Jun 25, 2019 | News
Myanmar’s 1982 Citizenship Law, which has fueled widespread discrimination against various ethnic minority groups, is irreconcilable with core rule of law principles and the State’s obligations under international human rights law, the ICJ said today in a briefing paper.
The briefing paper Citizenship Law and Human Rights in Myanmar: Why Law Reform is Urgent and Possible (available in English and Burmese) analyses the legal framework for citizenship in Myanmar, and assesses certain provisions of the 2008 Constitution relevant to citizenship as well as the 1982 Citizenship Law.
This law embedded the current narrow definition of citizenship, which generally links citizenship acquisition to membership of a prescribed “national race.”
The resulting system enables and legitimizes discrimination against various groups, particularly against persons of South Asian or Chinese descent, members of whole ethnic groups, such as the Rohingya, and also the children of single mothers.
“Enacted by unelected military governments, Myanmar’s citizenship laws fuel widespread discrimination throughout the country,” said Sean Bain, Legal Adviser for the ICJ.
“The government must act immediately to dismantle this discriminatory system and to protect in law the human rights of all persons,” he added.
The intentionally discriminatory character of this law, and its equally discriminatory implementation, largely explain why many long-term residents of Myanmar lack a legal identity (more than 25 percent of persons enumerated in the 2014 Census).
The ICJ recommends three immediately achievable, concrete areas of law reform to the Government: 1) legislative reform, including most urgently of the 1982 Citizenship Law and the Child Rights Bill now being considered by the parliament; 2) Constitutional reform, to protect the right of citizens to full political participation; and 3) to institute interim measures to address discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity.
A review of the 1982 Law was recommended in 2017 by the Government’s advisory commission chaired by the late United Nations Secretary-General Mr Kofi Annan, but the Government has not yet demonstrated any tangible progress on this.
“The government has the means at hand to get rid of this discriminatory system, which has undermined the rule of law and blocked the development of a pluralistic democracy. The government can and must implement the recommendations of its own advisory commission. The pervasiveness of discrimination cannot continue to go unaddressed, and there are no reasonable legal grounds for further delay in initiating pathways to reform,” Bain said.
UN Member States, as well as International Finance Institutions and UN agencies, must also ensure that assistance to the Government of Myanmar enables necessary reforms, and does not, in any way, entrench the existing discriminatory system.
Coinciding with the launch of this report, yesterday the ICJ hosted an event in Yangon where a panel of Myanmar legal scholars and researchers discussed the impact of current legal arrangements for citizenship on human rights, and why law reform is both urgent and possible. Representatives including from diplomatic missions, UN agencies, the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission, a multilateral donor and Non-Government Organizations attended the event.
Background
“Citizenship” is a legal concept describing an individual’s relationship to the State. In contrast, “statelessness” is when somebody does not have citizenship of any State. Terms such as “nationality,” “race” or “ethnicity” are generally culturally embedded concepts, understood differently by different people and in different contexts.
In many countries, particularly those with diverse populations, the right to citizenship is defined broadly to include persons with different ethnicities and even nationalities. In post-independence Myanmar, the concept of being a “national” or “indigenous” had a generally broad definition, allowing persons of different backgrounds to become citizens, including but not limited to the descendants of persons who had immigrated to Myanmar.
The 1982 Citizenship Law embedded in legislation the concept of “national races,” and introduced a hierarchy of citizenship categories that effectively institutes first-class and second-class citizens. Under this system, many life-long residents of Myanmar have effectively been rendered stateless, including members of entire ethnic groups, and children of mixed ancestry.
This discriminatory system has fostered an environment where crimes against humanity have taken place with absolute impunity.
Although section 347 of Myanmar’s 2008 Constitution guarantees “any person to enjoy equal rights” and protections before the law, other constitutional provisions restrict “fundamental rights” to citizens, including the rights to health and to education. Even for citizens, political rights are limited if a parent, child or spouse is not a citizen of Myanmar – the most infamous example of this is Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, who is constitutionally barred from the Presidency because her sons are foreign citizens.
The formation in February of this year of a Constitutional Amendment Committee also presents opportunities to expand the narrow definition of “fundamental rights,” to ensure their compliance with the constitutional guarantee of equality and protection before the law for “any person” (section 347), and with the State’s international human rights law obligations.
The Child Rights Bill, currently under consideration by the parliament, also offers opportunities to ensure that Myanmar’s laws comply with its treaty obligations, for example, under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, including with respect to the right of a child to acquire a nationality (citizenship), and the State’s related obligation to prevent statelessness.
See also
ICJ convenes workshop on reforming 1982 Citizenship law
ICJ materials on human rights law in Myanmar
Download
Myanmar-Citizenship law reform-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2019-ENG (full report in English)
Myanmar-Citizenship law reform-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2019-BUR (full report in Burmese)
Myanmar-Citizenship law reform-News-web story-2019-BUR (full story in Burmese)
Contact
Sean Bain, ICJ Legal Adviser, sean.bain(a)icj.org
Jun 24, 2019 | Events, News
The OHCHR, ICJ and the Geneva Bar Association invite you to a discussion on the criminalization of solidarity in migration in Europe and State’s obligations under international law.
Thursday, 27 June, 13h00,
UN Cinema (Room XIV),
Palais des Nations, Geneva
The event will feature the screening of the movie “The Valley” by Nuno Escudeiro, documenting the situation of human rights defenders and migrants in South of France, with an introductory panel and a discussion session after the movie.
The Valley is a coproduction of Point du Jour (France) and Miramonte Film (Italy), and was awarded the Emerging international filmmaker at the HOT DOCS film festival, Toronto.
Panelists:
- Obiora C. Okafor, UN Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity
- Nuno Escudeiro, Director of The Valley
- Zia Oloumi, Lawyer at the Paris and Nice Bar, Doctor at Law
- Carolina Hernandez, OHCHR
- Massimo Frigo, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser
If you do not already have a grounds pass to access the Palais des Nations, please send your name and surname at migration@ohchr.org before the end of Sunday 23 June.
For more information contact massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
A flyer for the event is avaiable here.
Jun 24, 2019 | News
The ICJ and the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) have jointly sent international observers to attend the first hearing of the criminal trial on the “Gezi Park” protest at the Silivri Prison Courthouse in Istanbul, scheduled to take place on 24 and 25 June 2019.
The International Observers who will be attending are Justice Ketil Lund, former judge of the Supreme Court of Norway and ICJ Commissioner, and Dr Mark Ellis, Executive Director of the International Bar Association.
Justice Lund and Dr Ellis will be observing a trial hearing before İstanbul 30th Assize Court with principal defendant Osman Kavala and 15 others: Ali Hakan Altınay, Ayşe Mücella Yapıcı, Ayşe Pınar Alabora, Can Dündar, Çiğdem Mater Utku, Gökçe Yılmaz, Handan Meltem Arıkan, Hanzade Hikmet Germiyanoğlu, İnanç Ekmekci, Memet Ali Alabora, Mine Özerden, Şerafettin Can Atalay, Tayfun Kahraman, Yiğit Aksakoğlu and Yiğit Ali Ekmekçi.
The observers will report directly to the IBAHRI and ICJ Secretariats on the proceedings following the mission.
The Gezi Park protests began in May 2013 as an effort by a group of environmentalists to save a park in central Istanbul from being rezoned, but soon turned into nationwide demonstrations. The protest was quelled by police with the use of tear gas and water cannons against the protesters in Taksim Square.
Following a six-year investigation into the events, the 657-page indictment issued by the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office was accepted by the 30th A Court in Istanbul on 4 March 2019.
The defendants are to be charged under Turkish Criminal Code Article 312 (attempt to overthrow the Turkish Government or attempt to prevent it from fulfilling its duties), Article 151 (damage to property), Article 152 (qualified damage to property), Article 174 (possession or exchange of hazardous substances without permission), Article 153 (damaging places of worship and cemeteries), Article 149 (qualified robbery), Article 86 (intentional injury); crimes under the Law on Firearms, Knives and Other Tools no. 6136, and crimes under the Law on Protection of Cultural and Natural Assets no. 2863. The total sentence asked for by the prosecution for these offences amounts to approximately 47,520 years imprisonment.
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser, t: +41 22 979 38 05 – e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
Jun 20, 2019 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions, News
The International Commission of Jurists, jointly with Amnesty International and the Turkey Litigation Support Project intervened today before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of a Turkish public servant, Hamit Pişkin, who was dismissed by executive decrees during the State of Emergency.
The case is key with regard to the situation in Turkey now and under the State of Emergency, because it raises significant questions regarding procedural rights in employment proceedings leading to the dismissal of an employee working with or for a State agency on grounds related to national security, including under a State of Emergency, as well as the application of the principles of legality and legal certainty and non-retroactivity as applied to national security, including in counter-terrorism.
During the State of Emergency in Turkey, that lasted two years from 2016 to 2018, almost 130,000 employees in the public sector were dismissed under emergency legislation. Their dismissal however remained in force also after the end of the State of Emergency.
In the submission, the interveners provide the European Court of Human Rights with observations concerning:
- the applicability of the criminal limb of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to judicial proceedings leading to dismissal of an employee of a public institution;
- the lack of procedural guarantees in the dismissal process necessary to comply with Article 6 of the ECHR, in particular with the presumption of innocence Article 6(2), in such proceedings;
- the application of the principles of legal certainty and non- retroactivity to such decisions (by addressing the problems arising from the application of State of Emergency decrees to events that occurred before the declaration of the State of Emergency).
The full intervention can be downloaded here: Piskin_v_Turkey-ECtHR-TPI-ICJAITLSP-2019-eng
Jun 12, 2019 | News
The ICJ today expressed concern at recent developments in Moldova, which are effectively paralyzing governance in the country.
During the past week, the Constitutional Court has ordered the dissolution of Parliament, suspended its functioning and invalidated its subsequent acts, including the appointment of a government and speaker, and has triggered the removal of the President.
The ICJ is particularly concerned at the excessively swift procedure through which the Constitutional Court reached its decisions to dissolve Parliament, remove a sitting President of the Republic and replace him with the Prime Minister. The ICJ calls attention to the unhelpful timing of the Constitutional Court ruling that was issued on the very day it identified as the end of the Parliamentary term, depriving Parliament of the clarity needed to exercise its powers.
These developments occur against the background of the manifest deficiencies in the institutional independence of the Moldova judiciary which were documented in a recent ICJ report.
In the report issued in March 2019, the ICJ highlighted the problematic appointment in 2018 of three judges of the Constitutional Court in circumstances that did not ensure a sufficient level of transparency, during an electoral campaign and without an open competition process. The report noted that the three appointed judges have previously been Prosecutor General, director of the intelligence service and chair of the legal committee of Parliament, part of the then ruling political majority.
The ICJ welcomes the announcement by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe that the Venice Commission has been asked to issue an urgent opinion on the constitutional crisis.
“The rule of law is the common ground on which constitutional conflicts must be solved”, said Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser of the Europe Programme of the ICJ. “We call on all institutions and parties in Moldova to seek a solution that squarely complies with the rule of law and the international law and standards to which Moldova has subscribed. In this regard, we urge all parties concerned to wait for the opinion by the Council of Europe Venice Commission in this matter and to reconsider the situation in light of its findings.”
Background
The Constitutional Court, in decisions issued on 7, 8 and 9 June 2019, held that Parliament should be dissolved for having been unable to establish a government within three months of the end of the previous Government’s term of office.
The decisions triggered the removal from office of the President of the Republic, Igor Dodon, for having refused to dissolve Parliament. This led to the interim appointment of Pavel Filip, as acting President of the Republic.
The Court also declared unconstitutional and void any act issued by Parliament after 7 June.
Neither Parliament nor President Dodon have accepted the decisions of the Constitutional Court on their removal or on the validity of their acts, nor do they consider as legitimate the appointment of Pavel Filip as acting President.
Parliamentary factions constituting the current majority in Parliament had reached a deal to form a coalition government and appointed a speaker and Prime Minister.
According to the Constitutional Court’s interpretation of article 85 of the Constitution, these agreements failed to respect the three-month deadline.
Others have put forward different interpretations of when the deadline of the three months period to appoint a Government would elapse, and of the obligation of the President of the Republic to dissolve Parliament.
Article 85 of the Constitution states:
(1) In the event of impossibility to form the Government or in case of blocking up the procedure of adopting the laws for a period of three months, the President of the Republic of Moldova, following consultations with parliamentary fractions, may dissolve the Parliament.
(2) The Parliament may be dissolved, if it has not accepted the vote of confidence for setting up of the new Government within 45 days following the first request and only upon declining at least two requests of investiture.
(3) The Parliament may be dissolved only once in the course of one year.
(4) The Parliament may not be dissolved within the last six months of the term of office of the President of the Republic of Moldova nor during a state of emergency, martial law or war.
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser: t: +41 22 979 3805; e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
