Feb 28, 2017 | News
The ICJ condemns the arrest and detention of Senator Leila De Lima and calls for her immediate release.
The ICJ believes that the charges brought against Senator De Lima are fabricated and thus considers her prosecution to be politically motivated and amounting to judicial persecution.
Senator De Lima is a staunch critic of President Rodrigo Duterte.
“This is clearly meant to silence for good a vocal critic of President Rodrigo Duterte,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.
In August 2016, Senator De Lima led an investigation by the Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights into hundreds of cases of extrajudicial killings occurring after President Duterte assumed power.
On 19 September 2016, however, she was removed by her colleagues from her position as chairperson of the said committee due to their concerns towards her “continuous efforts to destroy the President”.
Weeks before her removal, on 25 August 2016, President Duterte had accused Senator De Lima of running a drug trafficking ring inside New Bilibid Prison during her stint as Justice Secretary.
Subsequently, on 20 September 2016, led by the President’s allies in the Congress, the House Committee on Justice began a probe into these allegations against De Lima and in turn, on 17 February 2017, the Department of Justice filed three charges against her under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (Republic Act 9165): Section 5 specifically with “trading” in illegal drugs, Section 26(b), and Section 28. If found guilty, she may face the penalty or a prison sentence ranging between twelve years to life imprisonment.
Senator De Lima was then arrested on 23 February 2017.
“If the government really wants to defeat the illegal drug trade, there should be more prosecutions before domestic courts. We do not see this, however. We only see active persecution of those who are critical of the President’s ‘war on drugs’,” Zarifi added.
The ICJ also noted with profound concern the statements of officials from the Philippine government, including the Secretary of Justice, alluding to the Senator’s guilt which – apart from being inconsistent with the right to the presumption of innocence – constitute additional evidence that the charges against her are a blatant attempt not only to silence her for good but also to discredit her in the eyes of the public.
The right to presumption of innocence is an absolute right. According to the UN Human Rights Committee, public authorities and officials have a duty to restrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial, by refraining from making public statements appearing to affirm the guilt of the accused.
The ICJ believes that public authorities and officials, including prosecutors, may inform the public about criminal investigations or charges but should not express a view as to the guilt of any defendant.
The ICJ calls on the Philippine government to immediately release Senator De Lima and immediately stop any further acts of harassment against her and other public critics of the government.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t: +66 2 619 8477 ext. 206 or +66 840923575 ; e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Feb 27, 2017 | Multimedia items, News, Video clips
The ICJ continues it’s monthly profile series on women’s rights defenders with an interview with ICJ Commissioner and International Criminal Court Justice Sanji Monageng.
Justice Monageng told the ICJ that her interest in women’s rights began when she went through her own divorce and encountered the injustices that Botswana women suffered. This motivated her to pursue a career in law and align herself with the women’s rights movement that was establishing itself in southern Africa.
She became the Founder and Chief Executive of the Law Society in Botswana, a Magistrate in Botswana and High Court Judge in the Gambia and Swaziland. She was elected a Commissioner of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and served as Chair of the Commission. She has been a Judge of the International Criminal Court since 2009 and served as First Vice-President between 2012-2015.
Justice Monageng commented that in Botswana, and elsewhere in southern Africa, women were at a serious disadvantage when it came to access to justice because of cultural, customary and religious restraints as well as economic inequality.
For example, up until only a few years ago women in Botswana were unable to inherit their parent’s property, on the basis of customary law, but a progressive judge was not afraid to challenge this and when this judgement was supported this led to a real change in the lives of women.
Sanji spoke of the importance of a strong civil rights movement and noted how instrumental this had been in Africa in leading the agenda to promote progressive rights protection for women. The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights has a Special Rapporteur on Women and the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (the Maputo Protocol) has been hailed as the best in the world.
At the International Criminal Court (the ICC) there is a coalition of some 2,500 NGOs that work very closely with the court and have been instrumental in driving key aspects of the Court’s work including addressing sexual violence and ensuring victim and women’s participation. ‘Without civil society, without NGOs, and we have witnessed very credible civil society organisations’, Sanji says, ‘we cannot move.’
However, Justice Monageng commented that the ICC has not done very well in prosecuting sexual and gender based violence so far but acknowledges that the Court is still young and that progress is being made.
The new Chief Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, has undertaken a lot of endeavours to promote this aspect of the Court’s mandate such as creating a policy on sexual violence and gender issues, establishing a dedicated unit to address these crimes and appointing the highly qualified Brigid Inder as her Special Gender Advisor. Sanji commented that it is now evident in the cases she sees as a judge that a lot more attention is being paid to sexual violence.
Justice Monageng suggests that young women interested in defending women’s rights must internalize the importance of human rights. They should start associating themselves with women’s rights organizations even if only in a small way.
Defending women’s rights is difficult work and those that are interested in this must be prepared for criticism, and other unpleasantness but this work needs to be done. ‘The world is upside down and human rights are forgotten in most instances’, Sanji says, so she looks forward to girls joining the women’s rights movement.
Watch the interview:
The series of profiles introducing the work of ICJ Commissioners and Honorary Members on women’s rights was launched on 25 November 2016 to coincide with the International Day to Eliminate Violence against Women and the first day of the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence Campaign.
Feb 24, 2017 | News, Publications, Reports, Thematic reports
The Indian authorities must end discrimination against people based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the formal justice system, the ICJ said in a report released today.
The 60-paged report “Unnatural Offences”: Obstacles to Justice in India Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity documents the challenges queer persons in India face while trying to access justice, starting from the impact of laws that criminalize people for their real or imputed sexual orientation and gender identity; to police harassment, violence and abuse; and to discrimination and other hurdles within the justice system.
Based on 150 interviews across nine cities in India, including with people who identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, the report uses the term “queer” to refer to any individual who identifies with a non-normative sexuality or gender identity.
It includes individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and gender-queer, and also encompasses persons who may not fit into any of these identity categories.
“Criminalization, police violence, and the prejudiced attitudes of officials in the courts’ system have a profoundly detrimental impact on the ability and willingness of queer persons to resort to legal avenues to obtain justice,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director.
“The systemic discrimination and violence faced by queer persons in India, and the challenges they face accessing justice, are clearly contrary to India’s international human rights law obligations and the Indian Constitution,” he added.
The report also draws on responses from various government departments to ICJ’s requests under the Right to Information Act, both on the enforcement of the law against queer individuals and on gauging how legal entitlements have operated.
It describes how:
- Laws like Section 377 of the IPC and some other broad and vaguely formulated laws, such as those that criminalize sex work and begging, are used by the police to persecute people based on their real or imputed sexual orientation and gender identity, and inhibit queer persons from accessing justice.
- Even where the law purportedly provides legal entitlements and protections, queer persons continue to face a range of difficulties in accessing them.
- Police violence, abuse and harassment are one of the biggest barriers to queer persons’ access to the justice system in India.
- The challenges that lawyers who argue cases involving the human rights of queer persons combine with the biases of officials in the formal justice system compounding the difficulties queer persons face in obtaining justice.
“The inspiring work of activists and human rights lawyers in India has led to positive judicial decisions showing the potential of the law to affirm human rights and ensure justice for all persons, irrespective of their sexual orientation or gender identity,” Zarifi said.
“Indian authorities should build on this momentum and take immediate steps to end the discrimination and violence queer persons face,” he added.
The ICJ report makes a number of recommendations to Indian authorities, which include:
- Ensure that police officers promptly register and investigate any complaint regarding violence or any other criminal act filed by a queer person and/or on their behalf;
- Provide legal and sensitization training relating to sexual orientation and gender identity to lawyers and judges under the State and District Legal Services Authority along with outreach programmes to facilitate queer individuals’ access to the justice system;
- Repeal section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and vaguely worded criminal laws that invite discriminatory application, or substantially revise them to ensure there is no scope for abuse in their enforcement;
- Withdraw the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill 2016 as currently drafted, engage in meaningful and substantial public consultation with members of the transgender community; and ensure that any process introduced for the legal recognition of gender identity is consistent with international human rights law and the NALSA.
Contact
Sam Zarifi (Bangkok), ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director, t: +66 807819002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Ajita Banerjie, ICJ Consultant in Delhi, t: +91 9920995526 ; e: ajita.banerjie@icj.org
Additional information
The Indian authorities have an obligation to respect, protect and fulfill the rights to equality before the law, equal protection of the law and freedom from discrimination; the rights to privacy, liberty and security of the person, including the right not to be subjected to arbitrary arrest and detention; the right to life, to freedom from torture and other ill-treatment; and the right to access justice and to an effective remedy, for all persons, including queer people, without discrimination as to their real or imputed sexual orientation and gender identity.
As the Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed, the Indian Constitution also guarantees several of these rights.
For example, in the seminal case of NALSA v UOI, the Court affirmed transgender persons’ right to their self-identified gender identity, based on the rights to equality, non-discrimination, freedom of expression and dignity.
India-SOGI report-Publications-Reports-Thematic report-2017-ENG (full report in PDF)
Feb 23, 2017 | Advocacy, Open letters
The ICJ joins South Sudanese, regional and other international non-governmental organizations in a joint letter urging the Human Rights Council to renew and strengthen the mandate and capacity of the UN Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan.
Action is needed to address the continued lack of accountability for severe, widespread and on-going crimes under international law and human rights violations and abuses, many of which amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity, during the upcoming 34th session of the UN Human Rights Council (UN HRC).
South Sudan-letter HRC34-Advocacy-Open letters-2017-ENG (full text in PDF)
Feb 22, 2017 | News
The Pakistan Government must not bring back military courts to try civilians for terrorism-related offences, the ICJ said today.
An earlier law giving military courts authority to try civilians lapsed after two years on 6 January 2017.
The use of military courts to try civilians is inconsistent with international standards, the ICJ recalled.
“Evidence from practice clearly shows that not only have military trials of civilians been blatantly unjust and in violation of the right to a fair trial, they have also been ineffective in reducing the very real threat of terrorism in Pakistan,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director.
According to media reports, the draft amendment, if adopted, would extend the “exceptional” use of military courts for another three years. The ICJ fears that repeated extensions risk making the practice effectively permanent.
It would also give military courts jurisdiction over any offence considered to be an act of terrorism, a broader mandate than 2015 constitutional amendment, which was applicable only to “terrorism motivated by religion or sectarianism” and where the accused were “members of proscribed organizations”.
“Bringing back military courts deflects attention from the real issue: the Government’s complete failure to enact necessary reforms to strengthen the criminal justice system in the two years military courts were in operation,” Zarifi said.
“The Government must account for its failure to deliver on the promise of delivering justice for the victims of terrorism and other abuses in Pakistan instead of once again extending the “exceptional” use of military courts for civilian trials,” he added.
The Government has scheduled a meeting with opposition parties on 23 February in an attempt to achieve consensus over a constitutional amendment to restore military courts.
Constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of parliament to be enacted.
While the ruling party has the requisite majority in the National Assembly (lower house), it appears to lack the numbers in the Senate (upper house) to pass the amendment.
The Pakistan Parliament must stand up to the executive in defense of the rights of all people in Pakistan, instead of allowing the administration to bring back—and even expand—a discredited and abusive process, the ICJ says.
Pakistan passed the 21st amendment to the Constitution in January 2015, authorizing military courts to try civilians for terrorism-related offences for a period of two years. The 21st amendment lapsed on 6 January 2017.
Military courts have convicted 274 people in the two years since they have been used to try civilian terror suspects. . One hundred and sixty-one people were sentenced to death and 113 people were given prison sentences. At least 12 people given death sentences have been executed by hanging.
The ICJ has documented serious fair trials violations in the operation of military courts including: denial of the right to counsel of choice; failure to disclose the charges against the accused; denial of a public hearing; failure to give convicts copies of a judgment with evidence and reasons for the verdict; and a very high number of convictions based on “confessions” without adequate safeguards against torture and ill treatment.
The ICJ unequivocally opposes the use of the death penalty as a violation of the right to life and freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Pakistan (Lahore), t: +923214968434; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
