Advocacy Archives | Page 126 of 192 | International Commission of Jurists

Tunisia: adopt clear and fair procedures for the Specialized Criminal Chambers

Jul 18, 2017 | Advocacy, Analysis briefs, News

The ICJ today called on the Tunisian authorities to adopt and apply procedures for the Specialized Criminal Chambers (SCC) that are clear and comply with international human rights law and standards.

The statement came following a high-level mission to Tunisia from 12 to 15 July 2017 in which the ICJ engaged with senior judicial officials, including the President of the Cassation Court, members of the High Judicial Council, SCC judges, and other stakeholders.

An ICJ analysis, Procedures of the Specialized Criminal Chambers in light of international standards, was published at the end of the mission.

“While the Specialized Criminal Chambers have the potential to contribute to addressing impunity and deliver justice for victims in Tunisia, ambiguity about the procedures to be followed by these Chambers risks undermining their effectiveness,” warned Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme.

As detailed in the ICJ analysis, the lack of clarity comes in part from the 2013 transitional justice Law, which is seen by many stakeholders as setting up a special regime, separate from the existing criminal justice system.

There is fear that the SCC may decide not to apply the existing ordinary criminal procedures, while at the same time no detailed procedures specific to the SCC have yet been adopted.

The creation of such a gap would risk serious breaches of international standards of fairness and justice.

For example, the 2013 Law seems to give the Truth and Dignity Commission (Instance Vérité et Dignité, IVD) exclusive power to refer cases to the SCC.

However, no procedures specific to the SCC implement the rights of an accused to examine witnesses interviewed by the IVD or to access all documents and evidence collected by the IVD in order to prepare his or her defence, as required by international standards and the ordinary code of criminal procedure.

The 2013 Law also fails to clarify the role of prosecutors and investigating judges in addressing such cases, including by making their own determination in relation to charges, standard of proof, and whether these cases should be brought before the SCC.

“Clarifying the procedures to be applied by the Specialized Criminal Chambers and ensuring their full compliance with international standards, including those relating to fair trial, are a prerequisite to fully establish the truth about human rights violations, hold those responsible to account, and ensure that the proceedings are fair to the victims and accused,” added Benarbia.

The ICJ set out a list of recommendations with a view to assisting the Tunisian authorities in their efforts in achieving these objectives, including by:

Amending article 42 of the 2013 Law and related provisions to clearly provide victims of gross human rights violations with direct access to the SCC, including when victims did not submit a file to the IVD;
Amending provisions of the IVD Guides to ensure that the review process and the possibility to challenge IVD’s decisions will apply to decisions not to transfer a case to the SCC and that such review be based on objective criteria for considering gross human rights violations in line with international standards;
Establishing specialized prosecution services, investigating judges, and judicial police in line with international standards and with adequate resources to work in coordination with the SCC;
Clarifying the relationship between the SCC and other ordinary criminal chambers and civil and other courts;
Amending the legal framework to clearly provide that cases investigated by the IVD are to be transferred to specialized prosecutors who are to carry out their functions as defined in the CCP and in line with international standards;
Ensuring that the IVD’s investigative function complements the role of the specialized judicial institutions in charge of the investigation and prosecution; and
Amending the CCP and ensuring that any related provision of any other procedures adopted for the SCC fully respect fair trial guarantees.

Contact

Theo Boutruche, Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, tel: +33 642837354, e-mail: theo.boutruche(a)icj.org

Tunisia-Memo on SCC Procedures-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2017-ENG (full memo in English, PDF)

Tunisia-SCC procedures memo-News-2017-ARA (full story in Arabic, PDF)

Tunisia-Memo on SCC Procedures-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2017-ARA (full memo in Arabic, PDF)

NGO statement on meeting of UN treaty body chairs

Jun 30, 2017 | Advocacy

A Joint NGO Statement was issued on the occasion of the Twenty-ninth meeting of UN treaty body chairs 27-30 June 2017, New York

This statement includes some reflections and recommendations, by the undersigned organisations (see list on p.6-7), in relation to the programme of work for the 2017 annual meeting.

Some of the comments and recommendations stem from a two-day consultation involving representatives of NGOs, States, treaty body members, OHCHR and academics, which took place in Geneva on 23-24 May 20171.

The consultation focused on developing a strategy for the Treaty Body strengthening process.

A report will shortly be made public.

The comments and recommendations below are structured around the substantive treaty body chairs meeting agenda items.

Universal-MeetingTreatyBodies-Advocacy-2017-ENG (full text in PDF)

Myanmar: repeal criminal defamation offence, urge 61 human rights organizations

Jun 29, 2017 | Advocacy, News, Non-legal submissions

The ICJ, together with other 60 national and international human rights organizations urged today the Myanmar authorities, and in particular the Ministry of Transport and Communication and the Parliament, to ensure the repeal of the offence of criminal defamation.

Myanmar-JointStatement-CriminalDefamation-2017-ENG (joint statement in English)

Myanmar-JointStatement-CriminalDefamation-2017-BUR (joint statement in Burmese)

Increasing the impact of UN independent experts

Jun 28, 2017 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions

The ICJ has joined other leading human rights NGOs in setting out a range of specific measures to increase the effectiveness of UN Special Procedures – independent experts appointed by the Human Rights Council to address particular themes or countries.

The written submission was made in the context of the Annual Meeting of the Special Procedures, in Geneva.

Coordinated by the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), the document assesses current practices against a range of recommendations made in an earlier joint civil society submission in 2016.

The 2017 submission welcomes progress on a number of the recommendations, but also highlights issues where little or no progress has been made. It also offers several new recommendations.

Among the positive developments are the enhanced role of the Coordination Committee, action taken to combat reprisals, the creation of a database where details of individual communications (i.e. complaints) can be accessed, and engagement of Special Procedures with international and regional forums.

The full 2017 submission, entitled “The Special Procedures: Developments in Institutional Strengthening and Working Methods”, can be downloaded in PDF format here: UN-Submission-AnnualMeetingSpecialProcedures-2017

Thailand must follow through on commitments to prevent torture and other ill-treatment

Jun 26, 2017 | Advocacy

Amnesty International (AI) and the ICJ welcome the commitments made by the Royal Thai Government to prevent torture and other ill-treatment and urge authorities to ensure no further delay in implementing these undertakings.

The statement came on on the 30th anniversary of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) – marked on June 26 as the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture.

October 2017 will mark ten years since Thailand pledged to respect and protect the right of all persons to be free from torture and other ill-treatment by ratifying the Convention against Torture. AI and the ICJ however remain concerned that torture is still prevalent throughout the country.

Thailand has made significant and welcome commitments at the United Nations Committee against Torture, Universal Periodic Review of the Human Rights Council and UN Human Rights Committee to uphold its obligations under the Convention against Torture.

These include commitments to penalize torture, as defined in the Convention, under its criminal law and to create an independent body to visit all places of detention under the purview of the Ministry of Justice.

However, to date, these remain paper promises, which have not yet translated into action.

AI and the ICJ call on Thailand to move forward with these commitments, including by criminalizing torture and other acts of ill-treatment, establishing practical, legal and procedural safeguards against such practices, and ensuring that victims and others can report torture and other ill-treatment without fear.

The prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment in international law is absolute. Torture is impermissible in all circumstances, including during public emergencies or in the context of threats to public security.

AI and the ICJ regret repeated delays to the finalisation and passage of Thailand’s Draft Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act.

If the remaining discrepancies with the Convention against Torture are addressed, the passage of this Act would criminalise torture and enforced disappearances and establish other safeguards against these acts.

Both organizations urge the Royal Thai Government to actualise its commitment to eradicating torture by addressing remaining shortcomings in the Act and prioritising its passage into law in a form that fully complies with Thailand’s obligations under the Convention against Torture and the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.

Additional consultations with the public and other parties should be carried out in a transparent and inclusive manner and without delay.

Similarly, AI and the ICJ urge Thailand to move ahead with its commitment to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, which obligates authorities to establish a National Preventive Mechanism – an independent expert body authorised to visit places of detention, including by carrying out unannounced visits – as well as to allow such visits by an international expert body.

Such independent scrutiny is critical to prevent torture and other ill-treatment, including through implementing their detailed recommendations based on visits.

Authorities should also act immediately on the commitment made at Thailand’s Universal Periodic Review before the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2016 to inspect places of detention in line with the revised UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, also known as the Nelson Mandela Rules.

Thailand-Torture satement AI-ICJ-Advocacy-ENG-2017 (full statement in English, PDF)

Thailand-Torture satement AI-ICJ-Advocacy-THA-2017 (full statement in Thai, PDF)

Achievements and failures of the Human Rights Council session

Jun 23, 2017 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions

The ICJ has joined other NGOs in highlighting some of the achievements and failures of the June 2017 session of the UN Human Rights Council in a statement at the end of the session.

The statement, delivered on behalf of the group of NGOs by the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), read as follows:

At the close of this session, we welcome the commitment by many States from all regions to enhance the Council’s success and effectiveness, and the performance of Human Rights Council (HRC) members through a series of concrete actions. The steps outlined by the Netherlands, such as more competitive HRC elections and the application of objective human rights based criteria to determine whether and how to act on situations of concern, would go a long way in making the Council more accessible, effective, and protective.

The leadership shown by States in the development of joint statements on killings in the Philippines‘ so-called ‘war on drugs’ and threats against human rights defenders, and on the increasingly dire situation in the Maldives are examples of this. We regret the lack of such leadership on other States including China and Egypt.

Although we’d hoped for a more robust response on the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) from the Council, the international team of experts brings hope of uncovering the truth about the horrific violence in the Kasai. The UN, this Council, and the DRC itself must now ensure unhindered access for and support to the team, for it to independently produce a robust and credible report, which will constitute a step towards accountability.

We congratulate Cote d’Ivoire for its six years of cooperation with the UN and the mandate of the Independent Expert. We urge the Council to continue to pay attention to the human rights situation, particularly in the context of recent mutinies, and to assist the country in the implementation of the Independent Expert’s recommendations, including by striving for A-status for its National Human Rights Institution (NHRI).

We also echo the joint call by several States urging you to create a publicly accessible register of alleged acts of intimidation and reprisals and to provide short oral updates on cases at the start of every Item 5 general debate giving States concerned the opportunity to respond.

We also welcome the joint statement of the core group on civil society space together with some NGOs, and its reaffirmation that the “substantive participation of civil society makes this Council’s debates and work, including the UPR, richer and more meaningful”.

Mr President,

We are pleased that both resolutions on discrimination and violence against women were adopted by consensus, and that adverse amendments designed to remove language on comprehensive sexuality education and women human rights defenders were defeated. We regret that the Russian Federation and others systematically seek to remove reference to human rights defenders in all resolutions at each session. Denial of the existence of defenders is absurd, given the long history of formal recognition of the concept by the Commission on Human Rights, Council and General Assembly.

We regret that the resolution on the “protection of the family” fails to fully recognise that older persons are individual rights holders entitled to self-determination and autonomy, and ignores a significant UN process, the General Assembly Open-Ended Working Group on Ageing. The resolution also fails to acknowledge that diverse forms of the family exist. The entire initiative is implicated in an effort to subvert the aims of our human rights system and the universality of rights.

In closing, Mr President, we are dismayed at the lack of progress in terms of ensuring the most effective participation of civil society, in accordance with established rules and practice of the Council. Although symbolic, the massive reduction of reserved NGO desk space in this room is illustrative of this.

We are concerned about the lack of formal engagement by you and your Bureau with civil society, the absence of visible steps to curb and respond to intimidation or reprisals, and the abusive interruptions of NGO statements, including in some instances by the chair. And we look forward to engaging with your office to reverse this trend.

Thank you.

Among the NGOs joining the statement were the following: