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
Feb 20, 2017 | News
Following the death of ICJ President Professor Sir Nigel Rodley, Professor Robert K. Goldman has been appointed Acting-President of the ICJ.
Professor Goldman, from the United States, was appointed by the ICJ’s Executive Committee to serve as Acting President until such time as a new President is elected by the entire Commission.
Professor Goldman’s extensive background in human rights and the rule of law, as well as his experience as ICJ Vice-President, makes him well placed to fulfill this role and to build upon Professor Sir Nigel’s legacy in striving to promote and protect the ICJ’s mission.
Professor Goldman’s willingness to take on the role of Acting-President will provide the ICJ with the leadership the organization needs during this challenging time, when human rights are suffering from a global backlash, whilst the ICJ takes the time to find and elect the right person to fulfill the role of President.
Professor Robert K. Goldman’s biography
Robert Goldman was elected to the ICJ Commission in 2008 and then to the Executive Committee later that year, he was elected Vice-President in September 2014 and re-elected in 2016.
Robert Goldman is currently Professor of Law and Louis C. James Scholar at American University Washington College of Law. Professor Goldman teaches, practices and writes in the areas of International Law, Human Rights Law, Terrorism, and International Humanitarian Law.
He is also Faculty Director of the War Crimes Research Office and Co-Director of WCL’s Center For Human Rights and Humanitarian Law.
Prior to his academic career, Robert practiced international trade law at Arnold & Porter from 1974-1976.
In 1993, he chaired the Commission of International Jurists on the Administration of Justice in Peru, jointly tasked by the US and Peruvian governments to evaluate Peru’s anti-terrorist legislation.
He helped from 1994-1996 develop the normative framework for internally displaced persons and was a principal author of The Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement.
He was a member of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights from 1995 to 2004 and was that body’s president in 1999-2000. Prior to his election to the Inter-American Commission, he was a member of the Policy Committee of Human Rights Watch and the Advisory Boards of Americas Watch, Helsinki Watch and Middle East Watch.
From July 2004 to August 2005, Professor Goldman was the former UN Human Rights Commission’s Independent Expert on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism.
