Mar 7, 2017 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Today at the UN Human Rights Council the ICJ expressed concerns about violence and other wrongs against children in times of armed conflict and peacetime.
The ICJ statement was delivered during an interactive dialogue with the Special Representatives of the Secretary General on Violence against Children and for Children and Armed Conflict.
The ICJ thanked the Special Representatives for their annual reports (Violence against Children UN doc.A/HRC/34/45-ENG and Children and Armed Conflict UN doc.A/HRC/34/44-ENG) and then continued as follows:
We welcome the renewed commitment of States, via the Sustainable Development Goals (in particular SDG 5.2 and 5.3 and SDG 16.2 and 16.3), to eliminating violence against children and ensuring access to justice for everyone by 2030.
However, as the Special Representative for Violence against Children’s report noted, we must ensure that protecting children from violence is not simply an ideal but is realized in practice.
The ICJ is concerned about systemic problems where States agree in principle to protect children from violence but disagree on fundamental definitions of ‘children’ and ‘violence’.
We agree with the Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict’s assessment that States must close any legal lacunae that fail to implement the almost universally accepted definition of ‘child’ as everyone below the age of 18.
We ask that all forms of violence against children be condemned even where some violent practices, such as child marriage or female genital mutilation, were once considered culturally acceptable.
We welcome efforts undertaken to prevent violence against children and protect children in armed conflict to ensure their human rights are protected.
However, rights protections are meaningless without accountability and so we would like to ask which measures should be put in place to eradicate impunity and ensure access to justice for children who have suffered violence and other wrongs in times of armed conflict and otherwise?
The statement can be downloaded in PDF format here: HRC34-OralStatement-violence against children+children armed conflict-Advocacy-2017
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 13, 2017 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ and Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) have made a submission to the UN Human Rights Committee in view of its forthcoming review of the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by Thailand.
In their submission, the ICJ and TLHR have brought to the Committee’s attention their concerns in relation to the following issues:
- Constitutional and legal framework within which the Covenant is implemented;
- States of emergency;
- Right to life and prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
- Right to liberty and security of the person, treatment of persons deprived of their liberty, right to a fair trial and independence of judiciary; and
- Freedoms of expression and association and right to peaceful assembly.
Thailand-ICCPR Submission ICJ-TLHR-Advocacy-Non legal submissions-2017-ENG (Full text in PDF)
Thailand-ICCPR Submission ICJ-TLHR-Advocacy-Non legal submissions-2017-THA (Thai version, in PDF)
Feb 9, 2017 | Advocacy, News
The ICJ today welcomed the indefinite suspension of the hearings on the death penalty bills by the Philippine Senate’s Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
The Committee’s Chairman, Senator Richard Gordon, indicated the suspension was needed until the Department of Justice is able to submit its opinion on the Philippines’ obligations under the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
That instrument requires the Philippines to maintain its abolition.
“Abolitionist States may not return to the use of the death penalty generally under the ICCPR, and States that become party to the Second Optional Protocol assume very specific obligations to that effect,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia. “There really is no inconsistency between the Second Optional Protocol and the Philippine Constitution.”
“As a general rule, the Philippine Constitution prohibits the death penalty except for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes. But in no way does it mandate that the death penalty be put into effect,” she added.
By ratifying the Second Optional Protocol, the Philippines has voluntarily chosen to be bound by an international obligation not to impose the death penalty – which it might otherwise have had the option to do under the Constitution.
As the ICJ explains in a memorandum on this issue, this is the very essence of treaty making.
“To announce long after ratification that a treaty is inconsistent with the Constitution and so not to be treated as binding, would call into question virtually every treaty to which Philippines is a party,” Gil said.
“This would contradict the most basic foundations of the international legal system and would lead other countries to view the Philippines as virtually incapable of making a reliable international legal agreement,” she added.
The ICJ emphasized that if the Philippines brings back the death penalty into its domestic laws, it would also be in violation of its obligations under the ICCPR, which effectively prohibits States from bringing back the death penalty once it has been abolished in domestic laws.
The Philippines cannot withdraw from Second Optional Protocol, which has no denunciation or withdrawal clause, the ICJ says.
The UN Human Rights Committee has explained that a denunciation clause was deliberately omitted because once the people are accorded the protection of the rights under the Second Optional Protocol, they shall not be deprived of such protection.
Background
On 7 February 2017, the Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights held its first hearing on the proposed measure reintroducing the death penalty for illegal drugs and other crimes.
A similar bill to restore the death penalty is also currently being debated in plenary at the House of Representatives.
At the Senate hearing, senators opposing the proposed measure recalled that the Philippines is a State Party to the Second Optional Protocol, and thus, it is obliged not to execute any person within its jurisdiction.
Senator Richard Gordon, who chairs the Committee, thereafter, called for the indefinite suspension of the hearings on this matter until there could be clarity on the ramifications on the Philippines if it breaches its obligations under the Second Optional Protocol.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser, t +66 840923575 ; e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Philippines-Memo OP2 and Const-Advocacy-2017-ENG (Memo in English, PDF)
Dec 15, 2016 | Advocacy
On the fourth anniversary of the enforced disappearance of prominent Lao civil society leader Sombath Somphone, the ICJ and other organizations condemn the government’s ongoing failure to conduct an effective investigation with a view to determining his fate.
The full statement can be downloaded here:
Laos-sombath4years-advocacy-2016-eng (in PDF)
Dec 14, 2016 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today joined other NGOs in calling on the UN Human Rights Council to take bold and decisive action to address the grave situation in South Sudan.
The statement, made during a Special Session of the Human Rights Council, convened on an urgent basis to discuss the situation in South Sudan, underscores the negative consequences of continuing impunity and lack of accountability, and calls among other things for the Human Rights Council resolution to be adopted that would:
· Support a strengthened mandate and capacity of the UN Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan to investigate serious violations of human rights and humanitarian law and identify alleged perpetrators, with a special focus on sexual and gender based crimes.
· Request that the report of the UN Commission is transmitted to the UN Security Council for consideration and further action.
· Urge that all states encourage further concrete action to prevent a further escalation of violence and conflict, and to deter and address these on-going violations of international human rights and humanitarian law at the UN Security Council, including sanctions and the imposition of a comprehensive arms embargo.
· Urge the African Union to take immediate steps to establish the hybrid court for South Sudan provided for in the 2015 peace agreement.
The Human Rights Council ultimately adopted, without a vote (i.e. by consensus), a resolution that includes many of these elements (final text not yet available).
The full statement can be downloaded in PDF format here: un-jointstatementsouthsudan-advocacy-2016
It was delivered by Human Rights Watch on behalf of:
- Amnesty International
- Association for Human Rights in Ethiopia
- Defend Defenders
- Human Rights Watch
- Humanity United
- International Commission of Jurists
- International Refugee Rights Initiative
- International Service for Human Rights
- National Coalition of Human Rights Defenders Uganda
- Pan-African Human Rights Defenders Network
- South Sudan Human Rights Defenders Network
