Sep 25, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
At the UN Human Rights Council, the ICJ and other NGOs have highlighted the joint civil society call for an international human rights monitoring mechanism on China.
The oral statement was delivered on behalf of the group of NGOs by Human Rights Watch, during the general debate on country situations. The statement builds on a joint open letter by more than 300 civil society organizations, including the ICJ, issued earlier this month.
The statement to the Human Rights Council read as follows:
“We join together to call for an international mechanism to address the Chinese government’s human rights violations, and urge the Human Rights Council to take decisive action to achieve this goal.
On 26 June 2020, an unprecedented 50 United Nations experts called for ‘decisive measures to protect fundamental freedoms in China.’ They highlighted China’s mass human rights violations in Hong Kong, Tibet, and Xinjiang, suppression of information in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, and attacks on rights defenders, journalists, lawyers and critics of the government across the country.
Our organizations are also concerned about the impact of China’s rights violations world-wide. China has targeted human rights defenders abroad, suppressed academic freedom in countries around the world, and engaged in internet censorship and digital surveillance. We deplore China’s promotion of rights-free development and the ensuing environmental degradation at the hands of government-backed extractive industries, as well as the racist treatment of people in China, or by Chinese state actors in other parts of the world.
We are dismayed at China’s efforts to distort the mandate of the UN Human Rights Council by promoting ‘cooperation’ over accountability, and opposing initiatives to bring scrutiny of serious rights violations and international crimes in countries around the world. It has used its seat on the UN’s NGO Committee to baselessly deny accreditation to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), while accrediting government-organized NGOs (GoNGOs). It has sought to deny access to human rights defenders to UN premises, denounced speakers on NGO side events as ‘terrorists,’ and threatened delegates to deter them from attending UN side events on rights violations, including abuses in Xinjiang.
When the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Special Procedures, and dozens of states urged China to comply with international human rights standards, China contended that they were ‘improper remarks’ that ‘grossly interfered’ with China’s sovereignty.
A state that tries to hold itself above any kind of scrutiny presents a fundamental threat to human rights. That China—a state with extraordinary global power—expects such treatment affects us all.
We therefore endorse the call by UN experts for a Special Session or Urgent Debate at the Human Rights Council to evaluate the range of violations by China’s government, and to establish an impartial and independent UN mechanism to closely monitor, analyze, and report annually on that topic. We urge the UN Secretary-General to appoint a Special Envoy, consistent with his Call to Action on Human Rights, and we call on the High Commissioner for Human Rights to fulfil her independent mandate to monitor and publicly report on China’s sweeping rights violations. We support the call that UN member states and UN agencies use all interactions with Chinese authorities to insist that the government comply with its international human rights obligations.
In the spirit of global solidarity and partnership, we urge the Council swiftly to counter and remediate grave human rights violations committed by Chinese authorities. No state should be above the law.”
Sep 25, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ has joined other NGOs in urging the UN Human Rights Council to respond effectively to the crisis for human rights in the Philippines.
The joint oral statement was delivered by the World Organization against Torture (OMCT) on behalf of the group of international and Philippino NGOs, during a general debate on country situations. It read as follows:
“Madam President,
I speak on behalf of 35 organisations, deeply concerned by the situation in the Philippines. We urge this Council to respond credibly to the grave findings and recommendations of the recent OHCHR report.
Developments since that report indicate further deterioration, with ongoing incitement to kill by the President, the promotion of an architect of the anti-drug strategy to police chief, the passing of an overbroad anti-terror law ripe for abuse, the conviction of journalist Maria Ressa and shutdown of media network ABS-CBN, the murder of activists and a journalist and a new spike in police killings.
In terms of cooperation, the Philippines refused access to OHCHR in the preparation of the report and continues to bar entry to Special Procedures. The Secretary-General and High Commissioner have raised significant concerns over reprisals. The Government does not acknowledge widespread and systematic killings as a problem, in fact it encourages them and rejects the OHCHR’s findings. Serious violations continue.
The Government’s announced Inter-Agency Panel lacks any transparency and directly involves branches of Government implicated in these abuses. As such, it clearly cannot satisfy international standards of independence,[1] nor can it be seen as credible or safe for victims to engage with.
Madam President,
Our organisations have urged and continue to urge this Council to launch an independent international investigation.
The High Commissioner has clearly asked the Council to renew her mandate to monitor and report on the wider situation, as well as to provide technical cooperation to “implement the report’s recommendations,” and “continue to pursue accountability”. We urge this Council – at absolute minimum – to ensure continued monitoring and reporting on all aspects of the situation as clearly recommended by the High Commissioner. Anything less would not only be an insult to victims and their families, but send a green light to perpetrators that they can continue with impunity, with disastrous consequences on the ground.
Thank you.”
Co-signatories:
- Action Network Human Rights Philippines (AMP)
- Amnesty International
- Article 19
- Child Alert Mindanao
- Children’s Legal Rights and Development Center (CLRDC)
- CIVICUS Alliance
- Coalition Against Summary Executions
- Families of Victims of Involuntary Disappearance (FIND)
- Franciscans International
- Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate Conception
- Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG)
- Freedom House
- Harm Reduction International
- Human Rights Watch
- In Defense of Human Rights and Dignity Movement (iDEFEND)
- International Coalition for Human Rights in the Philippines (ICHRP)
- International Commission of Jurists
- International Drug Policy Consortium
- International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
- International Service for Human Rights
- Karapatan Alliance Philippines
- Medical Action Group
- National Union of Journalists of the Philippines
- Network Against Killings in the Philippines (NakPhil)
- Partnership Mission for People’s Initiatives (PMPI)
- Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA)
- Philippine Misereor Partnership Inc. (PMPI)
- Philippine Human Rights Information Center
- Salinlahi Alliance for Children’s Concerns
- Swiss Catholic Lenten Fund (SCLF)
- Tambayan
- The Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
- Task Force Detainees of the Philippines
- World Council of Churches
- World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT)
[1] See for instance the UN Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, adopted by the Economic and Social Council in its resolution 1989/65 of 24 May 1989; and Human Rights Committee, General Comment no. 36 on the right to life (article 6).
Sep 14, 2020 | Advocacy, News
On 13 September 2020 the ICJ hosted a workshop on the impacts on economic, social and cultural rights associated with the development of Special Economic Zones (SEZs) in Thailand. Lawyers, members of civil society organizations and academics from across Thailand attended the Workshop.
The event began with an introduction to ICJ’s report – the Human Rights Consequences of the Eastern Economic Corridor and Special Economic Zones in Thailand – and outlined the deficiencies in the legal and regulatory framework governing economic development in Special Economic Zones and the Eastern Economic Corridor.
During the group discussions, participants were introduced to the international laws and standards that are applicable in the context of Thailand and can be applied to allegations of human rights violations and negative environmental impacts. They were urged to use these standards for their advocacy work.
These included economic, social and cultural rights contained in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), to which Thailand is a State party and other internationally recognized principles, including:
- Right to an adequate standard of living and housing under article 11 of the ICESCR, General Comments 4 and 7 of the Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights and the Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-Based Evictions and Displacement – which stress the need to provide adequate legal protection from forced eviction, due process, alternative accommodation, and access to an effective remedy of those that are affected by eviction orders;
- Human rights obligations that are exercised in relation to the environment, such as obligation to facilitate public participation in decision making related to the environment, and duties to protect human rights defenders and to conduct the prior assessment of the possible environmental impacts of proposed projects and policies; and
- Rights to and at work under article 6 to 8 of the ICESCR, General Comment No. 19 and 23 of the Committee on the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and several ILO Conventions, particularly regarding rights abuses suffered by migrant, seasonal and subcontracted workers, as well as restrictions on freedom to join and form trade unions.
At the conclusion of the Workshop, participants exchanged views on strategies and collaboration for action to mitigate potential impacts of the Special Economic Zones and the Eastern Economic Corridor and to advance the protection of economic, social and cultural rights.
Further reading
Thailand: laws governing development of Eastern Economic Corridor and Special Economic Zones fail to adequately protect human rights – ICJ report
Thailand: ICJ hosts discussion on human rights consequences of Special Investment Zones
ICJ and Chiang Mai University discuss Special Economic Zones in Myanmar and Thailand
Sep 8, 2020 | Advocacy, News
On 29 August and 5 September, the ICJ collaborated with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to hold a webinar series for legal aid providers in the Philippines on eliminating gender discriminatory attitudes and behaviors towards women.
Members of IBP’s legal aid committees from the Eastern and Western Mindanao Regions participated in these webinars, focused on gender stereotypes and discriminatory practices that exist in the legal profession and in the work of legal aid providers who directly engage with women when they seek justice.
Dato Ambiga Sreenevasan, ICJ’s Commissioner from Malaysia, addressed the promotion and protection of women’s human rights in the context of the legal profession: “While conditions for women have improved, there is still work to be done to achieve equality between men and women in the legal profession. At the entry level, things appear to be going well, but we must look also at women’s opportunities throughout their legal career and question why it is the case that some areas are still male-dominated.”
Mikiko Otani, ICJ’s Commissioner from Japan and a member of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, spoke about how gender stereotypes and gender discrimination hinder women from accessing justice. “The Bar should be at the forefront of advocating for improvement in legal structures that would help eliminate gender discrimination,” she said.
The Philippines had previously featured as one of the top ten performers in addressing gender disparities, as measured by the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Index. However, it has recently fallen to rank 16th out of 153 countries. Emerlynne Gil, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser, acknowledged various measures adopted by the Philippines to implement the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), such as the adoption of the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act and the Magna Carta for Women. She noted, however, that the Philippines still must do a great deal more.
“The existing culture of impunity and lack of effective remedies for women to access the justice system are just some of the difficult challenges the country faces that prevent it from achieving this goal,” Emerlynne Gil said.
The webinar series also featured a discussion on specific challenges faced by women when accessing justice during the COVID 19 pandemic and in the context of the “drug war” in the Philippines. The lawyers discussed their role and also that of the Bar as an institution to immediately identify and eliminate these gender stereotypes to ensure their clients’ right to access to justice.
Judge Amy Alabado Avellano, a Regional Trial Court judge in the Philippines led this discussion. Attorney Burt Estrada, IBP Executive Vice President, and Attorney Marienne Ibadlit, former IBP Governor for Western Visayas, also held a dialogue with the lawyers on how the IBP as a professional association for lawyers in the Philippines could contribute towards enhancing access to justice for women in the country.
Contact
For questions and clarifications, please contact Ms. Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser, t: +662 619 8477 (ext. 206); e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org.
Aug 30, 2020 | Advocacy, News
While commemorating the International Day of the Disappeared 2020, the ICJ and 47 other national and international organizations and groups of victims, in Nepal, call on the responsible authorities to undertake immediate steps towards reinvigoration of the transitional justice (TJ) process, adopting a transparent and consultative process.
On this occasion, the victims’ groups and human rights organizations in Nepal commend the patience and resilience shown by the family members of those subjected to enforced disappearance during the 10-year-long internal armed conflict from 1996-2006. They have worked tirelessly advanced the TJ process (Truth, Justice, Reparation and Institutional Reform) in Nepal for more than a decade through their peaceful struggle, despite many difficult hurdles.
In 2015 the Supreme Court found several sections of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) Act, including the one empowering the commissions to offer amnesty and facilitate mediation/reconciliation between victims and perpetrators, including those involved in gross human rights violations, to be unconstitutional and non compliant with Nepal’s international obligations. More recently, on 26 April 2020 the Court rejected the petitions of the Government to review and revise the 2015 decision.
To date, the Government has not initiated any effort to amend the law as per these decisions. Rather, it has been misusing these Commissions in a manner that has prevented victims from accessing remedies through the regular criminal justice system and has made no efforts to strengthen these Commissions to delivery their mandates effectively. Two years back, Nepal recognized enforced disappearance as a distinct crime for the first time when enacting a new Penal Code. While this step is commendable, these legal provisions have not ensured justice for victims, the police typically refuse to investigate cases from the conflict period,arguing that they come under the jurisdiction of the TJ mechanisms.
Despite civil society’s repeated calls to appoint the Commissioners after amending the TRC Act following wider consultations with victims and civil society, the Government recently appointed Commissioners under the same Act that the SC had deemed flawed five years ago. Moreover, the Government has not addressed the repeated calls and concerns regarding the political interference and lack of transparency in the appointment of the Commissioners and the overall TJ process.
Human rights organizations and many victims groups have lost confidence in and stopped supporting to these Commissions.
The undersigned organizations call upon the Government of Nepal:
- To ensure the Commissions provide for, rather than delay and deny, truth and justice to
victims;
- Start fresh consultations to amend its law in compliance international human rights law
and Supreme Court directives, including by removing of amnesty for the perpetrators
provisions;
- Appoint a new set of commissioners under the revised Act that respects victims basic right
to truth and justice;
- Immediately ensure the social, cultural, economic, psychological and legal support
suffered by the victims and families of enforced disappearance as part of victims’ rights
to reparation;
- Revise the Penal Code to bring it in line with international standards. As a minimum, this
should include:
- amending the definition of enforced disappearances to bring it in line with Nepal’s international obligations and the Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance
- revising the penalty for enforced disappearance in the Penal Code to make it proportionate to the gravity of the crime
- removal of the statute of limitations for enforced disappearance cases
- Ratify International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances Punishment.
Download
Full joint-statement with detailed information in English and Nepali. (PDF)
Contact
Ian Seiderman: ICJ Legal and Policy Director, e: ian.seiderman(a)icj.org
Mandira Sharma: ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, e: mandira.sharma(a)icj.org
Aug 13, 2020 | Advocacy, News
Today, the ICJ and 64 civil society organizations jointly called on the Royal Government of Cambodia (“RGC”) to discard the draft Law on Public Order (“draft law”) which, if adopted, would breach Cambodia’s international legal obligations.
The draft law aims to regulate public spaces and public behavior within those spaces, covering aesthetics, sanitation, cleanliness, noise, and social values, all under the broad aim of maintaining “public order”. It sets out a number of specific activities that are prohibited, lists a range of penalties that may be imposed for violations, and grants unfettered enforcement powers to authorities across all levels of government, with the proclaimed objective of creating “a more civilized society”.
The organizations expressed concern that the draft law contains multiple overbroad and arbitrary provisions which violate numerous human rights protections enshrined in the Constitution of the Kingdom of Cambodia and human rights treaties to which Cambodia is party, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Amidst an ongoing crackdown on fundamental freedoms in Cambodia, a number of existing laws already grant overbroad and unfettered powers to the RGC and are regularly deployed abusively to undermine human rights. Adoption of this draft Law on Public Order would serve to facilitate a further deterioration of the human rights situation in Cambodia.
The joint statement is available in English here.
The joint statement is available in Khmer here.
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, Senior Legal Adviser, ICJ Global Accountability Initiative e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
See also
ICJ, ‘ICJ and 31 organizations jointly urge Governments to call for respect of human rights in Cambodia’, 22 July 2020
ICJ, ‘Cambodia: State of Emergency bill violates the rule of law’, 8 April 2020
ICJ, ‘Misuse of law will do long-term damage to Cambodia’, 26 July 2018
ICJ report, ‘Achieving Justice for Gross Human Rights Violations in Cambodia: Baseline Study’, October 2017
