Oct 16, 2017 | Advocacy
The ICJ, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are urging Pakistan to take immediate steps towards meeting “the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights,” following the country’s election to the Human Rights Council.
Today, the UN General Assembly selected 15 states to serve as members of the UN Human Rights Council from January 2018 to December 2020.
From the Asia-Pacific region, Nepal, Qatar, Afghanistan and Pakistan were selected out of five candidates.
To secure the UN Human Rights Council membership, Pakistan pledged its commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights.
However, the pledge failed to address directly many of the most serious human rights issues facing Pakistan, including enforced disappearances, the use of the death penalty, blasphemy laws, the country’s use of military courts, women’s rights including the right to education, and threats to the work of human rights defenders, lawyers and journalists.
According to UN General Assembly Resolution 60/251, “members elected to the Council shall uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights.” The Resolution also provides that, “when electing members of the Council, Member States shall take into account the contribution of candidates to the promotion and protection of human rights and their voluntary pledges and commitments made thereto.”
Pakistan’s abuses have been highlighted by various national and international human rights organizations, UN treaty-monitoring bodies, and special procedures of the UN Human Rights Council.
Pakistan has affirmed in its election pledge that it is “firmly resolved to uphold, promote and safeguard universal human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.”
Given the pressing human rights issues in the country, the ICJ, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch urge Pakistan to take the necessary action to fulfill these responsibilities.
Contact
Frederick Rawski (Bangkok), ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director, e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Reema Omer (London), ICJ International Legal Adviser, South Asia t: +447889565691; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Download
The full statement with additional information: Pakistan-ElectiontoHRC-Advocacy-2017-ENG (in PDF)
Sep 27, 2017 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today highlighted a sharp deterioration in the situation for human rights and the rule of law, in a statement to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.
The statement was delivered during the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Cambodia, and read as follows:
“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) welcomes the report of the Special Rapporteur (UN Doc A/HRC/36/61) and strongly supports the renewal of her mandate.
Monitoring and action by the international community has seldom been more important for Cambodia since the Paris Peace Accords were signed in 1991.
Civil society, independent media and the political opposition are under sustained attack in what appears to be a carefully orchestrated effort to silence dissenting voices in the lead up to national elections in July 2018. Vague legal provisions in for instance the Law on Associations and Non-Governmental Organizations (LANGO) and the Law on Political Parties, are being weaponized to this end.
Human rights defenders and others, including the “ADHOC 4”, Ny Chakrya, Tep Vanny, Hun Vannak, Doem Kundy, and the President of the opposition party, Kem Sokha, face criminal charges with all the hallmarks of being politically motivated.
Prosecutors and judges lack independence and impartiality, and investigations routinely fall short of international standards, as in the case of the killing of political commentator Kem Ley.
Seeking to justify its actions, Cambodia frequently invokes the principle of the rule of law.
The ICJ, a global organisation of judges and lawyers, has worked for the rule of law for more than sixty years. The rule of law does not simply mean that laws exist and are enforced, but requires among other things: equal application of the law without discrimination, including due to political or other opinion, and ensuring that laws are only adopted and applied consistent with international human rights law.
What is happening in Cambodia today has nothing to do with the rule of law.
The ICJ would therefore ask the Special Rapporteur what further recommendations she has towards seeing the rule of law, as properly understood, truly reign in Cambodia.”
The Human Rights Council is expected to adopt a new resolution on Cambodia later this week. The ICJ and other non-governmental organisations have called for it to include additional monitoring and additional opportunities to discussion the situation at the Human Rights Council, before national elections scheduled for July 2018.
Sep 22, 2017 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Addressing the UN Human Rights Council, the ICJ today urged Thailand to end criminal proceedings against lawyer Sirikan “June” Charoensiri, that are based on her professional activities as a human rights defender and lawyer.
The statement came during general debate at the Human Rights Council on, among other things, the report compiling cases of individual complaints that have been raised by the Special Procedures (independent experts) appointed by the Council. The statement read as follows:
“Among the many cases covered by the Communications Report of Special Procedures (A/HRC/36/25) is that of Thailand lawyer and human rights defender, Sirikan “June” Charoensiri. She was charged with sedition and other offences for actions taken, in her professional role, to protect human rights. With other lawyers, she had observed and provided legal assistance to participants in a peaceful protest.
In April, four Special Rapporteurs sent a joint communication (AL THA 2/2017) to Thailand about her case, and the related issues of restrictions on fundamental freedoms put in place following the military coup of May 2014, and prosecution of civilians in military courts.
Thailand’s response to the communication (No.52101/483) attempts to justify the charges against her by, among other things, appearing to associate her with the persons to which she and her colleagues were providing legal aid.
Principle 18 of the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers states that, “lawyers shall not be identified with their clients or their clients’ causes as a result of discharging their functions.”
The International Commission of Jurists considers that the case against Ms Charoensiri is incompatible with these and other international human rights standards. The ICJ calls upon Thailand ensure the legal proceedings against Ms Charoensiri are ended, and that measures are taken to end and prevent similar cases against other human rights defenders in the country.”
Exercising its right of reply to the statement, the delegation of Thailand, while appearing to accept that Ms Charoensiri is a human rights defender and lawyer, asserted that she had not been charged in her capacity as a lawyer or human rights defender, but due to the possibility that she was a principal or co-perpetrator of an offence, which the delegation said was based on unspecified information from the Royal Thai Police. The delegation affirmed that the Thai government attaches high priority to the protection of human rights defenders, and referred to several initiatives the delegation said were currently being prepared in this regard.
More detail from ICJ about the case is available by clicking here.
Details of the Special Procedures’ action on the case is available in the database of communications, by clicking here.
Sep 21, 2017 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Speaking at the UN today, the ICJ called on India to reconsider its refusal to accept recommendations for decriminalisation of consensusal same-sex relations, abolition of the death penalty, and ensuring accountability for human rights violations.
The oral statement was made during the consideration by the UN Human Rights Council of the outcome of India’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process. It read as follows:
“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) regrets that India has not supported recommendations related to decriminalizing consensual same-sex relations, abolishing the death penalty, and combatting impunity for serious human rights violations.
The ICJ has documented how by allowing the criminalization of consensual same-sex relations, section 377 of the Indian Penal Code has facilitated numerous human rights violations, including violations of the principle of non-discrimination and the rights to equality before the law and equal protection of the law, liberty and security of person, freedom of expression, health, and privacy. Section 377 has also perpetuated homophobic and transphobic attitudes in India, leading to discrimination and violence against LGBT individuals.
The Government has also failed to take steps to combat impunity for serious human rights violations such as extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and torture and other ill treatment, which are facilitated by laws such as the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) and other national security and public safety legislation. Despite repeated commitments to do so, India has also not enacted legislation to recognize torture as a distinct, autonomous offence in its penal code.
The ICJ therefore urges the Government to reconsider, accept and implement UPR recommendations to:
- Decriminalize consensual same-sex sexual relations (161.71, 161.76, 161.77, 161.78, 161.79);
- Enact legislation consistent with the Supreme Court’s recognition of the rights of transgender persons and international human rights standards (161.80);
- Repeal AFSPA and other state and central level laws that similarly violate international human rights law (161.97, 161.248, 161.249);
- Become a party to the CAT; OPCAT; the Second OP to the ICCPR; the ICPPED and other international instruments (161.13, 161.15, 161.29, 161.30, 161.31); and
- Establish a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, with a view towards its abolition (161.104 – 161.115).”
Sep 14, 2017 | Advocacy
In a joint statement released today, the ICJ joins several other organisations in calling on the Supreme Court of the Maldives to rescind the indefinite suspension of 56 lawyers.
The lawyers had signed a petition to the Supreme Court calling for the independence and reform of the judiciary.
The statement, made jointly with Maldivian Democracy Network, Front Line Defenders, Transparency International and FORUM-ASIA, can be downloaded here: Maldives-Advocacy-Lawyers-2017
Sep 13, 2017 | Advocacy, News
As proceedings resume in India v. Pakistan (Jadhav case) before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the ICJ has published a briefing paper to clarify the key issues and relevant laws raised in the case in a Question and Answer format.
The case concerns Pakistan’s failure to allow for consular access to an Indian national detained on charges of serious crimes.
India has alleged “egregious violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR)” by Pakistan in connection with the detention, trial and conviction of Indian national Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav.
Pakistani authorities arrested Jadhav on 3 March 2016.
India was informed of the arrest on 25 March 2016. On 10 April 2017, Pakistan’s military announced Jadhav had been convicted and sentenced to death by a military court for “espionage and sabotage activities against Pakistan.”
India’s requests for consular access, made at least sixteen times starting from 25 March 2016, were either denied by Pakistan or made conditional upon India’s assistance in the investigation against Jadhav.
India alleges that denial of consular access breaches Pakistan’s obligations under Article 36(1) of the VCCR, to which both States are parties.
In May 2017, the ICJ accepted India’s request for provisional measures and directed Pakistan to “take all measures at its disposal” to ensure Jadhav is not executed pending the final decision of the Court.
India is due to file its written memorial with supporting documents today, 13 September.
Pakistan will have three months to file a counter-memorial.
The ICJ will then decide on dates for oral hearing of arguments.
Following the hearings, the Court will deliberate and issue a judgment.
While the case at issue is limited to denial of consular access under the VCCR, it engages other critical fair trial concerns that arise in military trials in Pakistan.
The International Commission of Jurists has documented how Pakistani military courts are not independent and the proceedings before them fall far short of national and international fair trial standards.
Judges of military courts are part of the executive branch of the State and continue to be subjected to military command; the right to appeal to civilian courts is not available; the right to a public hearing is not guaranteed; and a duly reasoned, written judgment, including the essential findings, evidence and legal reasoning, is denied.
The case also underscores one of inherent problems of the death penalty: that fair trial violations that lead to the execution of a person are inherently irreparable.
The International Commission of Jurists considers the death penalty a violation of the right to life and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and notes that a large majority of States, in repeated UN resolutions, have called on retentionist states to declare a moratorium on the practice with a view to abolition.
Contact:
Frederick Rawski (Bangkok), ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director, e: frederick.rawski@icj.org
Reema Omer (London), ICJ International Legal Adviser, South Asia t: +447889565691; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Download the Q&A:
India-ICJ Q&A Jadhav case-Advocacy-2017-ENG (in PDF)
