Sep 14, 2018 | News
On 14 September 2018, the ICJ joined 67 other international and Guatemalan civil society organizations in a letter to the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, to express grave concern about recent developments to curtail anti-impunity efforts in the country.
These include President Jimmy Morales’ decision on 31 August 2018 not to extend the mandate of the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG); the Guatemalan authorities’ subsequent decision on 4 September 2018 to prohibit the re-entry into the country of the CICIG’s Commissioner Iván Velásquez; and judicial reforms adopted by Congress on 6 September 2018 that threaten to undermine the independence of the judiciary and the function of the Constitutional Court judges and the office of the Human Rights Ombudsman.
The signatories welcomed the High Commissioner’s critical reference of these developments in her opening remarks to the 39th session of the Human Rights Council.
They asked that the High Commissioner give continued support in the fight against corruption and impunity in Guatemala and called on her to press the Guatemalan authorities to adopt necessary measures to facilitate compliance with the mandate of the CICIG under the terms of the Agreement signed between Guatemala and the United Nations.
The letter is available here (in Spanish): Guatemala-Letter to Michelle Bachelet-News-2018-SPA
Sep 13, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ prepared an oral statement on procedural safeguards and civil society’s action to prevent arbitrary detention and enforced disappearance, for the interactive dialogue with the UN Working Groups on Arbitrary Detention and on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances.
Although the statement could not ultimately be read out due to the limited time for civil society statements at the Human Rights Council, the text can found here:
“Mr President, Chairpersons of the Working Groups,
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) welcomes the focus of the report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on “Linkages between arbitrary detention and instances of torture and ill- treatment”.
The ICJ shares the view of the Working Group that “safeguards … to prevent” torture and ill-treatment minimize and prevent “instances of arbitrary detention” (A/HRC/39/45, para. 59, and the view that “Judicial oversight of detention is a fundamental safeguard of personal liberty ” (A/HRC/39/45, para. 60).
The ICJ further welcomes the interim report of the Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances on effective investigations (A/HRC/39/46), including the finding that “relatives of the disappeared have proven to be essential in the context of investigations and should have the right to know the truth … .” (para. 65)
The ICJ however stresses that these standards are not always upheld by States in their policies and actions.
For example, in Turkey, judicial review of detention is carried out by Judgeships of the Peace whose independence is highly questionable.
Finally, with regard to enforced disappearances, the ICJ is very concerned by the actions of Turkish authorities prohibiting the Saturday Mothers to hold their weekly protests in Galatasaray Square (Istanbul) in memory of their disappeared, in breach of their right to freedom of assembly.
Events of this kind seriously weaken the procedural safeguards and the action of civil society to protect and promote the prohibition of arbitrary detention and ensure accountability against enforced disappearances.
The ICJ urges the Council to address these worrying developments.
I thank you.”
HRC39-OralStatement-WGADWGEID-2018-draft-ENG (download the statement)
Sep 10, 2018 | Advocacy, News
The ICJ today called on all MEPs to vote in favour of the draft resolution and report by rapporteur Judith Sargentini MEP, before the European Parliament, which would activate Article 7 of the Treaty of the European Union in respect of Hungary.
A vote for the resolution would mean that, under Article 7.1, the Council would determine whether there is a clear risk of serious breach by Hungary of the founding values of the EU.
Ultimately, if the situation persists, this would allow the Council to take more robust measures, including suspension of voting rights, to address the situation.
The vote, scheduled for 12 September, is crucial for the rule of law in Hungary and throughout the European Union.
The Parliament will vote on whether to activate the process under Article 7, by calling on the Council to identify a risk of serious breach by Hungary of the EU’s founding values, including the rule of law and respect for human rights.
The ICJ considers that the measures put in place by the Hungarian government since 2011 have led to a severe deterioration of the rule of law and human rights, by weakening Constitutional rights protection, limiting judicial independence, suppressing independent media, civil society and academic institutions, and imposing arbitrary laws that violate the human rights of marginalized sections of society.
Cumulatively, these measures pose a grave, systemic threat to the protection of the human rights of all people in Hungary.
“The European Parliament should respond to the critical situation in Hungary by using the powers available to it under Article 7 TEU to defend human rights and the rule of law. Not to do so would be to abandon Hungary to an increasingly dangerous path, and would set a damaging precedent for all of Europe,” said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe Programme.
Read the full statement and key concerns here: Hungary-triggering Art 7-Advocacy-2018-ENG (in PDF)
Sep 6, 2018 | News
The ICJ welcomed the Supreme Court’s judgment in Navtej Singh Johar et al v. Union of India and others, which effectively ends the threat to a large segment of the Indian population that they will be held criminally liable for exercising their human rights.
The Court has issued a long-overdue ruling that the criminalization of consensual same-sex relationships under Section 377 violates the Indian Constitution, and is in breach of India’s obligations under international law. This long-awaited judgment testifies to the work of activists and lawyers in India, who have shown the potential of the law to affirm human rights and equality.
“This judgment will not only have an impact in India. Its influence should extend across the world. The ICJ hopes that it will provide an impetus for other countries, especially those of the Commonwealth of Nations, to revoke similar provisions that criminalize consensual sexual relations,” ICJ Asia Pacific Director Frederick Rawski stated.
The Court underscored that provisions of Section 377 contravened international law and standards on equality, privacy, non-discrimination and dignity guaranteed in international human rights treaties to which India is a party. These include the International Covenant Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights.
The Court also noted that the Yogyakarta Principles, which address sexual orientation and gender identity in international law, reinforce these protections. This is a vital jurisprudential recognition that LGBTI persons are entitled to full equality, and protection of their rights under India’s Constitutional and international human rights law.
In the judgement, which reverses the December 2013 Koushal decision, the Court held that discrimination based on sexual orientation is a violation of fundamental rights to autonomy, privacy, equality, dignity, and non-discrimination. It underscored that decriminalization of homosexuality is only the first step and that LGBTI persons are entitled to equal citizenship in all its manifestations. The Court also recommended that wide publicity be given to judgment to ensure de-stigmatization of identity through sensitization training on barriers to access to justice faced by LGBTI persons.
“Even a landmark decision by the Indian Supreme Court cannot alone end the discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. It is time for the Indian Parliament to conduct wide-ranging review of existing legal framework, repeal discriminatory laws, and address other gaps in the law that prevent LGBT persons from fully exercising their rights,” Rawski added.
Background
For background, see the ICJ’s July 2018 Briefing Paper on Navtej Singh Johar et al. v. Union of India and Others, and its February 2017 report, “Unnatural Offences”: Obstacles to Justice in India Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.
Contact
Maitreyi Gupta (Delhi), ICJ International Legal Advisor for India
e: maitreyi.gupta(a)icj.org, t: +91 7756028369
Sep 5, 2018 | Events, News
The ICJ will participate in the side event “Accountability and the need to end impunity for human rights violations in Yemen,” organized by the CIVICUS, FIDH, CIHRS in cooperation with Mwatana for Human Rights and the Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR).
This side event at the Human Rights Council will take place on Monday, 10 September 2018 from 12:00 – 13:00 in room XXIV of the Palais des Nations.
The issue of human rights defenders including bloggers, Internet activists, and journalists who are at extreme risk of persecution will be discussed.
Speakers:
- Radhya Al-Mutawakel, Co-founder and Chairperson of Mwatana for Human Rights
- Khalid Ibrahim, Executive Director, Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR)
- Vito Todeschini, Associate Legal Adviser, International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
- Miriam Puttick, Head of MENA Programmes, Ceasefire for Civilians Rights
Moderator:
Antoine Madelin, International Advocacy Director, International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
Yemen-Side event at HRC-News-events-2018-ENG (download the flyer)
