The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) joined several human rights organizations in signing the following letter, urging state representatives at the Human Rights Council to ensure the extension of the UN Fact-Finding Mission on Libya’s mandate.
The ICJ today addressed the UN Human Rights Council in the Interactive Dialogue on the Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences.
The ICJ is concerned that the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHRPRA) are prioritizing young fit healthy persons to receive vaccinations. In the context of severe shortages of vaccines in South Africa and Southern Africa more generally, and in light of the stated aim of South Africa’s own vaccine roll-out plan to prioritize the most vulnerable in line with WHO advice, the vaccination of younger ‘elite athletes’ and young diplomats would appear unjustifiable on public health grounds. They are simply not priority groups for vaccination, especially where there is vaccine scarcity, inequality, and the promise by government of equality.
ICJ Africa Director, Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh stated,
“To date South Africa has administered just over 2.23 million vaccines mostly to health care workers and persons over 60 years old. This represents just 3.76% of the population. South Africa has the highest number of confirmed cases in Africa with more than 1.86 million who have been infected and where 59 000 have lost their lives. According to the South African Medical Research Council the excess deaths, which represent a more accurate representation of Covid-19 related mortality, is at 173 000. In this context the slow pace of vaccination coupled with the unfair and unequitable prioritisation of certain groups is contributing to a devastating third wave.”
A decision taken by SAHPRA appears to contradict the eligibility criteria of the Sisonke vaccine trial (a process where a vaccine was made available to health care workers using a research programme prior to the requisite approvals and licencing processes) to include among others ‘elite athletes’, enabling them to enjoy special privileged access to some of the remaining clinical trial stock, while others at risk could have been study subjects instead.
No reasons or public health-based justifications have been made publicly available as to why athletes and other persons working in sport as well government officials were given priority access. Ramjathan-Keogh added,
“No reasons or public health-based justifications have been made publicly available as to why these athletes and as well as sports and government officials have been prioritised to receive these vaccines from the Sisonke trial. If they cannot be justified on public health grounds, we are concerned that they may be non-compliant with human rights imperatives, and we question the ethical considerations of the approach”.
According to the Africa Centre for Diseases Control and Prevention as of 24 June there are 5.2 million cases reported across Africa, with 139 000 total deaths in Africa. Most new cases are from these five countries – South Africa (35%) Ethiopia (5%), Egypt (5%), Morocco (10%) and Tunisia (7%). The highest number of new cases are emerging from Southern Africa and from these countries: South Africa, Zambia, Namibia, and Uganda representing 63% of new cases in Africa.
The ICJ calls on South Africa to follow the World Health Organization’s guidance which is to prioritise those who are more vulnerable in respect of equitable access and fair allocation of vaccines. Further, South Africa has an international legal obligation to protect the right to health as a State party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
The supervisory body for that treaty, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) has affirmed that all healthcare goods, facilities, and services must be available, accessible, acceptable and of adequate quality. In addition, these goods, facilities, and services should be “accessible to all, especially the most vulnerable or marginalized sections of the population, in law and in fact, without discrimination on any of the prohibited grounds.” The right to health should be accessible without discrimination “even in times of severe resource constraints” such as those brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Read the letter.
Further Reading:
ICJ, “The Unvaccinated Equality not Charity in Southern Africa” (May 2020): https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Africa-The-Unvaccinated-Publications-Reports-2021-ENG.pdf
ICJ and Human Rights Watch, “More than words: it is time for urgent action on COVID-19 vaccines (UN Statement)” (21 June 2021): https://www.icj.org/more-than-words-it-is-time-for-urgent-action-on-covid-19-vaccines-un-statement/.
WHO, WHO SAGE values framework for the allocation and prioritization of COVID-19 vaccination (September 2020): https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/334299/WHO-2019-nCoV-SAGE_Framework-Allocation_and_prioritization-2020.1-eng.pdf
UN CESCR, Statement on universal and equitable access to vaccines for the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) (December 2020): https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=E%2fC.12%2f2020%2f2&Lang=en
UN CESCR, Statement on universal affordable vaccination against coronavirus disease (COVID-19), international cooperation and intellectual property (23 April 2020): https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=E%2fC.12%2f2021%2f1&Lang=en.
Contact
Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh, ICJ Africa Director, Kaajal.Keogh(a)icj.org
In May 2021 the ICJ wrote to The MultiChoice Group in South Africa urging it to suspend Emmanuel TV on any of the DSTV platforms for broadcasting televangelist Pastor TB Joshua’s multiple video clips ostensibly depicting violent ‘conversion therapy’ and hate speech against LGBT persons amounting to discrimination and human rights abuses. MultiChoice responded that it has “no editorial control or oversight” over Emmanuel TV as it is a “third-party channel” and therefore MultiChoice cannot investigate the incident further or take any remedial action.
MultiChoice claims on their website to “entertain, inform and empower African communities”. In addition to this, their entertainment platforms are a hub for approximately 14 million people across 50 countries. MultiChoice has a huge reach into African countries and in the homes of millions of people living in Africa. As a result, they have a responsibility to act in a way which does not promote harmful practises.
In response to ICJ’s letter, MultiChoice stated that it does not review the content broadcast on third-party channels such as Emmanuel TV prior to its broadcast. In place of a thorough investigation, the entertainment group said that it contacted Emmanuel TV and the latter stated that the ‘conversion therapy’ clips were not broadcast in April 2021. It is significant to note that Emmanuel TV did not deny that the clips were aired at all. Rather, MultiChoice alleged that it was simply “unable” to independently verify that the clip was broadcasted in April 2021 or at all.
Contrary to the impression given in its letter to the ICJ, MultiChoice is not limited to investigating offensive broadcasts that are aired within a specific time period. Additionally, while the ICJ notes MultiChoice’s assertion that Emmanuel TV is a third-party channel and consequently MultiChoice has no editorial control or oversight over the content of the channel, the ICJ believes that MultiChoice has a duty to not broadcast material that is discriminatory and in contravention of the South African Constitution.
MultiChoice has a responsibility to conduct a serious investigation into this matter and take the necessary remedial action. Consequently, we do not find that Emmanuel TV’s confirmation to MultiChoice, that the clip was not broadcast during April 2021 is sufficient; and MultiChoice’s inability to verify whether this program was broadcast at all, is unsatisfactory.
The UN Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, under the umbrella of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, has concluded in May 2020, that conversion therapy amounts to torture and ill-treatment and has called for a global ban on such practices.
In light of this, the ICJ is of the view that MultiChoice has a greater responsibility to the African audience to refrain from participating in the broadcast of such harmful practices, and must publicly take a stance against facilitating the airing of such broadcasts. The ICJ believes that MultiChoice’s responsibility as Africa’s “leading entertainment company” is not to pay “lip service” to the values of the South African Constitution, but rather to hold itself to higher thresholds of accountability.
ICJ has consequently urged MultiChoice to:
Contact
Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh, ICJ Africa Director, Kaajal.Keogh(a)icj.org
Tanveer Jeewa, Legal and Communications Officer, Tanveer.Jeewa(a)icj.org
In a letter of 3 May, the ICJ called on the Non-Executive Chair of the Multichoice Group, and the board of directors to immediately suspend Emmanuel TV on any of the DSTV platforms for broadcasting of televangelist Pastor TB Joshua’s multiple video clips ostensibly depicting a violent ‘conversion therapy’ and hate speech against LGBT persons amounting to human rights abuses.
One of the videos, shows Joshua slapping and pushing a woman at least 16 times, and telling her: “There is a spirit disturbing you. She has transplanted herself into you. It is the spirit of woman.”
By broadcasting Joshua’s channel, which openly advocates hatred against, and causes harm to, LGBTI persons, Multichoice Group’s actions are inconsistent with human rights law and standards, the South African Constitution and domestic legislation, which all proscribe discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The ICJ therefore urged Multichoice to urgently take the following steps to remedy this situation:
1. Immediately suspend Emmanuel TV on any of the DSTV platforms including Channel 309.
2. Immediately remove the offending video clips and provide an undertaking not to air them or similar offensive materials again.
3. Offer an apology from Multichoice Group to the LGBT persons.
4. Undertake an updating of the MultiChoice Group’s internal policies to bring them in line with human rights standards, the South African Constitution, and local laws on non-discrimination.
To read the full letter, click here.
Contact
Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh, ICJ Africa Director, Kaajal.Keogh(a)icj.org
Tanveer Jeewa, Legal and Communications Officer, Tanveer.Jeewa(a)icj.org
On International Women’s Day 2021, the ICJ publishes a paper considering the ways in which women in Eswatini face systematic discrimination in laws and practices, in violation of the country’s obligations under international human rights law with respect to women and girls’ right to health, including sexual and reproductive health.
The publication concludes with recommendations to the Eswatini authorities on how they may enhance women and girls’ ability to fully and equally benefit from and enjoy their right to health and their other human rights without discrimination.
The paper is entitled “Swazi Women’s right to health during the time of COVID-19: Recommendations to ensure enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health”. It was launched through a conversation with Zanele Thabede-Vilakati, the National Director of Women and Law in Southern Africa (WLSA) Research and Educational Trust in Eswatini. In the discussion, Thabede-Vilakati outlined the obstacles faced by Swazi women before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Talking about the ICJ publication, she added:
“The ICJ report on Swazi Women’s Right to Health during COVID-19 is an in-depth observation of all the issues which women face in their daily lives in getting access to their basic right to health. The recommendations made by the ICJ can only enrich Eswatini authorities’ approach to protecting and empowering women and I hope that they take these recommendations on.”
The report considers Eswatini’s obligations not only under national law, including under the Swazi Constitution, but also under international law in an effort to assess whether Eswatini is complying with its human rights obligations.
The report reflects on the obstacles that Swazi women have faced before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in exercising their right to health. Some of the key human rights concerns include: lack of access to sexual and reproductive healthcare; the high prevalence of HIV/AIDS among Swazi women; obstacles in accessing sexual and gender-based violence-related healthcare services; and inadequate access to shelters and housing for women in Eswatini.
Based on the publication’s assessment, recommendations are addressed to Eswatini authorities for specific measures to be taken to protect women, as well as meet Eswatini’s obligations under national, regional and international law.
Speaking about the report, ICJ’s Africa Regional Programme Director, Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh stated,
“The right to health is a crucial right to everyone, but in a country such as Eswatini – one of the most severely HIV affected countries in the world – women’s right to health is a priority as women remain disproportionally affected by HIV. We hope that this report and its recommendations cause the relevant actors to reflect on ways in which they can assist Swazi women, especially in light of the increased obstacles that women have faced in accessing their right to health due to the COVID-19 pandemic.”
In order to realize the right to health of women and girls in Eswatini, the report recommends that the Eswatini authorities take certain measures, including the following:
Background
Eswatini is a monarchy. Under its Constitution, customary law, except insofar as it is inconsistent with the former, is recognized as part of Eswatini’s legal system in addition to common law and statutory law. Eswatini is party to several binding international, including regional, human rights treaties guaranteeing the right to health, including sexual and reproductive health, for everyone, including women and girls. Irrespective of the protections afforded in Eswatini’s domestic legal system, as a matter of international human rights law, Eswatini is bound to fulfil its obligations to realize the right to health, including sexual and reproductive health.
Contact
Nokukhanya (Khanyo) Farisè, Legal Adviser (Africa Regional Programme), e: nokukhanya.farise(a)icj.org
Tanveer Jeewa, Communications Officer (Africa Regional Programme), e: tanveer.jeewa(a)icj.org
Download
Eswatini-Swazi Women Right to Health during COVID19-Report-2021-ENG
Strong push back against US sanctions on the International Criminal Court at UN Human Rights Council
ECtHR Grand Chamber Ruling in Semenya v. Switzerland: Joint Statement of Third-Party Interveners
UN Human Rights Council struggles to fulfil its mandate in the midst of global attacks on human rights, the rule of law and multilateralism
South Africa: ICJ urges high court to apply international law protecting migrants and refugees from discrimination and xenophobia in case involving vigilante attacks