Mar 6, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Speaking at the UN Human Rights Council, the ICJ today urged States to decriminalize consensual sexual relations, including between people of the same sex.
The statement, delivered during an interactive dialogue with the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy, read as follows:
“The ICJ welcomes the report of the Special Rapporteur on privacy, particularly the recommendation to repeal laws criminalizing consensual sexual activity, cluding between people of the same sex.
The ICJ agrees that criminalization of consensual same-sex relations violates international law and standards, including the rights to privacy, non-discrimination and equal protection.
The ICJ advocates for the abolition of laws that criminalize consensual sexual relations – including between people of the same sex – that still exist in many countries around the world.
In Indonesia, for example, a draft Penal Code currently includes a provision that would criminalize “extramarital” sexual acts between consenting persons, including persons of the same sex. We note that the draft provision may superficially appear to be gender neutral because it would penalize both men and women, but studies have shown that, in practice, criminalization of “adultery” and extramarital sexual relations typically results in disparate, discriminatory impacts against women and girls. Malaysia and other States that are former British colonies in Asia, likewise, have similar provisions in their criminal laws penalizing consensual sexual relations.
Like the Special Rapporteur, the ICJ in urges States to repeal laws that criminalize consensual sexual activity – including between people of the same sex.”
Mar 5, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today expressed concern at violations of human rights perpetrated in the name of countering violent extremism, and at attempts by some States at the Human Rights Council to dilute its focus on human rights while countering terrorism and the human rights of victims of terrorism.
The statement, delivered during an interactive dialogue with the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, read as follows:
“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) welcomes your report on “Human rights impact of policies and practices aimed at preventing and countering violent extremism” (A/HRC/43/46).
The ICJ shares concern at the growing range of measures that restrict human rights, adopted in the name of the opaque and contested concepts of countering or preventing violent extremism. At the Council, certain States push for agreed language on suppression of terrorism to be cut-and-pasted to apply to “violent extremism”, and then eventually to all “extremism” whether violent or not, without definitions. As your report documents, at the national level this translates into overbroad, unjustified, arbitrary, and discriminatory measures, with particular impacts on civil society, especially human rights defenders, and from a gender perspective.
We also share the view expressed at para 51 of your report, that the current draft report of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee on “the negative effects of terrorism on the enjoyment of human rights”, remains fundamentally flawed. Any discussion of “effects of terrorism” at the Council should exclusively focus on a human-rights based approach to victims of terrorism, consolidating work already undertaken by successive Special Rapporteurs and other UN and regional entities, as collected in a compilation published recently by the ICJ.[1] The Council must not allow its attention and limited resources to be diverted away from the human rights of victims of terrorism and protecting human rights while countering terrorism, to more diffuse questions of a macro-economic or budgetary character or duplicating work of other bodies.”
[1] See https://www.icj.org/victimsofterrorism2019/ and https://www.icj.org/icj-highlights-rights-of-victims-of-terrorism-to-un-delegations/
Feb 28, 2020 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions
The ICJ has intervened with an expert opinion to support the board members of the Turkish Medial Association in the appeal against their conviction for hate speech offences. The conviction raises significant concerns for freedom of expression.
The case before the Appeal Court concerns 11 defendants, all members of the Council of the Turkish Medical Association: Mehmet Raşit Tükel, Taner Gören, Sinan Adıyaman, Mehmet Sezai Berber, Selma Güngör, Bülent Nazım Yılmaz, Funda Barlık Obuz, Dursun Yaşar Ulutaş, Ayfer Horasan, Şeyhmus Gökalp and Hande Arpat.
On 3 May 2019, the defendants were convicted at first instance by the Ankara 32 Assize Court for having issued statements opposing the war during Turkey’s Operation Olive Branch in Syria.
The Assize Court concluded that the members of the Council publicly provoked hatred or hostility in one section of the public against another section which has a different characteristic based on social class, race, religion, sect or regional difference, in a way that creates an explicit and imminent danger to public security. The Court sentenced each defendant to two terms of 10 months’ imprisonment for provoking the public to hatred and hostility in two separate statements.
Hande Arpat was additionally convicted of “disseminating propaganda in support of a terrorist organization” to 18 months and 22 days in prison concerning her three Facebook posts.
The ICJ expert opinion presented before the Court of Appeal examines international law standards relevant to the criminalization and prosecution of crimes of expression.
Turkey-AssDoctors-ExpertOpinion-2020-ENG (download the expert opinion in English)
Turkey-AssDoctors-ExpertOpinion-2020-TUR (download the expert opinion in Turkish)
Feb 28, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
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.
Feb 27, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
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.
Feb 27, 2020 | Advocacy, News
In January and February 2020, the ICJ supported community dialogue events on international and national law and standards relating to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief.
The events were organized by the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) for around 50 youths and human rights defenders from Chin State and Bago Region in Myanmar.
The program sought to improve the capacity of local youths and human rights defenders from Chin State and Bago Region to understand how freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) is protected by the international and national legal frameworks and apply this understanding to their activities.
The ICJ’s national legal researcher, Ja Seng Ing, introduced the concept of freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) u, and applicable international standards on FoRB for Myanmar including how FoRB interacts with other human rights such as freedom of expression. She presented an overview of the domestic legal framework on FoRB and highlighted the State’s obligation to implement such laws and policies to respect and protect the equality, non-discrimination and other rights of individuals and to particularly address violations of their rights to FoRB.
The participants raised the need to improve the quality of public discussion on FoRB and related human rights, and shared this experiences in advocating for the protection of FoRB – including the limitation and challenges that they have faced.
The activities are part of the ICJ’s ongoing effort to convene civil society actors and lawyers in Myanmar with a view to advancing FoRB in the country, and builds on the ICJ’s previous work on this theme.
Contact
Ja Seng Ing, ICJ Legal Researcher, e: jaseng.ing(a)icj.org
Related material
Primer on international human rights law and standards on the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, January 2019
New report examines right to freedom of religion or belief in Malaysia, March 2019
