Nov 25, 2019 | News
Nepal has made no real progress on questions of justice, truth and reparations for victims of gross human rights violations and abuses during its 10-year conflict, the ICJ, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch (HRW) and TRIAL International said today.
The Comprehensive Peace Agreement to end the war was signed on November 21, 2006.
While two commissions have been set up to address conflict-era atrocities, they have not been effective and impunity and denial of access to justice to victims remain prevalent. The four human rights organizations are particularly concerned about the recent moves that suggest that the government will go forward with the appointing of commissioners without making necessary reforms to the legal framework.
“Last week marked the 13th anniversary of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement that ended the conflict in Nepal. It is astonishing that so little progress has been made in responding to the clearly articulated concerns and demands of conflict victims,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia-Pacific Director. “These demands have included a transparent and consultative process for the appointment of commissioners, and a genuine good-faith effort by political leaders and lawmakers to address serious weaknesses in the existing legal framework.”
On November 18, a five-member committee formed by the government to recommend names for commissioners to be appointed to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Commission on the Investigation of Enforced Disappearances published a list of candidates. Concerns have been raised by victims and civil society that the government will simply re-appoint past commissioners or make political appointments that will not be adequately impartial and independent.
“It is deeply disappointing that the government has repeatedly attempted to appoint the commissioners without adequate consultation and transparency . The commissions will not gain the trust of the victims and the international community if the political parties continue to interfere in the appointment process,” said Biraj Patnaik, South Asia Director at Amnesty International.
Importantly, the move suggests that the commissions will be re-constituted without amending the legal framework governing the transitional justice process and ensuring its compliance with Nepal’s international human rights law obligations, as directed by Nepal’s Supreme Court and demanded by civil society and victims.
Victims and civil society organizations have issued public statement making it clear that they oppose any appointments prior to the amendment of the legal framework. Notably, the National Human Rights Commission, in its statement commemorating 13th Anniversary of CPA, stated that “…the commission will not support any decision, work or activities that might hurt the sensitivity of the conflict victims…”.
“The government’s move has not only undermined victims’ role in the transitional justice process, but has also once again brought into question its commitment to uphold its international law obligations and ensuring justice for conflict-era crimes,” said Tomás Ananía, TRIAL International’s Nepal Program Manager.
The ICJ, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and TRIAL International have repeatedly expressed concern that effective transitional justice mechanisms require strong legal foundations consistent with international law and good practices, and the political will to address the concerns of victims of the conflict. All four organisations reiterated their calls to amend the the 2014 Transitional Justice Act to make it consistent with the Supreme Court’s rulings and international human rights standards, as well as for the initiation of a genuine consultative and transparent process for the appointment of commissioners.
Concerns raised about the existing, and proposed, legal frameworks include: disparities between the definitions of specific crimes under international law and human rights obligations and violations under national, and international law; inadequate provisions to ensure that serious crimes under international law are subject to criminal accountability (including punishment proportionate to the seriousness of the crimes); and a reliance on compensation at the expense of other forms of reparation and remedy for conflict survivors and their families.
Under the principle of universal jurisdiction states may make it possible for their domestic criminal justice system to investigate and prosecute crimes such as torture, committed by any person, anywhere in the world.
This means that a citizen of any country, including Nepal, suspected of such crimes faces the risk of arrest and prosecution for these crimes in countries that apply universal jurisdiction. This is more likely if the Nepali authorities do not appear able and willing to prosecute those responsible for such crimes, the organizations said.
“After initial pledges to ensure truth, justice, and reparations for conflict victims, it appears that the government is once again determined to protect those responsible for the crimes,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The international community should remind Nepal that whitewashing egregious crimes will not help to dodge universal jurisdiction.”
Contact:
Download the complete press-release in English and Nepali. (PDF)
Nov 22, 2019 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
Today, the ICJ intervened before the European Court of Human Rights in the case challenging the blocking of the website Wikipedia by the Turkish Government throughout the country.
In its intervention the ICJ addressed issues related to the compliance of Turkey’s Internet law and its application in practice, with rights under Article 10 ECHR to freedom of expression and to receive information.
In particular it addresses:
- international standards relating to freedom of expression on the Internet;
- evaluation of the Turkish Internet Law by international authorities, including bodies of the Council of Europe and United Nations;
- blocking of websites and other internet under Article 8/A of Law no. 5651 on Regulation of Publications on the Internet and Suppression of Crimes Committed by Means of Such Publications, and the judicial safeguards applying to such measures; and
- whether remedies including the individual application to the Constitutional Court can redress the deficiencies of the law.
Europe-Wikimedia v Turkey_TPI-Advocacy-Legal submissions-2020-ENG (download the intervention)
Nov 19, 2019 | News
Sri Lanka’s newly elected president, Gotabaya Rajapaksa and his government must demonstrate that they will uphold human rights and rule of law, and ensure that Sri Lanka sustains its international obligations and commitments to justice and accountability, said the ICJ today.
Gotabaya Rajapaksa faces credible allegations of involvement in war crimes and crimes against humanity that took place during the country’s armed conflict.
“The election of Gotabaya Rajapaksa, after a highly polarizing campaign, has alarmed human rights defenders in Sri Lanka and abroad, who have little reason to believe that someone facing such serious allegations of perpetrating human rights violations can be relied upon to meet the country’s obligations under international law,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Director.
Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who won the presidency with 52.25% of votes, served as Sri Lanka’s Secretary of the Ministry of Defence from 2005 to 2015 during the tenure of his brother Mahinda Rajapaksa, at the height of the armed conflict against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).
Both the military and LTTE perpetrated war crimes and gross human rights violations during the conflict, and particularly during its bloody final stages. As Defence Secretary, Gotabaya was accused of ordering the killing of surrendering LTTE fighters, ordering strikes on civilians and hospitals, and authorizing attacks on human rights defenders.
International condemnation of atrocities committed during the conflict led to the UN Human Rights Council demanding that the Sri Lankan government commit to a process of transitional justice, in view of the systematic failures of accountability mechanisms in Sri Lanka in the past, as documented by the ICJ in its submission to the Human Rights Council, and others. Despite commitments from the Sri Lankan government, the transitional justice process has effectively stalled and impunity has prevailed.
“The ICJ is deeply concerned that even the limited strides made over the past five years in Sri Lanka on transitional justice, positive constitutional amendments and institutional reform will be reversed,” said Rawski.
The ICJ urged the Government to deliver on its commitment to the transitional justice process, including by holding those responsible for human rights violations and abuses accountable, and complying with the obligations set out in United Nations Human Rights Council Resolutions 30/1, 34/1 and 40/1.
Contact:
Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Director, t +66 644781121; e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Nov 18, 2019 | News
The ICJ today called on the Hungarian authorities to desist from instigating disciplinary proceedings threatened against Judge Csaba Vasvári, a judge of the Central District Court of Pest and a member of the Hungarian National Judicial Council.
The imminent threat of disciplinary action is a consequence of a preliminary reference Judge Vasvári made to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
“Judge Vasvári faces disciplinary action as a direct result of his request for a preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the EU on the very question of judicial independence in Hungary. This is an extremely concerning attempt to interfere with the independence of a judge in discharging his judicial function which, if it proceeds any further, will set a dangerous precedent.” said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ’s Europe and Central Asia programme.
A motion to begin disciplinary proceedings against Judge Vasvári was brought by the Acting President of the Budapest Regional Court in October, following Judge Vasvári’s request in criminal proceedings before him last July, for a preliminary ruling the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
In the request to the CJEU, Judge Vasvári raised questions regarding compliance with the principle of judicial independence under Article 19.1 of the Treaty of the European Union (TEU), in particular the appointment procedures for court presidents, and remuneration for judges, as well as questions regarding the right to interpretation in court.
Following a decision of the Hungarian Supreme Court in September that the reference was contrary to Hungarian law since it was irrelevant to the case, disciplinary action against judge Vasvári was sought on the grounds that in making the reference, he violated the requirement to conduct himself with dignity and refrain from action which would undermine the dignity of the judiciary.
The motion for disciplinary proceedings is now expected to be considered by a panel of the Service Court, which will decide if disciplinary proceedings will commence.
“The actions of Judge Vasvári in making a preliminary reference to the CJEU were an entirely legitimate exercise of his judicial functions in accordance with EU law. It is essential that judges are able to use all appropriate judicial avenues to address and uphold the rule of law, including to protect the right to a fair trial and the independence of the judiciary” said Róisín Pillay. “It is also necessary for the proper application of EU law, that judges are able refer questions to the CJEU under Article 267 of the Treaty without undue hindrance.”
The ICJ recalls that under international standards on the independence of the judiciary, judges must decide matters before them impartially, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason (Principle 2, UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary). Council of Europe Recommendation CM/Rec (2010) 12 of the Committee of Ministers specifies that “the interpretation of the law, assessment of facts or weighing of evidence carried out by judges to determine cases should not give rise to civil or disciplinary liability, except in cases of malice and gross negligence.”
The UN Basic Principles on the Independence of Judiciary (principle 8) also affirm that “members of the judiciary are like other citizens entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly; provided, however, that in exercising such rights, judges shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of their office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.”
Nov 13, 2019 | Advocacy, Multimedia items, Video clips
In a video interview with the BBC’s Burmese broadcasting service, ICJ senior legal adviser Kingsley Abbott explains to the Myanmar public how the International Criminal Court prosecutor plans to investigate the crime against humanity of deportation from Myanmar to Bangladesh, which has affected around one million Rohingya.
Recorded on 24 August and published on 12 November 2019. The interview transcript is available in Burmese and English.
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
