Mar 5, 2021 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ issued a statement today on the occasion of an interactive dialogue with the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism on the need for a human rights-based approach for countering terrorism.
The ICJ was not able to read the statement during the interactive dialogue due to the limited time provided for NGO statements.
The statement was as follows:
“Madam President,
The ICJ welcomes the attention given by the Special Rapporteur to the human rights impact of counterterrorism policies on the rights of women and girls and the need to incorporate a gender perspective into counter-terrorism policy and law in all areas (See, para. 39b, UN Doc. A/HRC/46/36).
We share the Special Rapporteur’s concern that the critical State obligation to promote economic, social and cultural rights should not be absorbed into a new, generalized, non-rights based category of “economic effects of terrorism (para. 37.) The emphasis must remain squarely on preventing and redressing violations and abuses against victims (para. 36).
We agree with the Special Rapporteur that human rights obligations and counterterrorism are directed at the State and that care must be taken to avoid the blurring of lines between counterterrorism and international humanitarian law (para. 39e). We concur that States must address the rule of law and human rights effects of misuse of sanctions and listing processes to target civil society and persons exercising rights protected by international law.
The ICJ therefore calls on the Council to maintain in this matter a human rights-based approach to victims of terrorism, as stressed by the Special Rapporteur.
Thank you.”
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, ICJ UN Representative, e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org, t: +41797499949
Mar 4, 2021 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The Council of Europe Committee of Ministers should direct Turkey to release the Kurdish opposition politician Selahattin Demirtaş in compliance with a European Court of Human Rights judgment, five human rights groups said today.
The five are ARTICLE 19, Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists, the International Federation for Human Rights, and the Turkey Human Rights Litigation Support Project.
The groups have made a detailed joint submission to the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers, which oversees enforcement of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judgments, asking it to issue the decision at its meeting on March 9-11, 2021. The groups said that Turkey continues to violate Demirtaş’s rights by flouting a landmark judgment issued by the court on December 22, 2020, requiring his immediate release.
“President Erdogan and senior Turkish officials have responded to the European Court’s judgment ordering Demirtaş’s release with false arguments that it does not apply to his current detention and that the court’s rulings are not binding on Turkey,” said Aisling Reidy, senior legal adviser at Human Rights Watch. “The Committee of Ministers should call on Turkey to release Demirtaş immediately and leave no doubt that disregarding or attempting to bypass judgments of the Strasbourg court is unacceptable.”
Selahattin Demirtaş, former co-chair of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), a pro-Kurdish rights opposition party to the government of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has been held in Edirne F-Type prison in western Turkey since November 4, 2016.
The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights ruled that in initially detaining Demirtaş and then prolonging his detention for over four years, the Turkish government pursued an ulterior purpose of preventing him from carrying out his political activities, depriving voters of their elected representative, and “stifling pluralism and limiting freedom of political debate: the very core of the concept of a democratic society.”
Ordering Demirtaş’s immediate release, the court found that Turkey had violated rights protected by Articles 5.1 and 5.3 (right to liberty) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 10 (right to freedom of expression), Article 3 Protocol 1 (the right to free and fair elections), and Article 18 (misuse of limitations on rights in the Convention), by pursuing Demirtaş’s detention for political ends.
In finding the government acted in bad faith (Article 18 violation), the court notably refers to Demirtaş’s current detention, from September 20, 2019 which relates to an investigation into deadly protests in southeast Turkey on October 6-8, 2014. The Strasbourg court said what Turkey was attempting to do was “a new legal classification” of the same facts, because the same “acts and incidents” had formed the basis on which Demirtaş had been detained up until September 2, 2019, and for which he is already on trial.
Finding a continuity between Demirtaş’s pretrial detention from November 4, 2016, to September 2, 2019, and again from September 20, 2019, to the present, the court termed the September 20 order a “return to pre-trial detention.” The Turkish government has rejected this finding and contends that Demirtaş is currently detained in the context of a case not covered by the European Court judgment.
“As the European Court of Human Rights made clear, Demirtaş’s detention on September 20, 2019, was in fact not a separate detention but a ‘return to pre-trial detention’ and a continuing violation of his Convention rights,” said Róisín Pillay, Europe and Central Asia Director of the International Commission of Jurists. “The Committee of Ministers should press Turkey to immediately end this abuse of judicial proceedings aimed at harassing an opposition politician.”
The groups’ submission provides a full analysis of political and legal developments since the issuing of the ECtHR Grand Chamber judgment – including a new indictment against Demirtaş – and repeated statements from Turkey’s president and senior officials that the Demirtaş judgment and European Court judgments in general are not binding on Turkey.
“Charging such a prominent political figure with 30 serious ‘new’ offences based on political speeches mostly 6 years ago, which the Court already found to be protected, is pure repackaging – a thinly veiled attempt to circumvent compliance with the Court’s judgment requiring immediate release,” said Helen Duffy of the TLSP. “The Grand Chamber already rejected earlier ‘reclassification’ attempts, and it is time for a robust response by the Committee of Ministers to break the cycle of evasion.”
The groups urged the Committee of Ministers to place Demirtaş’s case under their enhanced procedures, treating it as a lead case, and to indicate that continued refusal to carry out the judgment may lead them to refer Turkey to the European Court for non-compliance. The groups urged the Committee of Ministers to call on the Turkish government to:
- Immediately release Demirtaş as required by the ECtHR judgment, and make clear that the judgment applies to his ongoing detention and to any future charges or detentions in which the factual or legal basis is substantially similar to that which the ECtHR has already addressed in its judgment;
- Halt all criminal proceedings initiated against Demirtaş following the constitutional amendment lifting his immunity, which was deemed unlawful by the ECtHR’s Grand Chamber;
- End the abuse of judicial proceedings to harass Demirtaş, stifle pluralism, and limit freedom of political debate, emphasizing that this cessation is essential to the restoration of Demirtaş’s rights;
- End interference in Demirtaş’s cases, especially by attempting to pressure or unduly influence judicial authorities; and
- Publicly correct false claims promoted by senior Turkish government officials that the Grand Chamber judgment in the Demirtaş case and European Court judgments more generally, are not binding.
Find the intervention here: Turkey-Demirtas_v_TurkeyExecution-JointSubmission-2021-ENG
Türkiye: AİHM Kararı Sonrasında Siyasetçi Serbest Bırakılsın
Avrupa Konseyi Bakanlar Komitesi, Türkiye’den Demirtaş Kararının Uygulanmasını Talep Etmelidir
(İstanbul, 4 Mart 2021) — Beş ayrı insan hakları örgütü bugün yaptıkları açıklamada, Avrupa Konseyi Bakanlar Komitesi’nin, Türkiye’yi Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi kararına uyarak muhalif Kürt siyasetçi Selahattin Demirtaş’ı serbest bırakmaya yönlendirmesi gerektiğini belirtti. Bu beş insan hakları örgütü ARTICLE 19, İnsan Hakları İzleme Örgütü, Uluslararası Hukukçular Komisyonu, Uluslararası İnsan Hakları Federasyonu ve Türkiye İnsan Hakları Davalarına Destek Projesi’nden oluşuyor.Hak örgütleri, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi (AİHM) kararlarının uygulanmasının denetiminden sorumlu Avrupa Konseyi Bakanlar Komitesi’ne detaylı bir ortak bildirimde bulunarak, Komitenin 9-11 Mart 2021 tarihli toplantısında bu konuda karar almasını talep ettiler. Örgütler, Türkiye’nin AİHM’in 22 Aralık 2020 tarihli Demirtaş’ın serbest bırakılmasını gerektiren önemli kararını görmezden gelerek Demirtaş’ın haklarını ihlal etmeye devam ettiğini ifade ettiler.
İnsan Hakları İzleme Örgütü Kıdemli Hukuk Danışmanı Aisling Reidy, “Cumhurbaşkanı Erdoğan ve üst düzey yetkililer, Demirtaş’ın serbest bırakılmasını öngören AİHM kararına, kararın mevcut tutukluluğa uygulanmadığı ve Mahkemenin kararlarının Türkiye için bağlayıcı olmadığı yönündeki yanlış argümanlarla cevap verdiler” dedi. Reidy, “Bakanlar Komitesi, Türkiye’yi Demirtaş’ı derhal serbest bırakmaya çağırmalı, AİHM kararlarını görmezden gelmenin veya etrafından dolanmaya çalışmanın kabul edilemez olduğuna dair şüpheye yer bırakmamalıdır” dedi.
Cumhurbaşkanı Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’ın hükümetine muhalif Kürtlerin haklarını destekleyen politik çizgideki Halkların Demokratik Partisi (HDP) eski eş başkanı Demirtaş, 4 Kasım 2016’dan bu yana Türkiye’nin batısındaki Edirne F Tipi Cezaevi’nde tutuluyor.
AİHM Büyük Dairesi, kararında “Türkiye hükümetinin, Demirtaş’ı tutuklayıp, tutukluluğunu 4 yıldan fazla sürdürerek onun siyasi faaliyetlerini engellemek, seçmenleri seçilmiş temsilcilerinden mahrum bırakmak, demokratik bir toplumun temeli olan çoğulculuğu ve siyasi tartışmayı kısıtlamak yönünde örtülü amaçlar taşıdığı” ifadelerine yer verdi.
Demirtaş’ın derhal serbest bırakılması gerektiğine karar veren Mahkeme, Türkiye’nin Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesi’nin 5/1 ve 5/3. maddeleri (özgürlük hakkı), 10. madde (ifade özgürlüğü hakkı), 1. Ek Protokol 3. madde (serbest seçim hakkı) ve 18. madde (haklara getirilecek kısıtlanmaların sınırlanması) ile korunan hakları ihlal ettiğini tespit etti.
Mahkeme, hükümetin hakların kısıtlanmasında kötü niyetle hareket ettiğini tespit ederken (madde 18 ihlali), 6-8 Ekim 2014’te Türkiye’nin güneydoğusunda ölümlerin yaşandığı protestolara ilişkin bir soruşturma kapsamında Demirtaş’ın 20 Eylül 2019’dan bu yana tutuklu olduğunun altını çizdi. AİHM, Türkiye’nin bu soruşturmada yapmaya çalıştığı şeyin aynı olguların “yeni bir hukuki vasıflandırması” olduğunu, çünkü aynı “eylemler ve olayların” Demirtaş’ın 2 Eylül 2019’a kadar sürdürülen tutukluluğuna ve hakkında o süreçle bağlantılı olarak devam eden yargılamaya esas alındığını belirtti.
Demirtaş’ın 4 Kasım 2016’dan 2 Eylül 2019’a kadarki tutukluluğu ile 20 Eylül 2019’dan bu yana devam eden tutukluluğu arasında bir süreklilik tespit eden Mahkeme, 20 Eylül tarihli kararı “tutukluluğa geri döndürme” olarak tanımladı. Türkiye Hükümeti ise bu tespiti reddetti ve Demirtaş’ın şu an AİHM kararı kapsamında olmayan bir dava dolayısıyla tutuklu olduğunu iddia ediyor.
Uluslararası Hukukçular Komisyonu Avrupa ve Orta Asya Direktörü Róisín Pillay, “Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin açıkça belirttiği gibi, Demirtaş’ın 20 Eylül 2019’da tutuklanması aslında ayrı bir tutuklama değil, ‘tutukluluğa geri döndürmedir’ ve Sözleşme’de yer alan haklarının ihlalinin sürdürülmesidir” dedi. Pillay, “Bakanlar Komitesi, muhalif bir siyasetçiyi taciz etmek amacıyla adli işlemlerin kötüye kullanılmasına derhal son vermesi için Türkiye’ye baskı yapmalıdır” dedi.
Hak örgütlerinin bildirimi, Demirtaş aleyhindeki yeni iddianame, Türkiye’nin Cumhurbaşkanı ve üst düzey yetkililerinin Demirtaş kararının ve genel olarak AİHM kararlarının bağlayıcı olmadığına ilişkin tekrar eden açıklamaları da dahil olmak üzere AİHM Büyük Dairesinin kararı sonrasında gerçekleşen siyasi ve hukuki gelişmelere ilişkin kapsamlı bir analiz sunuyor.
Türkiye İnsan Hakları Davalarına Destek Projesi’nden Helen Duffy, “bu kadar önemli bir siyasi figürü, Mahkemenin koruma kapsamında olduğunu tespit ettiği ve çoğunlukla 6 yıl önceki siyasi açıklamalarına dayanan 30 “yeni” ve ciddi suçla itham etmek, Mahkemenin derhal serbest bırakma kararına uymaktan kaçınma girişiminin bir tekrarıdır.” dedi. Duffy, “Büyük Daire daha önceki ‘yeniden vasıflandırma’ girişimlerini reddetmiştir, Bakanlar Komitesinin kararı uygulamaktan kaçınma döngüsünü kırmak için buna güçlü bir yanıt vermesinin zamanı gelmiştir.” dedi.
Hak örgütleri, Bakanlar Komitesini Demirtaş’ın davasını nitelikli denetim prosedürü altında izlenmek üzere sınıflandırmaya ve öncü dava olarak kabul etmeye, Türkiye’nin kararın uygulanmasını reddetmeye devam etmesinin, bu nedenle AİHM’e yönlendirilmesine yol açabileceğini dile getirmeye davet ettiler. Örgütler, Bakanlar Komitesinin Türkiye hükümetine yönelik şu çağrılarda bulunmasını talep ettiler:
- AİHM kararının gereği olarak Selahattin Demirtaş’ın derhal serbest bırakılması için çağrıda bulunulmalı, Büyük Daire kararının Demirtaş’ın devam eden tutukluluğunu da kapsadığı, kararın AİHM tarafından da değinildiği gibi olgusal ya da yasal dayanakları ciddi ölçüde benzer olan, gelecekte ileri sürülebilecek suçlamaları veya yapılabilecek tutuklamaları da kapsayacağı vurgulanmalıdır.
- AİHM Büyük Daire tarafından hukuka aykırı bulunduğu üzere, Demirtaş’ın dokunulmazlığını kaldıran Anayasa değişikliğinden sonra kendisine yöneltilen tüm ceza yargılamalarının durdurulması konusunda çağrıda bulunulmalıdır.
- Demirtaş’ın yargı yollarının kötüye kullanılması yolu ile taciz edilmesini durdurmaya, çoğulculuğun bastırılması ve siyasi tartışma özgürlüğünü sınırlanmasına son vermeye ve bunun Demirtaş’ın haklarının iadesi için önemli olduğunu vurgulamaya çağrılmalıdır.
- Yargı makamlarına baskı yapmaya veya onları hukuka aykırı bir şekilde etkilemeye çalışarak Demirtaş’ın davalarına doğrudan müdahale etmeye son vermeye çağrılmalıdır.
- Üst düzey yetkililer tarafından savunulan Demirtaş davasındaki Büyük Daire kararının ve daha genel olarak AİHM kararlarının bağlayıcı olmadığı yönündeki yanlış iddiaları kamuya açık bir şekilde düzeltmeye çağırılmalıdır.
Find the submission in Turksish: Turkey-Demirtas_v_TurkeyExecution-JointSubmission-2021-TUR
Mar 1, 2021 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today addressed the UN Human Rights Council in the General Debate on the Report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the impact of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic on the enjoyment of human rights around the world, including good practices and areas of concern.
The statement reads as follows:
Madam High Commissioner,
The ICJ welcomes your important report on the impact of COVID-19 on human rights.
We consider that an additional critical issue is the importance of access to justice in the realization of all rights, and, particularly, State failures in ensuring human rights compliant access to COVID-19 vaccines.
For instance, Tanzania, Burundi, Eritrea and Madagascar have failed even to attempt to acquire vaccines, and South Africa not yet begun to roll them out to the general population. Zimbabwe has failed to communicate vaccine acquisition and roll out plans.
In Colombia there is an alarming increase of killings and death threats against human rights defenders in some municipalities which could create barriers in accessing the COVID-19 vaccine.
The ICJ is concerned that Guatemala, El Salvador and Costa Rica reportedly intend to inhibit access to vaccines to undocumented non-citizens, in violation of their obligation of non-discrimination.
Finally, many States continue to fall short of their international cooperation and assistance obligations by not endorsing the WHO’s COVID-19 Technology Access Pool, and South Africa and India’s waiver proposal to the WTO’s Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Council.
The ICJ calls on the Human Rights Council to remind States of their duty to ensure effective access to justice for violations of human rights, including the right to health.
I thank you”
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, ICJ UN Representative, e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org, t: +41797499949
Mar 1, 2021 | Advocacy, News
Between December 2020 and February 2021, the ICJ co-hosted a series of workshops for government authorities, medical professionals and lawyers in the southern border provinces of Thailand on how to conduct investigations into alleged unlawful killings and enforced disappearances.
Thailand’s southern border provinces of Pattani, Yala, Narathiwat and four districts of Songkhla have been affected by a longstanding ethno-nationalist insurgency, which has involved conflict between certain Malay groups and Thai military and security forces. Special security laws have been enacted and applied to the deep south. Over recent years, there are reports of widespread human rights violations, including violations of due process and fair trial rights, torture, ill-treatment while in custody, arbitrary detention and extrajudicial killings continue to emerge. Investigations into these allegations, prosecutions of perpetrators and provision of remedies and reparations to victims remain slow.
The first workshop was organized between 21 and 22 December 2020 in Songkhla province for authorities from Thailand’s southern border provinces. The event focused on how investigations into unlawful deaths should be conducted in accordance with international human rights law and standards, with a particular focus on the revised Minnesota Protocol (2016), which the ICJ assisted in producing.
The workshop was co-hosted with Thailand’s Ministry of Justice, the Embassy of New Zealand in Bangkok, and the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). The participants included 48 judges, public prosecutors, police investigators, representatives of the Ministry of Justice’s Department of Special Investigation (DSI), the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), the Narcotics Control Board (ONCB) and observers from the Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC) Region 4 Forward.
The second workshop was organized on 23 and 24 December 2020 in Pattani province for medical professionals in the same region. The event introduced participants to the international human rights law and standards governing the effective investigation and documentation of torture and other ill- treatment, including the revised Minnesota Protocol (2016) and the Istanbul Protocol (1999), and emphasized the important role of medical professionals in the documentation of torture.
The workshop was co-hosted with Thailand’s Ministry of Justice and the OHCHR. The participants included 28 medical professionals from district and military hospitals and detention centres.
Between January and February 2021, the ICJ also developed training videos for defence lawyers and civil society representatives in the southern border provinces. The videos focused on the use of forensic evidence in cases of alleged unlawful killings and how international human rights law and standards, particularly the revised Minnesota Protocol (2016) and ICJ’s Practitioners’ Guide No. 14, can assist defence lawyers when preparing for criminal proceedings and challenging the forensic evidence of prosecution witnesses.
The project was jointly implemented with the OHCHR, Cross-Cultural Foundation, Muslim Attorney Centre Foundation and the Embassy of New Zealand in Bangkok. Participants included 21 defence lawyers and civil society representatives from Thailand’s southern border provinces.
Speakers at the three workshops included:
- Amornrat Lekvichai, Thailand’s Institute of Forensic Science;
- Badar Fafukh, Human Rights Officer, OHCHR Regional Office for South-East Asia;
- Duangsamorn Chudeechan, Thailand’s Institute of Forensic Science;
- Duarte Nuno Vieira, Full Professor, Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra and Chairman of the Scientific Advisory Board of the International Criminal Court;
- Gisle Kvanvig, Head of UN Police Secretariat, Norwegian Center for Human Rights;
- Howard Varney, Senior Programme Advisor, International Center for Transitional Justice;
- Ivar Fahsing, Expert on investigation and Human Rights, Norwegian Center of Human Rights;
- Porntip Rojanasunan, member of the Expert Advisory Panel of the revision of the Minnesota Protocol;
- Sanhawan Srisod, ICJ Associate Legal Adviser;
- Stephen Cordner, Professor Emeritus, Department of Forensic Medicine, Monash University and editor of the Forensic Science sections of the 2016 Minnesota Protocol;
- Steve Wood, Senior Liaison Officer and Regional Coordinator, New Zealand Police National HQ;
- Stuart Casey-Maslen, Honorary Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Pretoria and Research Coordinator of the Minnesota Protocol;
- Thomas Wenzel, Full Professor, Faculty of Medicine, University of Vienna; and
- Vitit Muntarbhorn, Professor Emeritus, Faculty of Law, Chulalongkorn University and Former ICJ Commissioner.
The workshops are part of the ICJ’s ongoing efforts under the Global Accountability Initiative to ensure the domestic implementation of international law and standards on the investigation of potentially unlawful deaths and enforced disappearances.
In Thailand, since 2017, the ICJ has held several national and regional-level workshops on the same topics with justice sector actors, defence lawyers and civil society representatives.
Contact
Sanhawan Srisod, ICJ Associate Legal Adviser, Asia & the Pacific Programme, e: sanhawan.srisod(a)icj.org
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Director, Global Redress and Accountability; e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
See also
Thailand: launch of the revised Minnesota Protocol
Feb 25, 2021 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today addressed the UN Human Rights Council in the Enhanced Interactive Dialogue on the Report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Belarus in the context of the 2020 presidential election.
The statement reads as follows:
“Madam President,
The International Commission of Jurists welcomes the High Commissioner’s report on the situation of human rights in Belarus (A/HRC/46/4).
The ICJ stresses the need to address the systemic issues underlying unfair trial, arbitrary detention, torture, other ill-treatment and enforced disappearance in Belarus. In particular, it is crucial to ensure an independent judiciary and bar association.
Without comprehensive reforms to these institutions, there is little prospect of fair trial, or of effective remedies or accountability for the widespread human rights violations occurring after the 2020 election.
The ICJ is alarmed at recent arrests and disbarments of lawyers in connection with the protests. Disbarred lawyers include Aleksandr Pylchenko as well as Liudmila Kazak, the fourth lawyer of Maria Kolesnikova, a detained opposition figure, to have suffered consequences as a result of their professional activities. Furthermore, criminal cases have been initiated against lawyers Ilya Saley and Maxim Znak.
We call on the Human Rights Council to establish a mechanism to collect and preserve evidence, identify perpetrators, and support accountability for gross human rights violations in Belarus.
The Council should further call on Belarus to
- promptly and fully implement the High Commissioner’s recommendations;
- co-operate with and facilitate access of the Special Rapporteur to the country;
- uphold the independence of judges and lawyers, in accordance with international law and standards.
I thank you.”
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, ICJ UN Representative, e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org, t: +41797499949
Feb 25, 2021 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today addressed the UN Human Rights Council in the Interactive Dialogue on the Report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka.
The statement reads as follows:
“Madam President,
The ICJ welcomes the comprehensive OHCHR report on Sri Lanka.
We share OHCHR’s observation that domestic initiatives for accountability have repeatedly failed to produce results, ‘more deeply entrenching impunity, and exacerbating victims’ distrust in the system.’ [A/HRC/46/20, pp. 52]
The ICJ has continuously observed that Sri Lanka’s incapacity and unwillingness to pursue accountability for crimes under international law is deep-rooted and longstanding.
The extensive militarization of civilian functions, the reversal of constitutional safeguards, the obstruction of the rare cases of domestic criminal accountability and the deteriorating human rights situation all point to a systemic culture of impunity that will only worsen in the years to come.
Sri Lanka’s failure to establish a hybrid accountability mechanism in the five years since the adoption of Resolution 30/1 demonstrates a complete lack of political will to hold perpetrators accountable. The rights of the victims of human rights violations cannot be ignored any longer.
The ICJ endorses all of OHCHR’s recommendations, particularly the call for international and external accountability processes, whether before the ICC or through the exercise of universal jurisdiction by other States.
We further call for enhanced monitoring and reporting on the ground situation and for the establishment of a mechanism for the collection and preservation of evidence for future prosecution.
Madam High Commissioner, how can OHCHR ensure that the victims’ call for accountability is effectively fulfilled?
I thank you.”
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, ICJ UN Representative, e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org, t: +41797499949
