ICJ recommendations to Central Asian governments and national bars on safeguarding the lawyers’ independence

ICJ recommendations to Central Asian governments and national bars on safeguarding the lawyers’ independence

The ICJ based on the consultations with the participants of the Regional Forum of Lawyers held in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, published recommendations on the Independence of Legal Profession and Role of Lawyers in Justice Systems of the Central Asian States.

The recommendations draw attention of State and non-State actors in the Central Asian countries to the urgency in ensuring in law and practice the independence of the lawyers’ professional associations and individual lawyers.

“Lawyers play a critical role in strengthening the rule of law and protection of human rights in the justice systems of all countries of the world, including in Central Asia,” Temur Shakirov, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser said.

“We hope that these recommendations, which are based on consultations and international law and standards on the role of lawyers, will contribute to strengthening the independence lawyers and Bar Associations in Central Asia”.

The recommendations, apart from the lawyers’ communities themselves, are addressed to national professional associations of lawyers, Parliaments, and Governments, and specifically Ministries of Justice that continue in some countries of Central Asia to exercise formal and informal influence over the national Bar Association, including by imposing control in regard to access to the profession and disciplinary proceedings.

“The ICJ calls on these institutions to adopting urgent and effective measures legal and policy measures to safeguarding lawyers’ ability to carry out their professional duties in an atmosphere free from any other improper interference, institutional or personal, in each of the countries of the Central Asian region,” Shakirov added.

Background:

On 9 November 2018, the ICJ facilitated the Regional Forum on the Independence in Justice Systems of the Central Asian States in Dushanbe, Tajikistan. This was the first regional event hosted by the Union of Lawyers of Tajikistan, a professional association of lawyers that was established in 2014. The Forum brought representatives of the National Bar Associations of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Republic of Tajikistan and the Republic of Uzbekistan.  The event was also supported by Legal Policy Research Centre (LPRC), a think tank from Almaty, Kazakhstan, that works on the reform of legal profession in the region.

The participants of the Forum highlighted the continuing and renewed attempts to undermine the independence of the professional associations of lawyers in countries of Central Asia, including targeted disbarment and harassment of individual lawyers for fulfilment of professional duties towards their clients. The participants also discussed the emerging practice of the establishment of specialized bodies for the protection of the rights of lawyers within the professional associations of lawyers to counter negative trends in Central Asian countries, affecting the legal profession.

Recommendations, in PDF: Central Asia-Recommendations-Advocacy-2020-ENG

India: Citizenship Amendment Act violates international law

India: Citizenship Amendment Act violates international law

The ICJ and other NGOs today highlighted the discriminatory character of India’s Citizenship Amendment Act, and called for accountability for violence and excessive use of force in relation to protests against it, today at the Human Rights Council in Geneva.

The joint statement, delivered in a general debate, read as follows:

“India’s Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) arbitrarily excludes certain groups at risk of persecution, such as Muslims, from accessing an expedited path to citizenship, based on their religious affiliation.

The CAA is inconsistent with rule of law principles and international law, including the right to equality before the law and the right to non-discrimination, protected under human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, to which India is a party.

The implementation of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam risks making 1.9 million persons stateless. A nationwide NRC will put more people at risk.

Our organizations urge the Indian government to amend the CAA to ensure that any path to citizenship provides for equal protection for persecuted persons, and does not discriminate on grounds such as religion or national origin.

We also urge India to develop a comprehensive refugee law that addresses the plight of persecuted minorities in a non-discriminatory manner, and to accede to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol.

We further call on India to respect the right to peaceful assembly, and to ensure accountability for those alleged to have instigated violence or used excessive force in relation to the nationwide protests against the CAA.”

The statement was delivered by ICJ on behalf also of Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), CIVICUS – World Alliance for Citizen Participation, Human Rights Watch, International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), Minority Rights Group International, and World Organization against Torture (OMCT).

The statement can be downloaded in PDF format here: ICJ statement GD item 4 India (10-03-2020)

Accountability and Myanmar: dialogue with UN Special Rapporteur

Accountability and Myanmar: dialogue with UN Special Rapporteur

The ICJ today spoke in the final interactive dialogue with the current UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar, at the Human Rights Council in Geneva.

The statement read as follows:

“The ICJ salutes what the current Special Rapporteur has achieved in the mandate despite withdrawal of cooperation by the Government, and shares the concerns expressed in this final report (A/HRC/43/59), particularly the urgent need to establish peace and security in Rakhine State without compromising human rights law and international criminal accountability for gross human rights violations.

The ICJ recalls the obligations of Myanmar under international human rights law. The Government must ensure that human rights are not violated in the context of conflict with the Arakan Army. The longstanding internet shutdown in Rakhine and Chin States must be ended. Due process rights of persons arrested must be respected.

The ICJ also welcomes the Order of provisional measures in the case brought by The Gambia at the International Court of Justice. Myanmar must comply and prevent further acts of genocide.

The Myanmar Government must also ensure accountability for mass atrocities. In a briefing paper last year, the ICJ proposed Constitutional, legislative and institutional reform of Myanmar’s National Human Rights Commission to enable it to independently and effectively investigate allegations of human rights violations. The Myanmar Government should also cooperate with the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar and the International Criminal Court.

The ICJ would like to ask: based on your experience in the mandate, how can States best strengthen support for the mandate and the various international accountability initiatives underway?”

Role of the UN in relation to human rights in Myanmar

Role of the UN in relation to human rights in Myanmar

The ICJ today urged the UN to more effectively protect and promote human rights in Myanmar, and the Human Rights Council to monitor implementation of the Rosenthal Inquiry recommendations to this end.

The statement, delivered in a discussion of the Secretary-General’s oral update on the involvement of the United Nations in Myanmar, read as follows:

“The ICJ welcomes the report of Mr. Gert Rosenthal entitled, ‘A Brief and Independent Inquiry into the Involvement of the United Nations in Myanmar from 2010 to 2018.’

The ICJ concurs with the conclusions, including that the UN suffered from ‘systemic and structural failures’ that effectively prevented it from stopping or mitigating the atrocities in Rakhine State in 2016 and 2017.

We welcome the initiative to brief the Council on the report, which the ICJ and other non-governmental organizations recommended to the Secretary-General in a letter last year.

The ICJ further urges that concrete steps be taken to:

1) improve coordination at all levels of the UN, including the adoption of a common strategy and agenda among agencies at the country level to promote accountability for human rights violations, which would also advance the Call to Action by the Secretary General;

2) hold UN officials responsible for failures to mitigate or prevent acts of violence constituting crimes under international law; and

3) publish annual progress reports until the recommendations are fully implemented.

The need for a concerted and system-wide commitment to promote and protect human rights in Myanmar is as urgent as ever given the intensification of armed conflict in Rakhine State and the potential for conflict as national elections approach.

We urge the Council to monitor implementation of the reforms identified in the Rosenthal report.”

Justice & accountability for crimes under international law in Sri Lanka

Justice & accountability for crimes under international law in Sri Lanka

At the UN Human Rights Council, the ICJ today urged renewed international action to ensure justice and accountability for crimes under international law in Sri Lanka.

The statement, delivered during a discussion of updates and reports from the High Commissioner for Human Rights, read as follows:

“The ICJ deeply regrets the Sri Lankan Government’s withdrawal of support for the process under resolutions 30/1 and 40/1. ICJ supports the joint statement read by IMADR.

The Sri Lankan legal system and judicial institutions have for decades demonstrated a chronic inability to address systemic and entrenched impunity for crimes under international law perpetrated by the military and security forces.[1] The new President’s promises to protect the military from accountability, and senior command appointments of individuals credibly accused of crimes under international law, only deepen the concern.

As the High Commissioner notes,[2] the failure to deal comprehensively with impunity and to reform institutions may lead to more human rights violations.

The Tamil population have consistently and rightly rejected any reconciliation process that ignores justice and accountability, and it is obvious that no justice or accountability process that is left to domestic Sri Lankan institutions alone can be credible. The compromise national-international “hybrid” judicial accountability mechanism foreseen by resolution 30/1 already fell far short of what the situation actually warrants.

If the Government seeks now to abandon even that compromise, purely international processes, whether before the ICC or through creation of another international accountability mechanism by the Council, and the exercise of universal jurisdiction by other States, are the only remaining options for securing the justice required by international law and indispensable to any credible reconciliation process for Sri Lanka.”

[1] International Commission of Jurists, Authority without Accountability: The Crisis of Impunity in Sri Lanka, 2012, https://www.icj.org/sri-lanka-new-icj-report-documents-crisis-of-impunity/; Human Rights Council must respond to ongoing failure of Sri Lankan justice system to ensure accountability for human rights violations, 2014, https://www.icj.org/human-rights-council-must-respond-to-ongoing-failure-of-sri-lankan-justice-system-to-ensure-accountability-for-human-rights-violations/; Sri Lanka: the need for an international inquiry, 2014, https://www.icj.org/sri-lanka-the-need-for-an-international-inquiry/; Sri Lanka: Joint Open Letter to the Ambassadors of UN Human Rights Council Member States, 2015, https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/SriLanka-JointOpenLetter-Accountability-Advocacy-2015.pdf; Sri Lanka’s victims demand and deserve credible justice, 2016, https://www.icj.org/sri-lankas-victims-demand-and-deserve-credible-justice/.

[2] UN Doc A/HRC/43/19, para 36.

Myanmar: Why law reform is urgent and possible (UN statement)

Myanmar: Why law reform is urgent and possible (UN statement)

The ICJ today urged law reforms to address discrimination against minorities in Myanmar, during an interactive dialogue with the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights on her report on Rohingya and other minorities in Myanmar, at the Human Rights Council in Geneva.

The statement read as follows:

“The ICJ welcomes the report of the High Commissioner,[1] delivered against the background of continuing ethnic armed conflict in Myanmar.

With over 50 years’ experience monitoring and documenting Myanmar’s human rights situation, the ICJ concurs with the High Commissioner’s conclusions and recommendations.

While the root causes of violations and abuses against the Rohingya and other persecuted minorities in Myanmar may be complex, as the Fact-Finding Mission already reported to the Council in September 2018, the steps required to address them are by now “well known”.[2]

One essential step is comprehensive legal and justice sector reform within the country.

In a briefing paper last year, the ICJ recommended three immediately achievable, concrete areas of law reform available to the Government: 1) legislative reform, including most urgently of the 1982 Citizenship Law; 2) Constitutional reform, to protect the right of citizens to full political participation; and 3) interim measures to address discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity.

At the same time, it is imperative the international community continues to support the various international accountability efforts underway, including the work of the International Criminal Court and Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar.

The ICJ would like to ask: what role do you see for States and civil society in relation to monitoring and implementation of your recommendations, particularly with respect to law and justice sector reform?”

[1] UN Doc A/HRC/43/18

[2] UN Doc A/HRC/39/64 (12 September 2018), para 102.

Translate »