Mar 17, 2021 | News
Imposition of Martial Law in several areas of Myanmar subjects civilians to trial by military tribunals, a dangerous escalation of the military’s repression of peaceful protests, said the ICJ today.
“Use of martial law marks the return to the dark days of completely arbitrary military rule in Myanmar. It effectively removes all protections for protestors, leaving them at the mercy of unfair military tribunals.”
– Ian Seiderman, ICJ’s director of law and policy
On 14 March, the Myanmar military issued Martial Law Order 3/2021, covering a number of townships of different provinces in Myanmar. According to this order, military officials assume full authority from civilian officials, and civilians may be subjected to military tribunals for charges of 23 violations of the criminal code and other laws. The 23 crimes include many of the charges used most against peaceful protesters in the past month, including charges of ‘disrupting or hindering government employees and services’ and ‘spreading false news’ about the government, and ‘exciting disaffection towards the government.’
The Martial Law Order also assigns disproportionately severe sentences, including the death penalty and prison sentences with hard labor. Judgments of military tribunals are not subject to appeal, even if the death penalty is imposed.
“Martial law has been imposed in precisely the areas where the military have used unlawful and lethal force against peaceful protesters, and removes even the pretense of access to courts for the people whose rights have been violated systematically by the military, ” said Seiderman.
The ICJ’s detailed review of military courts has documented that they lack competence, independence and impartiality to prosecute civilians. International law provides that the jurisdiction of military tribunals must generally be restricted solely to specifically military offenses committed by military personnel.
“The military courts lack transparency, due process and judicial oversights. It leaves no possibility to appeal the sentences, including the death sentences that have been handed down by military generals, ” said Seiderman.
Since the military coup d’etat of February 1 and the declaration of a state of emergency, the military has enacted and amended legislation enabling ongoing gross human rights violations, including possible crimes against humanity. More than 200 people have been unlawfully killed, with 2,000 more injured as security forces have used excessive force to suppress peaceful protests.
Background
On 14 March, the military-appointed State Administration Council, in accordance with Article 419 of the Constitution, enacted Martial Law Order 1/2021, imposing martial law in a number of areas in Yangon. The affected areas were further expanded through two other orders issued on 15 March, Martial Law Order 2/2021 and 3/2021. These orders transfer all power to the Military Commander in those areas. All local administration bodies have been placed under martial law, effectively giving military full control of all judicial and administrative processes.
The Order 3/2021 in particular is divided into six main sections with the most concerning provisions in relation to the list of crimes to be heard by military tribunals, and the proscribed punishments.
Contact
Osama Motiwala, ICJ Asia-Pacific Communications Officer, e: osama.motiwala(a)icj.org
Mandira Sharma: ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, e: mandira.sharma(a)icj.org
Mar 17, 2021 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Today, the ICJ joined Amnesty International and other 14 NGOs to express concern at continued attacks on the Special Procedures of the UN Human Rights Council by some States and at efforts to undermine their independence.
The joint statement reads as follows:
“Madame President,
Amnesty International delivers this statement on behalf of 15 NGOs.
We are deeply concerned by continued attacks on the Special Procedures and efforts to undermine their independence. We urge all states to affirm their commitment to human rights and the effectiveness of the international human rights system, by rejecting and condemning these efforts.
We welcome the continued efforts of the Coordination Committee to address objective non-compliance of mandate holders under the Internal Advisory Procedure, including in response to the failure of the Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy to submit his reports to the Council in time for their consideration at this session. We urge all states to support the Coordination Committee in their efforts to respond to concerns related to the working methods of the Special Procedures, as well as complaints against individual mandate holders.
At the same time, we deplore the efforts of some states to use this process as a cover to undermine the independence and effectiveness of the Special Procedures for political reasons. As on numerous previous occasions, certain states repeatedly accuse the Special Procedures of politicization but fail to substantively address the human rights concerns they raise.
We particularly regret the Russian Federation’s efforts, on 5 March, to suspend the HRC session altogether and their continued attempts, together with other states, to introduce unwarranted state oversight on the Special Procedures.
We were also alarmed to witness personal attacks on the Special Procedures, most worryingly against the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, by the Chinese delegation, who during the interactive dialogue accused the mandate holder of ‘spread[ing] false information’ and ‘lack[ing] minimum professional ethics.” Such ad hominem attacks are unacceptable, and the Council must respond in the strongest terms to condemn such incidents. They also reveal a broader rejection of dialogue on human rights challenges – despite repeated statements urging the Council to privilege ‘dialogue and cooperation’ – and a lack of willingness on the part of the state concerned to take action to protect human rights.
It is time for states at this Council to take a strong proactive stand for its independent mechanisms, ensuring that they have the support and resources needed to fulfil their mandates and to hold states accountable when they commit human rights violations.
Thank you.”
The signatories of the statement are:
- Amnesty International
- ARTICLE 19
- Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
- Center for Reproductive Rights
- CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
- DefendDefenders (East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project)
- Forum Menschenrechte e.V.
- Human Rights House Foundation
- Human Rights Watch
- International Commission of Jurists
- International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
- International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR)
- International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
- Privacy International
- Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, ICJ UN Representative, e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org, t: +41797499949
Mar 16, 2021 | News
On the first day of the trial before the eastern Cairo criminal military court of those accused in connection with the 2016 explosion in the Haram district of Giza, the ICJ calls on the Egyptian authorities to: investigate allegations of torture and other ill-treatment; ensure reparation for those arbitrarily detained; and end the trials of civilians before military courts.
“The case has been under investigation by the State Security Prosecution for more than five years, involving prolonged pre-trial detention and severe restriction on the right to legal counsel, in a flagrant violation of Egyptian and international law,” said Said Benarbia, the ICJ’s MENA Programme Director. “Detaining people pending trial for that length of time makes this case yet another example of how the authorities are using pre-trial detention as a tool of repression and to punish, in violation of Egypt’s obligations under international human rights law”.
In January 2016, hundreds of people were arrested, and some forcibly disappeared in connection with an explosion in the Haram district of Giza that killed seven police officers and four civilians, and injured 15 others.
A number of those detained have reportedly been subjected to ill-treatment and denied fair trial rights guaranteed by Egyptian and international law, including the right to receive family visits. In addition, to the ICJ’s knowledge, while all the accused may have briefly met their lawyers in highly restrictive circumstances at the state prosecution office each time they have been remanded into custody, over the years, they have been denied their right to legal counsel before trial as their lawyers have not been allowed to visit them in prison.
The ICJ calls on the Egyptian authorities to investigate the incidents of enforced disappearance, ill-treatment and other human rights violations with a view to bring those responsible to justice.
“Notwithstanding the gravity of the charges involved, civilians should not be brought before military courts,” said Benarbia. “the jurisdiction of military courts should be limited to trials of military personnel in cases of strictly military offences; it should not extend to crimes over which civilian courts have jurisdiction, human rights violations or crimes under international law,” he added.
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
Press release in English and Arabic.
Mar 16, 2021 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Today, during a debate on the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review of Libya, the ICJ called on Lybian authorities to bring the country’s criminal legislation in line with international law, in particular by defining clearly crimes under international law.
The statement reads as follows:
“Madame President,
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) welcomes Libya’s acceptance of the recommendation to cooperate fully with the Independent Fact-Finding Mission on Libya and ensure that it has unfettered access throughout the country’s territory (148.7-8, 148.11-17).
The ICJ regrets that Libya has only taken note of – as opposed to accepting ‒ Estonia’s recommendation (148.80) to bring the Penal Code in line with international standards, and Libya’s rejection of Zambia’s recommendation (148.70) to define crimes under international law in Libya’s domestic legal system clearly.
Libyan domestic law fails to criminalize: arbitrary deprivation of life; torture and other ill-treatment; enforced disappearance; rape and other forms of sexual and gender-based violence; slavery; war crimes; and crimes against humanity, in line with international law and standards.
The ICJ further welcomes Libya’s acceptance of the recommendations (148.144-146, 148-149, 151-161, 165-166) to investigate effectively crimes under international law and bring perpetrators to justice.
The ICJ expresses concern, however, at the prevailing impunity in the country. Crimes under international law are not being effectively investigated and prosecuted, largely because of the absence of political will, inadequate resources, and the frequent threats against justice actors, particularly by armed groups.
The ICJ also regrets that Libya failed to accept the recommendations of: Ukraine (148.25); Costa Rica (148.31); Cyprus (148.32); France (148.33); the Holy See (148.34); Liechtenstein (148.35); Namibia (148.36); Portugal (148.37); Rwanda, Croatia and Slovakia (148.37); Argentina (148.38); Australia (148.39); Honduras (148.40); Iceland (148.41); Italy (148.42); and Latvia (148.43). These recommendations call on Libya to establish a moratorium on executions, and to accede to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights with a view to abolishing the death penalty. The death penalty constitutes a violation of the right to life and of the absolute prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
I thank you.”
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, ICJ UN Representative, e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org, t: +41797499949
Vito Todeschini, Legal Adviser, ICJ MENA Programme, e: vito.todeschini(a)icj.org
Mar 16, 2021 | Advocacy
This side event will take place on Tuesday 16 March 2021, from 14:00-15:00 (CET) at the 46th session of the UN Human Rights Council. For registration: https://bit.ly/3llCCMF
Minority Rights Group International and South Asia Collective, along with ICJ, OMCT, Article 19 and FORUM-ASIA, are hosting a side event at 46th session of the Human Rights Council, on hate speech and incitement in South Asia. The aim is to instigate discussion on the causes and consequences of hate speech in South Asia, in the hope of encouraging UN and its agencies to engage better on preventive and early warning actions in the region.
Speakers
- Fernand de Varennes – UN Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues
- Alice Wairimu Nderitu – UN Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide
- Haroon Baloch, Pakistan – Digital Rights Researcher, Bytes for All Pakistan
- Farah Mihlar, Srilanka – Lecturer, University of Exeter; Srilanka Minority Rights campaigner
- Shakuntala Banaji, India – Professor of Media, Culture and Social Change at London School of Economics
Moderator
- Joshua Castellino – Executive Director, Minority Rights Group International
