Mar 12, 2014 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ prepared an oral statement to the UN Human Rights Council in response to a report on armed drones presented to the Council by the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights while countering terrorism, Ben Emmerson, on 11 March 2014.
The ICJ expressed appreciation at the focus of the report on the use of remotely piloted aircraft in counter-terrorism operations, and particularly with the Special Rapporteur’s assessment that the single greatest obstacle to an evaluation of the impact of drone strikes is lack of transparency. Lack of transparency creates an accountability vacuum and prevents effective access to justice.
In addition to sources of a legal obligation of transparency, the ICJ refers to the Tshwane Global Principles on National Security and the Right to Information.
The ICJ stressed that a number of attacks documented in the report occurred outside of the context of any armed conflict, and thus were fully subject to international human rights law with no role for the special and potentially more permissive rules of international human applicable in situations of armed conflict.
The ICJ agreed a number of points raised in the report of the Special Rapporteur were matters of controversy between states, but at the same time recalled that a lack of consensus did not necessarily mean that international law did not already provide definite answers to the issues.
The ICJ further suggested that principles and guidelines on the use of remotely piloted aircraft in counter-terrorism operations should be based on legal analysis, framed from the perspective of ensuring States’ compliance with international law; and justice and redress for victims of human rights violations and/or violations under international humanitarian law.
Due to the very limited time allocated to non-governmental organisations during the Interactive Dialogue on the Report, the ICJ was not able actually to read out its oral statement, but is making it public and has communicated its contents to the Special Rapporteur.
The oral statement can be downloaded in PDF here: ICJ-HRC25-SRCT-OralStatement-Drones.
The Report by the Special Rapporteur is available here.
For further information please contact: Mr Alex Conte (alex.conte(a)icj.org), ICJ International Law and Protection Programmes
Mar 5, 2014 | Advocacy
The ICJ has submitted a written statement to the Human Rights Council, on lack of progress in Nepal to end impunity.
The written statement, published by the United Nations today, notes that in 2012 the Government of Nepal adopted a plan to implement the recommendations made during its 2011 Universal Periodic Review (UPR) by the Human Rights Council.
However, Nepal has failed to take necessary measures to implement recommendations on ending impunity.
Key concerns include:
- the failure to implement recommendations for strengthening the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC),
- failure to draft constitutional provisions consistent with international legal principles on the protection of human rights, rule of law and the right to effective remedy,
- failure to establishment of credible transitional justice measures,
- failure to take the necessary practical steps in relation to individual cases, towards ending impunity
Nepal-WrittenStatement-HRC25-Advocacy-2014 (download PDF)
Feb 21, 2014 | Advocacy, News, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ and other human rights organizations issued a public statement calling on Spanish lawmakers not to pass draft legislation that, if approved, would seriously limit Spanish courts’ ability to investigate and prosecute serious crimes under international law.
The draft legislation, tabled in Parliament by the Popular Party (PP), provides that, for cases involving allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes not occurring on Spanish territory to be investigated and prosecuted in Spain, the suspect must either be a Spanish national or a foreigner habitually resident in Spain or a foreigner who is in Spain, whose extradition has been denied by Spanish authorities.
For case of torture and enforced disappearance, the proposed legislation requires that the suspect be a Spanish national or, alternatively, that the victim be a Spanish national at the time when the crime was committed and that the suspect be present in Spain when jurisdiction is assumed.
Where these conditions are not met, the proposal would allow Spanish courts to hear cases for those crimes for which prosecution is required by international treaties where the suspect is a foreigner on Spanish soil, so long as Spain has received and denied an extradition request.
The ICJ and other organizations stressed in their statement that if enacted, this legislation would close the doors of Spanish courts to certain victims of gross human rights violations who are unlikely otherwise to be able to obtain justice, particularly within their own jurisdictions.
Spain-Universaljurisdiction-NGOsJointStatement-2014-eng (download the joint statement in English)
Spain-Universaljurisdiction-NGOsJointStatement-2014-SPA (download the joint statement in Spanish)
Feb 18, 2014 | Advocacy, News, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ condemned the decision by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme People’s Court in Hanoi to uphold the conviction and sentencing of lawyer and human rights defender Le Quoc Quan to 30 months imprisonment.
The ICJ called on Viet Nam authorities to release him immediately.
“The decision of the Court of Appeal is regrettable but not unexpected,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific. “The ICJ has repeatedly criticized the lack of independence of the courts in Viet Nam. This is a political case and the government of Viet Nam has again used the courts to punish a significant critical voice.”
Today’s appellate hearing lasted for four hours. Thirty minutes after the hearing ended, the court released its decision upholding Le Quoc Quan’s conviction.
Le Quoc Quan, a lawyer who was illegitimately barred from practice for challenging government human rights violations, was convicted on 2 October 2013 of tax evasion under section 161 of the Vietnamese Penal Code. The ICJ had criticized Le Quoc Quan’s conviction, pointing out that he did not receive a fair trial.
The Court of Appeal upheld Le Quoc Quon’s sentence with time served since his arrest on 27 December 2012 to be taken into account.
The Court of Appeal also upheld the earlier order made by the People’s Court of Hanoi for Le Quoc Quan’s company to pay 645 million VND (approximately USD30,000) and a fine of 1.3 billion VND (approximately USD60,000), for alleged unpaid taxes.
Le Quoc Quan has been on a hunger strike protesting his conviction since 1 February 2014. He was so weak that it was difficult for him to stand up during the hearing.
“Le Quoc Quan’s faulty trial violated right to an independent, impartial tribunal, and the appeal process also fell short of international fair trial standards, including under the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights, to which Vietnam is a party,” Zarifi said.
The public was barred from entering the courtroom during today’s hearing and only Le Quoc Quan’s wife, mother, and lawyers were allowed inside.
Le Quoc Quan was also not allowed to meet with his lawyers in the last few days leading up to the appeal hearing.
His lawyers tried to visit him in prison at least twice last week, but they were barred from seeing him.
Le Quoc Quan’s lawyers also confirmed to ICJ that Le Quoc Quan was not allowed to meet and communicate with his lawyers immediately after his conviction by the People’s Court of Hanoi and had to file an appeal on his own.
In drafting his appeal, all legal documents and files pertaining to his case were withheld from him.
The UN Human Rights Committee has emphasized that all convicted persons like Le Quoc Quan must be given copies of a duly reasoned, written judgment of the trial court, as well as other documents such as transcripts, so that they may be able to effectively enjoy their right to appeal.
Under Viet Nam’s laws, lawyers of convicted persons cannot file an appeal on behalf of their clients.
It is only after the appeal has been filed and accepted by the appellate court that the convicted person may identify the lawyer of his choice.
The chosen lawyers are recognized and allowed to participate in the case only after the court approves their application for a “defence counsel’s certificate” or “advocacy certificate”.
The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers provide that no court shall refuse to recognize the right of a lawyer to appear before it on behalf of his client, unless the lawyer has been disqualified in accordance with domestic law.
“Viet Nam’s courts operate in violation of international standards that clarify that lawyers must be allowed to assist their clients in filing an appeal,” Zarifi said.
Le Quoc Quan cannot appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal under the article 248(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code of Vietnam, which states that decisions of the Court of Appeal are final and legally binding from the date of their pronouncement.
The lawyers of Le Quoc Quan, however, are said to be considering filing a petition on procedural issues on this case.
On 14 February, the ICJ submitted a written statement to the Human Rights Council (see below) under the title “Violations of the right to counsel of Viet Nam human rights defender Le Quoc Quan”.
In the statement, the ICJ called on the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independance of Judges and Lawyers to reiterate her request to the Government of Viet Nam to extend an invitation to her mandate to undertake a mission to the country.
The ICJ also called on Viet Nam to amend its laws expressly to ensure that anyone deprived of liberty, including human rights defenders, are given access to counsel from the moment of deprivation of liberty or at latest within 24 hours of detention.
Viet Nam should also consider including in its laws penalties for law enforcement authorities who do not honour such provisions.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t +66 2 619 8477; email: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Craig Knowles, ICJ Media Consultant, t +66 81 9077653; email: craig.knowles(a)icj.org
Viet Nam-Human Rights Council-ICJWrittenStatement-advocacy-2014 (full text in pdf)
Jan 21, 2014 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions, Position papers
The ICJ submitted today its contribution to the public consultation of the European Commission on the future of home affairs policies in the European Union.
In its contribution, the ICJ highlighted the need to increase human rights protection in EU home affairs legislation and in its implementation.
The ICJ submission recommends an increased monitoring of the human rights compliance of draft legislation; calls for increased transparency in the legislative process; and for a better use of infringement proceedings by the European Commission to ensure the effective implementation of EU home affairs legislation with particular attention to the protection of human rights.
The ICJ addressed, in its contribution, the importance of a correct and human rights compliant implementation of the new Common European Asylum System, and the need of further reforms in the EU legislation on asylum, migration and border control.
Finally, the ICJ stressed the poor record of the EU institutions, besides the European Parliament, in ensuring accountability for human rights violations committed in countering terrorism, for example in the cases of the National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance programme scandal and in the cases of alleged complicity of European States in the US-led system of renditions and secret detentions.
EU-PublicConsultation-ICJ-FutureHomeAffairs-2014-Final (download the contribution)
Dec 19, 2013 | Advocacy, News
The ICJ is profoundly concerned at the judgment of 11 December 2013 of the Supreme Court of India, which effectively recriminalizes consensual same-sex sexual conduct between adults in private.
The decision by India’s highest court in Suresh Kumar Koushal and another v NAZ Foundation and others overturned the 2009 decision of the Delhi High Court.
That earlier judgment had held section 377 of the Indian Penal Code to be unconstitutional to the extent that it violated the rights to equality before the law, non-discrimination, life and personal liberty guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.
Section 377 criminalized certain consensual sexual acts in private between adults that are particularly associated with same-sex conduct.
The 2009 High Court’s ruling had the effect of decriminalizing such conduct between adults in private in India.
Its decision was based on an in-depth analysis of India’s obligations under international human rights law and standards, as well as international comparative law.
The High Court had examined the scope of the rights to equality, non-discrimination and personal liberty under the Indian Constitution and determined Section 377 to be unconstitutional.
Section 377, which was enacted in 1860, is a historical relic from colonial times bequeathed to India under the British empire; it made it an offence to voluntarily have “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” with any man, woman or animal.
Those convicted are liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years or for life and a fine.
The Supreme Court decision of 11 December reversed the High Court’s courageous and much celebrated decision.
Purporting to uphold the separation of powers, the judgment of the Supreme Court overturned the High Court by ruling that it acted in excess of its judicial review jurisdiction by failing to exercise restraint and to accord the necessary deference to the Indian legislature in its review of the constitutionality of section 377.
The Court effectively holds that the provision is not inconsistent with human rights and India’s obligations under international human right law, and that it is up to the Indian Parliament to amend or repealed it.
The ICJ is deeply troubled by the reasoning of the Supreme Court judgment.
It would appear to constitute an abdication of the essential role of the judiciary in safeguarding human rights.
In this case, the Court failed to uphold and protect the rights to equality and non-discrimination; equality before the law and equal protection of the law; dignity; privacy; freedom of expression and association; family life; and the highest attainable standard of health.
The judgment is inconsistent with India’s obligations under international human rights law.
The judgment also disconcertingly dismisses without apparent reason the wealth of evidence before the court documenting how the criminalization of same-sex sexual conduct leads directly to human rights violations.
