Jan 29, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Today, the ICJ and Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) filed their joint submission to the UN Committee against Torture (Committee).
The Committee will consider it during the adoption of a list of issues prior to reporting (LOIPR) for the examination of the Second Periodic Report of Thailand under Article 19 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).
During its 63rd session, from 23 April to 18 May 2018, the Committee will prepare and adopt a LOIPR on Thailand.
Once adopted, the LOIPR will be transmitted to the State party. Thailand’s formal response to the LOIPR will then constitute its Second Periodic Report under article 19 of the Convention.
Thailand ratified the CAT in 2007. Following its review of Thailand’s initial report under CAT, the Committee adopted its Concluding Observations at its 52nd Session in May 2014.
The ICJ and TLHR’s joint submission to the Committee highlights a number of ongoing concerns with respect to the country’s implementation of and compliance with the provisions of the CAT.
In addition, the joint submissions formulates certain questions and recommends that the Committee should include them in its LOIPR and address them to the Government of Thailand, including on the following pressing issues:
- The fact that, since the coup d’ état of 22 May 2014, the constitutional and legal framework in force in Thailand has increased opportunities for legally-sanctioned impunity;
- The failure to criminalize through the adoption of bespoke domestic legislation the crimes of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and enforced disappearance, consistent with the CAT and other relevant international law;
- The failure to conduct investigations of credible allegations of enforced disappearances, as well as into credible reports of the widespread use of torture and other ill-treatment in a prompt, effective, independent and impartial manner in numerous cases; and
- Threats and reprisals against persons working to bring to light cases of alleged torture, other ill-treatment and enforced disappearance.
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, Senior International Legal Adviser, ICJ Asia Pacific Programme, t: +66 94 470 1345, e: kingley.abbott@icj.org
Thailand-CAT Submission-Advocacy-non-legal submission-2017-ENG (Full submission in PDF)
THAILAND-CAT additional info-Advocacy-2018-ENG (additional information, updated in April 2018)
Jan 11, 2018 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The ICJ responded today to the observations of the Czech Government on the merits of the collective complaint brought against it earlier last year by the ICJ and Forum for Human Rights.
The complaint to the European Committee of Social Rights (ICJ v. the Czech Republic, No. 148/2017) argues that the Czech Republic fails to ensure equal legal protection and participation of children below the age of criminal responsibility in the pre-trial stage of juvenile justice procedures.
The ICJ and Forum for Human Rights reinforced the complaint, relying on Article 17 of the Social Charter, in relation to the State party’s failure to ensure that children below the age of criminal responsibility but recognised as having infringed the penal law are treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child’s sense of dignity and worth, which reinforces the child’s respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others and which takes into account the child’s age and the desirability of promoting the child’s reintegration and the child’s assuming a constructive role in society.
Europe-ECSR-ICJvCzechRepublic-ChildrenJustice-ICJresponse1-2018-ENG (download the ICJ reply)
Jan 8, 2018 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions, News
The ICJ and other organizations have intervened today before the European Court of Human Rights challenging expulsions of asylum seekers from Hungary to Serbia.
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) and the Dutch Council for Refugees have submitted today a third party intervention before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary.
The case challenges the systematic practice by the Hungarian authorities to send back to Serbia foreign nationals asking for asylum under the pretention that Serbia is a safe third country in which to ask for international protection.
The intervening organizations have argued before the Court that:
- a removal that exposes an applicant to the risk of refoulement and deprives them of protections under international and EU law, is prohibited regardless of whether the decision was taken on the basis of the safe third country concept or the country was included in a “safe third country” list.
- International law requires, inter alia, a rigorous scrutiny of the applicant’s arguable claim of potential prohibited treatment, access to an effective remedy following a negative decision, and access to the rights under the 1951 Refugee Convention.
- Application of the safe third country concept for EU Member States is contingent on the applicant being admitted to the territory and having effective access to a fair asylum procedure in the safe third country
- An assessment of whether restrictions on the freedom of movement of migrants, imposed in a border or international zone, amount to deprivation of liberty under Article 5 ECHR must be based on the impact of these measures on the individuals concerned.
Hungary-ECtHR-amicusbrief-cases-Ilias&Ahmed-ICJ&others-2018-ENG (download the third party intervention)
Background
Ilias Ilias and Ali Ahmed, both Bangladeshi nationals, fled their home country in arrived at the Hungarian-Serbian border on 15 September 2015 after having briefly crossed through Serbia during their trip.
Having asked immediately for asylum in Hungary, they were confined for days in a transit zone, a ” a confined area of some 110 square metres, part of the transit zone, surrounded by fence and guarded by officers”.
Their applications were rejected on the very same day of their application on the grounds that they could have asked for asylum in Serbia, considered by Hungary a safe third country, and appeals were rejected.
They were removed to Serbia on 8 October 2015.
Dec 15, 2017 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The ICJ, together with other NGOs, intervened before the European Court of Human Rights in MA v Poland, concerning interim measures to protect applicants for asylum at the Polish-Belarus border.
The case concerned a family of asylum seekers who sought to apply for international protection in Poland, at a border crossing with Belarus, but were repeatedly turned away by border guards. The European Court granted interim measures indicating that the applicants should not be returned from Poland to Belarus, and that their asylum application should be examined by the Polish authorities. These interim measures were not complied with.
In their third party intervention in the case, the ICJ, ECRE, AIRE Centre and the Dutch Council for Refugees emphasised the binding nature of the obligation to comply with interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights, supported by the jurisprudence of the Court and by comparative standards of other international human rights mechanisms.
They further submitted that, where interim measures relate to children, irrespective of whether the children are applicants in the case, the State must abide by the measure indicated with special diligence and take the appropriate protective measures which the age, level of maturity, environment and experiences of the children require.
Poland-MA-ECtHR-amicus-ICJ&others-final-eng-2017 (download the intervention)
Dec 5, 2017 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today addressed an emergency Special Session of the UN Human Rights Council on Myanmar, outlining key requirements for the protection of the Rohingya minority, including safe and voluntary return of refugees.The Special Session is expected to adopt a resolution to address “The human rights situation of the minority Rohingya Muslim population and other minorities in the Rakhine State of Myanmar.”
The ICJ statement read as follows:
“It is encouraging that the Governments of Bangladesh and Myanmar have recognized the right of displaced Rohingya to return to their places of residence.
However, any provisions for return must comply with international law, including as regards non-refoulement. Effective guarantees that all displaced persons will be able to return to their place of prior residence in a safe, dignified, voluntary and sustainable manner, without discrimination, are essential.
Rohingya refugees must also be provided with alternatives to return, including the option of seeking international protection. Anything short of this would amount to their forcible return and thus violate the non-refoulement principle.
It is of the utmost urgency that the gross and systematic violations that have given rise to the forced displacement are immediately brought to an end and that measures are taken to prevent their recurrence, including by holding perpetrators responsible.
No-one may be forcibly returned to the current circumstances that prevail in Rakhine State, and voluntary returns will only ultimately take place if and when refugees are satisfied they are not returning to further violations in Myanmar.
Any provisions for restrictions on freedom of movement upon return are also of concern, particularly given past experience, with internment camps housing tens of thousands of Muslims displaced in 2012 still in place. Such restrictions elsewhere in Rakhine State contribute to violations of, among other things, the human rights to life, to health, to food, to education and to livelihoods.
To ensure that the rights of refugees are respected and protected, Bangladesh and Myanmar should immediately seek to ensure that UNHCR is involved, and its guidance followed, in any discussion of repatriation processes.
The Government of Myanmar must cooperate with the UN-mandated Fact Finding Mission to independently establish facts and provide a proper foundation for effective responses to human rights violations and humanitarian crises in Rakhine State, as well as in Shan and Kachin States, whose populations also face related patterns of human rights violations by military and security forces.”
The Council adopted a resolution at the end of the session, which reflects many of the concerns raised by the ICJ and others: A_HRC_S_27_L1
Nov 20, 2017 | Advocacy
The ICJ, with 35 other human rights organizations, today called on members and observers of the UN Human Rights Council to convene a special session on the deteriorating human rights situation in Myanmar.
In open letter to member and observer States of the Human Rights Council, delegations are urged to support holding a special session of the Council against the backdrop of serious reports of human rights violations, including crimes against humanity, committed by Myanmar security forces in northern Rakhine state.
The letter also sets out key elements that should be included in the text of a resolution adopted by the Human Rights Council at such a session, considering action that should be taken by the Government of Myanmar, as well as by neighbouring and other States and by human rights mechanisms.
The ICJ on the same day released a briefing note, entitled Questions & Answers on Human Rights Law in Rakhine State, clarifying national and international law and standards applicable to the crisis.
Myanmar Joint Civil Society Letter 20 November 2017 (download open letter in PDF format)
For a copy of the ICJ’s Q&A briefing, go to ‘Myanmar: rule of law must drive responses to Rohingya crisis’
