Sep 27, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Today, at the close of the 42nd regular session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, the ICJ and other NGOs highlighted key acheivements and failures.
The joint civil society statement, delivered by International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) on behalf of the group, read as follows (not all text could be read aloud due to time limits):
“The Council reaffirmed that reprisals can never be justified. Council members rejected attempts to weaken the text including attempts to delete the references to the roles of the Assistant Secretary-General and the Human Rights Council Presidents. The resolution listed key trends such as the patterns of reprisals, increasing self-censorship, the use of national security arguments and counter-terrorism strategies by States as justification for blocking access to the UN, acknowledged the specific risks to individuals in vulnerable situations or belonging to marginalized groups, and called on the UN to implement gender-responsive policies to end reprisals. The Council called on States to combat impunity and to report back to it on how they are preventing reprisals, both online and offline. The Bahamas and the Maldives responded to this call during the interactive dialogue and we encourage more States to follow their good practice. We also encourage States to follow the good practice of Germany and Costa Rica in raising specific cases of reprisals. The Council also welcomed the role of the Assistant Secretary-General and invited the General Assembly to step up its efforts to address reprisals and ensure a coherent system-wide response.
We welcome the creation of a Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) on Venezuela as an important step towards accountability for the grave human rights violations documented by the High Commissioner. We urge Venezuela to cooperate with the FFM and to honor the commitments they have made during this session, including by allowing OHCHR unfettered access to all regions and detention centers and implementing their recommendations. Cooperation and constructive engagement and measures for international accountability and justice should be seen as complementary and mutually reinforcing.
We welcome the renewal and strengthening of the mandate of the Group of Eminent Experts on Yemen, sending a clear message to parties to the conflict – and to victims – that accountability is at the center of the mandate, and providing a crucial and much-needed deterrent to further violations and abuses. States should support the recommendations made by the GEE in their recent report, including prohibiting the authorization of transfers of, and refraining from providing, arms that could be used in the conflict to such parties; and clarifying the GEE’s role to collect and preserve evidence of abuses.
We welcome the renewal of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Cambodia, but regret that calls to strengthen the mandate of the OHCHR to monitor and report on the situation have been ignored. We regret that the resolution fails to accurately depict the continuing crackdowns on civil society and the severity and scale of recent attacks on the political opposition.
We welcome the renewal of the mandate of the Commission of Inquiry on Burundi. Its work is vital as the country heads towards elections in 2020. The Burundian Government should desist from denial and insults, and should cooperate with the Commission and other UN bodies and mechanisms.
We welcome that the EU and OIC have jointly presented a resolution on Myanmar requesting the High Commissioner to report on the implementation of the recommendations of the Fact-Finding Mission at HRC 45. However, the international community needs to take stronger action to ensure accountability for and cessation of grave international crimes, in particular by referring Myanmar to the ICC and imposing a global arms embargo – and by acting on the FFM’s reports, including those on economic interests of the military and on sexual and gender-based violence in Myanmar and the gendered impact of its ethnic conflicts.
The joint EU/OIC resolution on Myanmar welcomes the FFM report on the military’s economic interests, which identifies companies contributing to abuses. The High Commissioner, however, has still not transmitted the database of companies facilitating Israel’s illegal settlements more than 2 and a half years after its mandated release. The High Commissioner pledged in March to fulfil the mandate “within the coming months”. The ongoing unexplained and unprecedented delays have become a matter of credibility, for both the High Commissioner and the HRC. Mr. President, we request that you confer with the High Commissioner and advise as soon as possible when this important Council mandate will be fulfilled.
‘Cautious optimism’ best defines our approach to Sudan. While this year’s resolution, which welcomes the peaceful popular uprising, renews the Independent Expert’s mandate, supports the opening of an OHCHR country office, and highlights the role and needs of civil society, is an improvement on 2018, significant challenges remain. Ensuring accountability for the perpetrators of grave human rights and humanitarian law violations should be a central priority for the new Government, and the Council should assist in this regard.
We regret the lack of Council action on Kashmir and urge the Council, as well as India and Pakistan, to act on all the recommendations in the report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
On terrorism and human rights, we are deeply disappointed that Mexico and other States have partially acquiesced in attempts by Egypt to dilute or distract the work of the Special Rapporteur on counter-terrorism away from its appropriate focus on human rights violations while countering terrorism and human rights of victims of terrorism. We regret that States have asked the Special Rapporteur to spend the limited time and resources of the mandate, to comment on the overbroad concept of the “effects” of terrorism, by which Egypt and some other States seem primarily to mean macroeconomic, industrial, and investment impacts, rather than the human rights of individual victims. The length to which States seem willing to put the existing Special Rapporteur’s mandate at risk, in the name of protecting it, while failing even to incorporate stronger consensus text on human rights issues included in the most recent merged parallel resolution at the General Assembly, suggests that the merger of the previous Mexican and Egyptian thematic resolutions no longer holds any real promise of positive results for human rights.
We welcome the adoption of the resolution on the question of the death penalty, which is an important reflection of the movement towards the international abolition of this cruel punishment. Significantly, this resolution reiterates and affirms the position of international law that the abolition of the death penalty is an irrevocable commitment and that an absolute prohibition exists to guard against its reintroduction. We also welcome the acknowledgement of the ‘most serious crimes’ threshold that acts to restrict the death penalty, in States that have yet to abolish it, only to crimes of extreme gravity; this resolution plainly identifies that criminal conduct that does not result directly and intentionally in death can never meet the threshold test and can never serve as a basis for the use of the death penalty. We are very pleased to acknowledge that the adoption of this resolution is complimentary to the General Assembly’s resolution calling for an international moratorium on the death penalty and, together, they serve to illustrate the advancing global commitment to abolition.
We welcome the Council’s renewed attention to the protection of the right to privacy in the digital age: fully integrating human rights into the design, development and deployment of Artificial Intelligence, machine learning technologies, automated decision-making, and biometric systems, is essential to safeguard not only the right to privacy, but also to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and association, and economic social and cultural rights.
On human rights in the administration of justice, we welcome the focus in this year’s resolution on concrete measures to prevent and respond to violence, death and serious injury in situations of deprivation of liberty, which illustrates the potential of thematic resolutions to set out specific practical, legal and policy steps that can be drawn on by governments, civil society, and other stakeholders to have real positive impact at the national level.
We commend Australia for its leadership on Saudi Arabia, as well as the other States who stood up for women’s rights activists and accountability. We urge more States to live up to their commitment to defend civil society and sign the statement in the coming 2 weeks.
We appreciate the attention paid by individual governments to the situation in China, including the dire situation facing Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims; the crackdown on human rights defenders, including those working to draw attention to violations of economic, social and cultural rights; and the suppression of fundamental freedoms in Tibet. However, we deplore that the Council and many of its members have once again failed to take decisive action to ensure monitoring and reporting on the human rights situation in the country, especially Xinjiang, and press for access for the High Commissioner.
For five years since the last joint statement in March 2014, the Council has failed to hold Egypt accountable for continuing systematic and widespread gross human rights violations. In the latest crackdown on peaceful protests, reports indicate that more than 2000 people have been arrested in the past week. When will the Council break its silence and convene a Special Session to address the grave and deteriorating human rights situation in Egypt?”
Signatories:
- International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
- DefendDefenders (the East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project)
- Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI)
- CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
- Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies
- Asian Legal Resource Centre
- Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
- International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
- Amnesty International
- Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
- Human Rights Watch
- International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
Sep 26, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today highlighted challenges and urged strengthening and support for the Special Jurisdiction for Peace in Colombia, at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.
The statement was delivered during a general debate on technical assistance and capacity-building. It read as follows:
“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) appreciates the contribution of UN technical assistance and capacity-building to implementation of the Peace Agreement in Colombia.
Full implementation of the Peace Agreement is important to the fulfilment of Colombia’s international human rights obligations, including rights of victims. In particular, the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP by its Spanish acronym) is playing a key role in addressing accountability for gross human rights violations committed during the internal conflict in Colombia.
The JEP faces several challenges.[1] First, the JEP must do more to strengthen effective participation of victims in its procedures. Second, the Special Jurisdiction from the outset should ensure that the sanctions it imposes and reparation measures it orders are sufficient and appropriate to meet international standards. Third, national authorities, including the President and the Parliament, must respect the judicial independence of the Special Jurisdiction.
The ICJ also highlights the need for effective measures to address security threats faced by victims and witnesses appearing before the JEP.
We urge the UN, States and other stakeholders to provide technical assistance and capacity building towards strengthening guarantees for victim’s rights in the JEP’s procedures, and we urge the Human Rights Council to follow closely the work of the Special Jurisdiction for Peace to ensure it makes an effective contribution to fulfilling Colombia’s obligations under international law.”
[1] See also ICJ, Colombia: The Special Jurisdiction for Peace, Analysis One Year and a Half After its Entry into Operation (executive summary in English and full report in Spanish available at: https://www.icj.org/colombia-the-special-jurisdiction-for-peace-one-year-after-icj-analysis/).
Sep 25, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today joined other NGOs in drawing the UN Human Rights Council’s attention to the role of the Government of Cambodia in widespread human rights violations and abuses in the country, and called for renewal of the mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur.
The joint NGO statement was delivered by Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada in a dialogue on the situation in Libya. The statement read as follows:
“Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada (LRWC), the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), and the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) thank the Special Rapporteur for her reports. Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, ensuring that no one is “left behind,” necessitates equal access to remedies for rights violations within a trustworthy and independent legal system.
Cambodia has not fulfilled its treaty obligations to establish judicial independence and integrity. Civil society’s rights advocacy is continually resisted. Lawyers, defenders, journalists, politicians, or activists reporting on corruption, election irregularities, labour rights violations, illegitimate land acquisition, environmental degradation, or other rights abuses, often by businesses, are routinely subjected to official vilification; intimidation; interference with rights to expression, association, and assembly; criminalization; arbitrary detention; and even unlawful killings with impunity.
Since 2017, political opposition has been systematically suppressed, including through misuse of the judiciary. Despite the Special Rapporteur’s repeated calls for release of opposition leader Kem Sokha, he remains under court-imposed restrictions tantamount to house arrest. The Special Rapporteur has been denied visits with him contrary to Special Procedures terms of reference for country visits. In May, 25 former opposition members were summoned to court for questioning over two weeks. In September, the government threatened to arrest anyone supporting opposition politician Sam Rainsy’s return to Cambodia.
Cambodia’s responses to Special Procedures’ recommendations for the past twenty-five years have been characterized by disregard, delay, resistance, or hostility. Continued support for the Special Rapporteur’s mandate is critical to ensure that Cambodia fulfils its international human rights obligations. We request that the Council extend the mandate.”
The full written statement, including references, can be downloaded in PDF format here: UN-HRC42-Cambodia-2019
Sep 25, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today highlighted the need for a Commission of Inquiry or similar accountability mechanism for Libya, at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.
The call came in an oral statement, delivered during an interactive dialogue on Libya. It read as follows:
“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) welcomes the oral update by the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation in Libya.
Violations and abuses under international human rights, humanitarian and refugee law are being committed by State and non-State actors on a widespread and systematic scale in Libya, including since the resurgence of conflict in April. As noted by the High Commissioner on 9 September 2019, the human rights and potentially lives of migrants “intercepted by the Libyan Coast Guard and forcibly returned to Libya … are [also] under serious threat.”
Despite the scale of violations and abuses, only a handful of criminal investigations and prosecutions have been undertaken, resulting in near-total impunity.
A recent ICJ report on the criminal justice system in Libya found that the domestic legal framework governing investigations and prosecutions does not meet international law and standards on the right to a fair trial, the right to liberty and the prohibition on torture and other ill-treatment. As a result, any domestic investigation or prosecution is unlikely to satisfy the requirements of fair and effective justice. Moreover, most crimes under international law, including war crimes and crimes against humanity, are not penalized in domestic law.
These findings undercut the presumption relied upon by States in their engagement with Libya that the Libyan authorities can ensure accountability for crimes under international law.
To fill the accountability gap, the ICJ urges the Human Rights Council to establish a Commission of Inquiry or similar mechanism to document and report on gross human rights violations and to collect and preserve evidence of crimes for future criminal proceedings.
States should also refrain from entering into or implementing agreements with Libyan authorities that could give rise to support for or complicity in violations of international law.”
Sep 23, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today drew the attention of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, to the Bangkok General Guidance for Judges on Applying a Gender Perspective, in the context of a discussion of “Gender-responsive initiatives to accelerate gender equality”.
The oral statement read as follows:
“International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) welcomes this opportunity to share information on our ongoing work with women judges in many parts of the world, supporting them and their male colleagues to better ensure women’s access to justice and gender equality.
As part of these efforts, facilitated by the ICJ and UN Women, in 2016 judges from the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, and Timor Leste developed and adopted The Bangkok General Guidance for Judges on Applying a Gender Perspective.
Among many other provisions, the Guidance urges States to achieve gender parity in appointments to the bench.
The Guidance provides that: “Gender equality should be a principle that guides judicial appointments. Women and men must be equally represented on the bench as they bring a diversity of perspectives, approaches and life experiences to adjudication, which influence the interpretation and application of laws.”
It further recommends that “[i]f necessary, temporary affirmative measures – like quotas which should be consistent with requirements of integrity and high competency – should be implemented in order to assure that women are adequately represented in the judiciary” and that “[e]valuation panels for the appointment and promotion of judges should be composed of men and women.”
The Guidance builds on global standards such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ provisions on equality, non-discrimination, and equal access to public service; article 10 of the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, on non-discrimination in judicial selection processes; and related articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).
We hope the Bangkok Guidance will be a useful reference both in considering how to improve gender parity within the Council’s mechanisms, and as a resource for the Council and its mechanisms to cite in their analysis and recommendations to governments and other stakeholders, on improving access to justice for women in Southeast Asia and around the world.”
Sep 19, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today joined other NGOs in an oral statement to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, highlighting ongoing challenges faced by independent UN human rights experts, supporting the process the experts have established to make their own work effective, and calling for related issues of funding and non-cooperation of States to be addressed.
The statement was delivered on behalf of the group of NGOs by Amnesty International and read as follows:
“We note the concerns in the Declaration of the Special Procedures’ mandate holders at the Annual Meeting 2019 and share their concern about the global retrenchment against the values and obligations embedded in international human rights law and the challenges they spell out with regard to non-cooperation.
We also express appreciation[1] for the process set in place by the Special Procedures Coordination Committee to discuss ways in which the work can be strengthened including by seeking input from a wide range of stakeholders. This process presents the most appropriate way to ensure the effectiveness of the Special Procedures in protecting and promoting human rights, and to discuss ways to strengthen cooperation and address situations where there may be concerns regarding the actions of individual mandate holders.
We hope that this process will also provide an opportunity to discuss issues of chronic underfunding, non-cooperation of States with the Special Procedures, acts of reprisal and intimidation against human rights defenders and ad hominem attacks against mandate holders and how to make non-cooperation including selective cooperation by states more costly.”
(Partial) list of signatories:
- Amnesty International
- Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies
- Center for Reproductive Rights
- Child Rights Connect
- CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
- Colombian Commission of Jurists
- Defence for Children International
- Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
- Geneva for Human Rights
- ILGA World
- International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute
- International Commission of Jurists
- International Movement against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR)
- International Service of Human Rights
- Peace Brigades International
- Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF)
- World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT)
[1] Civil society statement on efforts to strengthen and increase effectiveness of the United Nations Special Procedures , https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/IOR4009672019ENGLISH.pdf
