Dec 3, 2014 | News
Vani Sathisan, ICJ’s International Legal Adviser in Myanmar, and Carlos Lopez, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser on Business and Human Rights made presentations at the annual Business and Human Rights Forum.
Vani Sathisan’s statement highlighted the State duty to protect human rights and provide access to remedies; the need for greater cooperation between businesses and local communities; and possibilities for home governments to cooperate on business and human rights issues.
She underscored that the State duty to protect, respect and fulfil human rights is one that is already grounded in international human rights law and accordingly, Myanmar must adopt and enforce laws – including policies, legislation, and regulations – that are preventative and remedial, and to regulate business conduct and protect the economic, social and cultural rights of its people.
Without proper investment, land and environmental laws, as well as an effective judiciary to enforce these laws and provide appropriate judicial remedies, development projects risk being counterproductive for sustainable development and the protection of human rights in Myanmar.
This panel discussion can be viewed on the UN’s Web TV.
Carlos Lopez Carlos Lopez focused on the work of the Committee on the rights of the child on business and human rights through the adoption of General Comment 16 on States obligations regarding the impact of business on the rights of the child.
The Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights do not establish legal obligations, but elaborate on the practical implications of those obligations. The legal obligations for States to protect, respect and fulfil human rights are contained in international human rights treaties. One of them is the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Besides examining State reports and providing conclusions and recommendations, the Committee elaborates General Comments to assist States in their implementation of their legal obligations under the Convention. In February 2013 the Committee adopted General Comment 16 on States obligations regarding the business impacts on the rights of the child. This General Comment was necessary:
· First, because in the Committee’s examination of State reports the issue of impacts of economic actors had arisen repeatedly. The General Comment is a more organized response to these practical and recurrent issues.
· Second, the Committee considered that the existing instruments and guidance did not sufficiently address the particular situation and needs of children. GC16 aims at fulfilling that gap in relation with States while the UNICEF Child Rights and Business Principles does so in relation to business enterprises.
The Committee, with the support of a core group comprising UNICEF, ICJ, Save the Children and OHCHR started a process of reflection, research and global and regional consultations (these took place in Kenya, India and Argentina and an international seminar was held in Sion, Switzerland.
This panel discussion can be viewed on the UN’s Web TV.
Carlos Lopez also moderated a Panel on the rights of the child and business enterprises, under the title Measures for implementing the Convention on the Rights of the Child in the context of business operations.
Dec 2, 2014 | News
Today, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its judgment in the joint cases of A, B and C v. Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie.
It affirms the need for national authorities to undertake individualized credibility assessments in asylum cases involving claims of persecution based on sexual orientation.
The ruling concerned a request for a preliminary ruling from the Netherlands, through its Council of State, to the CJEU.
The cases arose from three applications for asylum in the Netherlands by three men claiming a well-founded fear of persecution in their countries of origin based on their alleged same-sex sexual orientation.
The Dutch authorities rejected each asylum claim on the basis that each applicant had failed to prove his same-sex sexual orientation.
The Council of State asked the CJEU what limits the EU Qualification Directive and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and in particular article 3 (right to the integrity of the person) and article 7 (respect for private and family life), impose on the method of assessing the credibility of a declared sexual orientation, and whether these limits are different from those applying to the assessment of credibility in asylum claims based on other grounds.
Interpreting the Qualification Directive in light of articles 3 and 7 of the Charter, as well as article 1, i.e. human dignity, the Court held that EU law does impose certain requirements on refugee status determination authorities.
The ICJ welcomes the Court’s determination that the competent domestic authorities must ensure that any credibility assessment method must allow for an individualized consideration of each applicant’s claim, having regard to its specific features, and that it is the duty of the State to cooperate with the applicant in the context of the assessment of all the relevant elements of her or his claim.
The ICJ welcomes a number of other aspects of the ruling, including:
- The emphasis on the Netherland’s need to comply with the Charter of Fundamental Rights;
- The fact that the Court firmly came down against seemingly intrusive and lewd questioning of an applicant’s sexual practices and proclivities, which it held to be contrary to respect for private and family life; and,
- The Court’s awareness of the particular challenges relating to the disclosure of one’s sexuality. The court noted that an applicant may be understandably reticent in revealing intimate aspects of his or her life and that therefore late disclosure of same-sex sexual orientation should not necessarily undermine the applicant’s credibility.
See also the ICJ’s commentary on the CJEU judgment in X, Y and Z v. Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel.
Dec 2, 2014 | E-bulletin on counter-terrorism & human rights, News
Read the 88th issue of ICJ’s monthly newsletter on proposed and actual changes in counter-terrorism laws, policies and practices and their impact on human rights at the national, regional and international levels. The E-Bulletin on Counter-Terrorism and Human...
Dec 1, 2014 | News
The ICJ expresses deep concern that the Legislative Assembly of Bolivia continues to threaten three Constitutional Court judges with removal, and possibly criminal punishment, based solely on legislators’ disagreement with a legal opinion and ruling issued by the judges.
A “trial” of the three judges conducted by the Senate is scheduled to begin on 4 December 2014.
The ICJ has previously condemned the proceedings as fundamentally flawed and in violation of international standards for the independence of judges.
The legislature and government now appear to accept some of the ICJ’s criticisms.
Last-minute legislative amendments would apparently specify that the legislative assembly process is disciplinary in character and that the only sanction the assembly can directly impose is permanently to remove judges from office; if a disciplinary violation is found, the case would be referred onward for criminal prosecution before the ordinary courts. (Legislators were previously reported to be seeking for the Senate itself to impose a sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.)
The ICJ reaffirms, however, that the case against these three judges remains inherently flawed because the allegations on which the proceedings are based cannot be a valid basis for any removal from office or criminal punishment.
“It is fundamental to the independence of the judiciary, and the rule of law, that judges must be able to decide cases without fear of punishment for their legal opinions and rulings, including those that the government or legislature may not like,” said Matt Pollard, Head of the Centre for Independence of Judges and Lawyers at the ICJ.
“The procedural amendments under consideration could be an improvement for other kinds of cases in the future,” said Pollard. “However, the stated reason for pursuing these three judges – disagreement with the content of their legal opinion and ruling – cannot form a valid basis for their removal from office or criminal punishment under any procedure.”
“The case against these three judges cannot be cured by legislative ‘quick fixes’ and must simply be dropped immediately,” Pollard added.
The ICJ is also concerned that the legislature has said it will press ahead immediately with the “trial” on 4 December, a few days from now, while fundamental changes to the procedure are still underway.
Further, the media has reported that Chamber of Deputies President Marcelo Elío has stated that the judges could avoid trial by “voluntarily” resigning before 4 December.
It would be unacceptable to use the threat of unjust or unclear procedures to pressure a judge to resign.
The ICJ welcomes the decision by the legislature to review and potentially reform judicial accountability procedures in Bolivia.
At the same time, reform of procedures that are of such fundamental importance to the rule of law and democracy should be based on a process of broader consultation with all concerned stakeholders, and more considered, comprehensive and detailed assessment and analysis in relation to international standards.
For instance, under the new amendments, it would appear that the Senate (photo) has no option in any case to impose a disciplinary penalty less than permanent removal from office, even if this would be disproportionate.
Placing all responsibility for disciplinary proceedings with an independent Judicial Council should also be considered.
In October, the ICJ sent an open letter and analysis brief to members of the Legislative Assembly, explaining why the proceedings violate international law and standards, urging that proceedings against the three judges immediately be ended, and recommending a process of longer-term reform of judicial accountability processes in Bolivia.
Contact:
English: Matt Pollard, Head of the Centre for Independence of Judges and Lawyers at the ICJ, t: +41 79 246 54 75; e: matt.pollard(a)icj.org
Spanish: Carlos Ayala, ICJ Commissioner, t: +58 212 952 8448; e: carlos.ayala(a)icj.org
Bolivia-Procedimento magistrados-News-Press Release-2014-SPA (full text in PDF)
(Update: the proceedings were suspended on 4 December, and are to continue on 9 December)
Nov 27, 2014 | News
The ICJ today strongly condemned the decision by Prime Minister Najib Razak to retain and even strengthen the country’s 1948 Sedition Act despite having made a commitment in 2012 to repeal the Act.
The ICJ has repeatedly expressed its concern that the Sedition Act has been used to stifle and criminalize the exercise of freedom of expression and to silence human rights defenders, lawyers, political activists, among others.
The ICJ considers the Act as it stands to be incompatible with international human rights standards and to be made still more repugnant by the politically loaded manner in which it is typically applied.
In early September, the ICJ denounced the use of sedition against two members of the legal profession, Dr. Azmi Sharom (photo) and N. Surendran for commenting on questions of law and public policy.
On 20 September 2014, Edmund Bon a prominent human rights and constitutional lawyer, was questioned by the police regarding comments made in a based on the decision of a Malaysian Federal Court.
On 30 September 2014, Dr. Abdul Aziz Bari, a law professor at the University of Selangor, was summoned for a police interview over comments made about the selection process of the new Chief Minister by the Sultan of Selangor.
Background:
The 1948 Sedition Act, originally enacted by the British colonial government and amended several times over the years, criminalizes speech and publications considered to have “seditious tendencies”.
The term “seditious tendencies” is ambiguously defined to mean any kind of speech or publication that causes “hatred or contempt, or excite disaffection” against any ruler or the government or promotes “ill will and hostility between the different races or classes”.
The law also considers “seditious” any speech or publication that questions the special privileges of the Malay people, as provided in the Constitution.
Furthermore, sedition is a strict liability offence in Malaysia, which means that the intention of a person allegedly making seditious statements is irrelevant.
For instance, a person making a statement may not have the intent to cause “hatred or contempt” towards the government, but may nonetheless be held liable for sedition if authorities believe that the person in fact incited such feelings.
The ICJ considers that the Act, by its very terms, contemplates restrictions on the exercise of freedom of expression that are grossly overbroad and inconsistent with basic rule of law and human rights principles.
