Sep 29, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
At the Human Rights Council, the ICJ and other NGOs highlighted with concern renewed attacks against the Council’s independent experts, aimed at interfering with their independence.
The oral statement was delivered by Amnesty International, in the general debate on human rights bodies, on on behalf of 14 NGOs. It read as follows:
“It is with great concern that we note the renewed attacks against the Special Procedures of this Council, through which certain states seek to interfere with their independence and impose political oversight over individual experts. While we welcome the outcome of the informal discussions, we would like to raise a few issues of concern.
As we noted in our letter to you Madame President, the states signatories of the letters rely on PRST 8/2 of 18 June 2008 on the Terms of office of special procedure mandate-holders, which was originally adopted in the specific context of Council discussions on the extension of the terms of mandate holders, and should not be regarded as a wider framework for assessing the performance of mandate holders. Furthermore, the groups of states appear to have ignored the existing Internal Advisory Procedure, instead proceeding directly to attempts to impose political oversight by this Council.
We also note with great concern that several of the signatory states launched wholly inappropriate attacks of a personal nature against Special Procedure mandate holders in the past.1
The allegations presented against the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, in particular, seem little more than objecting to her being especially effective and proactive in doing exactly what this Council has tasked her to do, including monitoring and reporting on violations of the right to life and bringing these to the attention of the Council, and promoting respect for the right to life more generally.
We appreciate the efforts by the Coordination Committee to address broader issues related to the working methods of the Special Procedures, and welcome its willingness to work with the Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy on issues related to methodology and programming of the six outstanding country reports.
The independence of the Special Procedures is absolute in nature, and any attempts to erode that status threatens the credibility and integrity of this Council.
Thank you.”
Amnesty International
ARTICLE 19
Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
Center for Reproductive Rights
Child Rights Connect
CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
DefendDefenders (East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project)
Geneva for Human Rights
International Commission of Jurists
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR)
International Service for Human Rights
Privacy International
Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF)
1 Amnesty International and ISHR: HRC 37: Item 5: Human rights bodies and mechanisms, 14 March 2018, Index number: IOR 40/8032/2018, https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ior40/8032/2018/en/
Sep 29, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
At the Human Rights Council, the ICJ today highlighted the problem of abuse of counter-terrorism laws to perpetrate reprisals against those who cooperate with the UN, including particularly by Egypt.
The oral statement was delivered in a general debate on human rights bodies and mechanisms (item 5), and read as follows:
“Madame President,
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) welcomes the report of the Secretary General on Cooperation with the United Nations, its representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights (A/HRC/45/36). The ICJ particularly concurs with its conclusion that reprisals perpetrated through abuse of national security and counter-terrorism laws and measures continue at alarming levels (para 131), and that such abuse also frequently occurs in the context of broader repressive environments for civil society or dissent (para 132).
While the report documents such abuses in a number of countries, the pattern of abuse of such laws by the government of Egypt presented in the report should be of particular concern to this Council (paras 65 to 70, Annex I paras 40 to 51, Annex II paras 44 to 53).[1] Further relevant cases from Egypt continue, including shortly before this session began.
These reprisals resonate with broader patterns of abuse of counter-terrorism and national security laws in Egypt, including for instance targeting lawyers, which are also severely exacerbated by the lack of independence of the judiciary in Egypt, particularly in the special terrorism court circuits.
Madame President, these patterns of abuse only further illustrate and underscore civil society’s concern with the role Egypt seeks for itself on issues of terrorism and human rights at the Council. In that regard, we reiterate our concerns about the pending report of the Advisory Committee, responding to the request it received under the last Egypt-led separate resolution on “the effects of terrorism” (resolution 34/8) to report on “the negative effects of terrorism on the enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms, with a particular focus on economic, social and cultural rights, including as a result of diverting foreign direct investment, reducing capital inflows, destroying infrastructure, limiting foreign trade, disturbing financial markets, negatively affecting certain economic sectors and impeding economic growth.”
The Human Rights Council should not, Madame President, countenance such attempts to divert and dilute its limited resources and attention away from the most acute issues on this theme from a human rights perspective: preventing and responding to violations in countering terrorism and a human-rights based approach to victims of terrorism.”
[1] Underlying documents in a number of cases mentioned in A/HRC/45/36 reveal further links to abuses of counter-terrorism and national security laws: see e.g. A/HRC/39/31 para 38 and Annex I paras 32-35; A/HRC/27/38, para 24; A/HRC/36/31 para 33 and Annex I, para 34; and A/HRC/39/31 Annex II, paras 17-18, 21.
Sep 29, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ and IHOP today put the spotlight the lack of independence of the judiciary and the abuse of criminal and anti-terrorism laws in Turkey, speaking at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.
The statement, made during the consideration of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Turkey, reads as follows:
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and the Human Rights Joint Platform (IHOP) welcome the acceptance by Turkey of recommendations to ensure the independence of the judiciary (recommendations 45.112, 45.113, 45.114, 45.115, 45.118, 45.120, 45.121, 45.124, 45.125, 45.126, 45.127, 45.128, 45.129, 45.132, 45.133).
The ICJ and IHOP however regret to report that, based on their research and experience, the statements by the Turkish Government that the recommendations on the independence of the judiciary have already been implemented is simply not correct.
On the contrary, during the state of emergency more than 4000 judges and prosecutors were dismissed, more than 2000 judges and prosecutors were detained, through arbitrary processes that did not meet international standards.
The judiciary in Turkey does not enjoy basic guarantees of institutional independence because its Council of Judges and Prosecutors is fully appointed by the Legislative and Executive powers contrary to international standards on judicial independence.
The ICJ and IHOP further regret that Turkey only noted and did not explicitly support the recommendations to reform its penal and counter-terrorism legislation in line with international standards on freedom of expression (recommendations 45.90, 45.91, 45.92, 45.93, 45.94, 45.95, 45.96, 45.97, 45.98, 45.99, 45.100, 45.101, 45.102, 45.103, 45.104, 45.148, 45.158).
The statement by the Government that “legal amendments have already been adopted” and that these laws are in line with international standards is also fundamentally incorrect.
Anti-terrorism laws and other criminal offences continue to be abused to unjustifiably prosecute political opposition members, judges, lawyers, prosecutors and human rights defenders.
To actually implement the recommendations accepted by Turkey, ICJ calls on Turkish authorities to
- radically reform the governance of the judiciary to restore its independence in line with international standards;
- promptly finalize all criminal and administrative cases concerning former judges and prosecutors, respecting international standards of judicial independence;
- truly reform the country’s anti-terrorism law, and
- stop all arbitrary prosecution of human rights defenders, lawyers, judges, prosecutors and academics.
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org, t: +41797499949
Sep 25, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Today at the UN Human Rights Council, the ICJ together with the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy, drew attention to ongoing attacks on the independence and role of lawyers in Egypt.
The ICJ made the oral statement during the general debate on country situations of concern, speaking on behalf also of the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy. The statement read as follows:
“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy draw the Council’s attention to the continuing deterioration of the situation for human rights and the rule of law in Egypt.
Today our organizations published a new report, Targeting the Last Line of Defense: Egypt’s Attacks against Lawyers, to be followed by a virtual side event on 30 September.
As the last line of defense against the government’s sustained and broad crackdown on human rights and fundamental freedoms, Egypt’s lawyers have been increasingly and systematically targeted by authorities. Since 2018, at least 35 lawyers have been arrested and arbitrarily detained for their legal defense work and exercise of fundamental freedoms.
Lawyers have been subject to arbitrary arrest and detention, physical assault, torture and other ill-treatment, and enforced disappearances, as well as unfounded and politicized criminal proceedings based on charges under grossly overbroad criminal laws on “terrorism,” “spreading false news,” and “misusing social media.” Arrests of lawyers spiked in the wake of the September 2019 protests. Arrests continue despite the risk of a COVID-19 outbreak in detention facilities.
The ICJ and Tahrir Institute call on Egyptian authorities to end these violations of the rights and role of lawyers, to take measures to protect the independence of the Bar Association, and to amend all relevant legal frameworks in line with Egypt’s constitution and international human rights law and standards.
Thank you.”
The full statement can be downloaded (PDF) here: UN-Advocacy-Egypt-HRC45-2020
For more information, contact: un@icj.org
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).
