restrictions were said to have resulted in violations of the rights of individuals who increasingly rely on online platforms, particularly social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, to share information on the protests and to express their opinions on the reform movement.
The session included a Q&A session with Christof Heyns, former member of the UN Human Rights Committee and Special Rapporteur on summary, arbitrary and extrajudicial executions. The discussion focused on the scope of the right of peaceful assembly, COVID-19 related restrictions, the State’s duty to facilitate peaceful assembly, and the international legal requirements of legality, necessity and proportionality on State’s response against the protesters.
In the 20 February consultation, Aram Song, attorney of the MINBYUN-Lawyers for a Democratic Society from South Korea, shared with the participant his experiences representing victims of human rights violations arising from police responses to protesters. He discussed the unlawful use of force and the constitutionality of regulations and ordinance that restricting the right to expression and peaceful assembly in the courts. Thereafter, Gayoon Baek, Chief Secretary of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of the Republic of Korea, gave her views on how to conduct advocacy through international human rights mechanisms to ensure the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.
This workshop is part of the ICJ’s ongoing efforts to bring existing Thai laws in compliance with international laws and standards that regulating the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.
Further reading
Thailand: ICJ co-hosts round-table on right to peaceful assembly
