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.
Feb 16, 2017 | Agendas, Events, News, Training modules
Today, the ICJ and Aditus are holding a training for lawyers on the rights of migrant children and on accessing international human rights mechanisms in Valetta.
The training aims to support the strategic use of national and international mechanisms to foster migrant children’s access to justice.
The training will take place over the course of two days 16-17 February 2017.
The training will focus on accessing the international mechanisms in order to protect and promote the rights of migrant children, the child’s right to be heard and economic, social and cultural rights.
A practical case analysis will be part of the training. Trainers include experts from the ICJ and the Hague University.
The training is based on draft training materials prepared by the ICJ (to be published in the second half of 2017) and the ICJ Practitioners Guide no. 6: Migration and International Human Rights Law.
It is organized as part of the FAIR project co-funded by the Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme of the European Union and OSIFE.
As part of the project, this training follows the trainings on the rights of migrant children in Spain, Italy and Bulgaria, trainings in Germany, Greece and Ireland will follow this year.
Download the agenda in English here:
Malta-FAIR training-News-Agenda-2017-ENG
Feb 13, 2017 | News
The ICJ today announces the establishment of an expert panel of jurists to study and provide guidance on the effectiveness of grievance procedures provided by businesses to address and remedy harms arising from their operations.
The Panel, composed of senior retired judges, academics and legal practitioners, will work with the support of a wider group of civil society organizations, lawyers, academic institutions and the legal profession.
Many large business enterprises and projects have their own internal procedures and mechanisms to address concerns affecting individuals and local communities that arise from their operations. Known as operational-level grievance mechanisms, these are an integral part of responsible business practices and a way to remedy real or perceived wrongs.
The use of operational-level grievance mechanisms is recommended by the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and global institutions, such as the World Bank.
However, poor design and/or implementation of these grievance mechanisms can result in further problems, aggravating the harm to individuals and communities and impacting on the company’s or project’s own sustainability.
The ICJ initiative has been prompted by concerns about recent cases where people the mechanisms were meant to help have been unaware of their very existence, the procedures have been unfair or unclear and outcomes have been inadequate for the kind of harm experienced.
Most importantly some grievance mechanisms seem to stand in the way of meaningful access to justice for adversely affected people.
The panel members
The expert Panel is the think tank of the ICJ initiative. Besides holding wide consultations and site visits to specific projects, the Panel will advise the ICJ on preparation of a report and a guidance to support the work of practitioners and human rights defenders working in this field.
The members of the Panel, five of whom are ICJ Commissioners, are:
- Justice Ian Binnie (retired) formerly of Canada’s Supreme Court
- Sheila Keetharuth, Lawyer in Mauritius and currently UN special rapporteur on the human rights in Eritrea
- Justice John O’Meally (retired) formerly of the District Court of New South Wales and the Dust Diseases Tribunal in Australia
- Alejandro Salinas Rivera, lawyer and former legal advisor to the Government of Chile
- Professor Marco Sassoli, professor of international law at the University of Geneva
- Justice Ajit Prakash Shah (retired), formerly of the High Court of Delhi and presently Chair of the Law Commission in India
The Panel and the ICJ will receive advice for this work from a wider Consultative Group of practitioners and members of the legal profession.
The Consultative Group includes individuals of long-standing experience and recognised expertise on the functioning of grievance mechanisms at the project or operations level.
This initiative adds to the growing attention paid to remedy systems available to individuals and communities affected by business operations.
The final outcome of this initiative will be to provide guidance to making effective the remedial procedures systems available in cases of business-related human rights abuses in way that truly helps victims attain justice.
