The ICJ today called on the Pakistan Senate to reject a Bill that would grant the military and law enforcement authorities sweeping powers to detain individuals, in contravention of international human rights standards.
The ICJ emphasised the need for an international inquiry to monitor and investigate human rights violations in Sri Lanka, during discussion at the UN Human Rights Council.
The ICJ stated that an international investigation mechanism such as a Commission of Inquiry is needed in part because the Sri Lankan justice system today simply cannot be relied upon to function as an independent and impartial institution.
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has repeatedly expressed concern about “the continuing high levels of harassment and intimidation meted out to human rights defenders, lawyers and journalists”. Further incidents against human rights defenders occurred during the Human Rights Council session itself.
The ICJ urged the Council to establish an international independent and impartial investigation mechanism to give a glimmer of hope to victims and families, that their rights under international law to truth, justice and reparation will ultimately be upheld.
A number of delegations have jointly presented a draft resolution that would establish an international investigation with the backing of the Human Rights Council. A vote on the resolution is expected later in the week.
The full statement can be downloaded in PDF: Advocacy-UN-HRC25-SriLanka-OralStatement-26032014-rev
Video of the discussion of the report, including the ICJ oral statement, is available in the UN webcast archive.
See also:
Briefing note on independence of judges and lawyers in Sri Lanka
The ICJ spoke at the UN Human Rights Council on the lack of progress in Nepal on ending impunity.The oral statement was delivered during the general debate on the Universal Periodic Review (UPR).
Nepal has failed to take concrete action to implement key UPR recommendations, including those crucial to implementing the right to an effective remedy and reparation, creating effective mechanisms for transitional justice and ending impunity.
The Government continues to try to force through a Truth and Reconciliation Commission that is not human rights complicant and has already been ruled invalid by the Supreme Court of Nepal.
Nepal has also failed to take meaningful measures to investigate human rights violations and abuses that arose during the armed conflict.
The ICJ called on Nepal to take specific measures towards ending impunity.
The full written statement can be downloaded, in PDF format: Advocacy-UN-HRC25-Nepal-OralStatement-2103214
The representative of Nepal exercised the right of reply in response to ICJ’s oral statement.
Video of the oral statement, and Nepal’s statement in reply, via the official UN webcast.
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:
Nepal-WrittenStatement-HRC25-Advocacy-2014 (download PDF)
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.
The ICJ today called on the Government of Sri Lanka to reconsider its rejection of key UPR recommendations on accountability and judicial independence and integrity.
In an Interactive Dialogue to consider the adoption of the outcome document on the Universal Periodic Review of Sri Lanka, the ICJ pointed to the urgent need for the Government to fully implement its legal obligations and commitment to initiate credible and independent actions to ensure justice, equity, accountability and reconciliation. Also pointing to the impeachment of the Chief Justice of Sri Lanka and attacks against the judiciary, the ICJ urged the Government to accept recommendations to strengthen and ensure judicial independence and the integrity of the judiciary.
The statement was made during the Human Rights Council’s 22nd regular session (25 February to 22 March 2013) under Item 6 (Universal Periodic Review), following the review of Sri Lanka in by the Council’s Working Group on the UPR.
SriLanka-HRC22-Item6-UPRSriLanka-NonLegalSubmission-2013 (download full statement in PDF)
SriLanka-UPR-StakeholderSubmission-LegalSubmission-2012 (go to webpage on the ICJ’s submission on the UPR of Sri Lanka)
USA/Israel/Palestine: Immediately rescind sanctions against UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese
Strong push back against US sanctions on the International Criminal Court at UN Human Rights Council
ECtHR Grand Chamber Ruling in Semenya v. Switzerland: Joint Statement of Third-Party Interveners
UN Human Rights Council struggles to fulfil its mandate in the midst of global attacks on human rights, the rule of law and multilateralism