Oct 4, 2019 | Advocacy, News
Reform of the 1959 Defence Services Act is a necessary step to address ongoing military impunity. The case of Ko Par Gyi’s killing should be reopened to satisfy the State’s international law obligations and deter repetition of serious crimes by soldiers.
Five years after the death of journalist Ko Par Gyi, the ICJ calls on the Government of Myanmar to reform the 1959 Defence Services Act, which was used to shield soldiers from accountability for involvement in his killing.
“The case is emblematic of the 1959 Defence Services Act being used to enable impunity for human rights violations by soldiers throughout Myanmar, by transferring to military courts the authority to investigate and prosecute serious crimes against civilians,” said Frederick Rawski, Asia Pacific Region Director for the ICJ.
“Impunity for Ko Par Gyi’s death is another example of this law being used to shield soldiers from accountability for serious crimes,” added Rawski. “Legislators should reform the 1959 law to enable the public criminal prosecution of soldiers for serious crimes in all circumstances, and take other steps to address the accountability gap.”
After being detained by police in Mon State and transferred into military detention on 30 September 2014, Ko Par Gyi died four days later in the custody of Tatmadaw soldiers. Unceremoniously buried in a shallow grave, Ko Par Gyi’s death was hidden from his family and the public for weeks. Nobody has been held accountable for his death and his family lacks access to redress, including their right to know the truth.
A deeply flawed inquiry carried out secretly in military courts, pursuant to the 1959 Act, resulted in the acquittal of the soldiers allegedly involved. This effectively ended other efforts to hold the perpetrators accountable, including through an inquest at the Kyaikmaraw Township Court in Mon State. It also flouted the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission’s recommendation for a police investigation and public criminal trial to be undertaken by civilian authorities.
“Five years on, Myanmar authorities must finally initiate a thorough, independent and impartial investigation into the killing of journalist Ko Par Gyi,” said Sean Bain, legal adviser for the ICJ. “The truth must be established and recognized, and those responsible for his apparently unlawful killing need to be brought to justice in fair trials,” he added.
Several provisions of the 1959 Act are used to facilitate a transfer of cases involving military personnel from civilian to military courts, including for serious crimes against civilians. This has been used as a tool to avoid accountability in cases throughout Myanmar, such as its use to justify the early release of soldiers who were convicted by a military court in the killing of ten Rohingya civilians in Rakhine State in 2017.
International legal standards prohibit the use of military courts to try military personnel for gross human rights violations and crimes under international law. The detention and prosecution of journalists, based solely on their lawful activities undertaken while doing their job, violates the right to freedom of expression, and the rights to seek, receive and impart information and to participate in public affairs.
Myanmar authorities have an obligation to reopen the case of Ko Par Gyi with a view to establishing the circumstances of his death, as with any potentially unlawful killing by either State or non-State actors.
“By empowering civilian courts to oversee such cases, the NLD Government would send a powerful message to all justice sector institutions, including police, prosecutors and judges, that they can and should review potential crimes involving the military with independence and impartiality, in line with the rule of law,” added Bain.
The National League for Democracy (NLD)-led Government has the legislative authority to immediately reform the 1959 Act to align it with international standards. The ICJ has called for reform of this law, including by allowing the prosecution of soldiers for serious crimes to be undertaken under the jurisdiction of civilian courts.
See also:
ICJ, “The investigation and prosecution of potentially unlawful death: ICJ Practitioners’ Guide no. 14,” 14 September 2019, available here.
ICJ, “Achieving Justice for Gross Human Rights Violations in Myanmar – a baseline study,” 16 January 2018, available here.
Contact
Sean Bain, ICJ legal adviser, e: sean.bain(a)icj.org
Full statement with additional information, in English: Myanmar-Ko Par Gyi killing-Press-Releases-2019-ENG (PDF)
Full statement, in Burmese: Myanmar-Ko Par Gyi killing-Press-Releases-2019-BUR (PDF)
Oct 3, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Today, the ICJ, jointly with the World Organisation against Torture (OMCT) and REDRESS, made a submission to the UN Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of the United States of America.
The joint submission focusses on the United States’ longstanding failure to:
(1) provide effective remedy and redress, including medical care, and
(2) guarantee fair trials to the “High Value Detainees” who are still held in Guantánamo, including Mr. Mustafa al Hawsawi.
Through a system of classifications, isolation, detention and counter-terrorism related policies the United States’ government is preventing a category of victims of torture and other ill-treatment from obtaining redress, fair trials and is securing impunity for perpetrators, contrary to recommendations in the previous UPR cycles.
For 18 years, the United States government has been violating numerous international human rights treaties it has ratified, first and foremost the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Such violations deserve serious attention in the upcoming UPR review.”
USA-UPR Review-Advocacy-non-legal submissions-2019-ENG (submission in PDF)
Sep 30, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ has made a submission to the UN Human Rights Committee in advance of its forthcoming examination of Pakistan’s follow-up report under International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
In its submission, the ICJ has brought to the Committee’s attention concerns in relation to the following issues:
- Shortcomings in the legal framework relevant to enforced disappearances;
- The continuing practice of enforced disappearances and, in this context, the ongoing impunity of law enforcement and security agencies;
- The promulgation of the Actions (in aid of civil power) Ordinance, 2019; and
- The ineffectiveness of the Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances.
The Human Rights Committee will examine Pakistan’s follow-up report during its 127th session, which will be held in Geneva from 14 October to 9 November 2019.
The UN Human Rights Committee issued its Concluding Observations in August 2017, following its review in July 2017 of Pakistan’s first periodic report. Among its many recommendations, for follow-up the Committee prioritized recommendations related to the death penalty; enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings; and freedom of religion, conscience and belief.
The Committee requested Pakistan to provide information on the implementation on these recommendations within one year of the adoption of the Concluding Observations, which was due on in August 2018.
Pakistan submitted its follow up report to the Committee in May 2019.
Download
Pakistan-UNHCR submission-advocacy-non legal submission-2019-ENG(submission in PDF)
Sep 30, 2019 | Advocacy, News, Publications
The ICJ today published a “Strategic Litigation Handbook for Myanmar.” In this, the ICJ seeks to offer an accessible, concise and substantial overview of the conceptual basis and purpose of strategic litigation.
The Handbook shows the potential impacts of strategic litigation in Myanmar, by drawing on experiences from Myanmar and other countries, while recognizing the related challenges and opportunities, as expressed by legal professionals and civil society actors. It is intended to be useful to all legal practitioners and community activists in Myanmar.
While there is no universal definition or conception of ‘strategic litigation,’ the term is typically used to describe litigation whereby the interests may go beyond those of the primary litigants. The various adjudication processes it entails are sometimes referred to as ‘public interest litigation’, ‘impact litigation’, ‘test case litigation’, or ‘community lawyering’. What they all have in common is the idea that courts and the law can be used as part of a campaign to achieve broader change in relation to matters seen to be in the broader public interest.
Part one of the Handbook explores core aspects of strategic litigation, including its origins, key concepts, potential impacts, challenges and forums. In part two, areas of law are identified which offer potential options for strategic litigation actions, including procedures, legislation and constitutional writs. Practical steps for the planning and application of strategic litigation, such as media strategy and case selection, are outlined in part three. Finally, part four of the Handbook discusses related challenges in the Myanmar context, including a discussion of requisite reforms required in the justice sector more broadly.
The Handbook (first edition) is published in Burmese and English.
Sep 27, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Today, at the close of the 42nd regular session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, the ICJ and other NGOs highlighted key acheivements and failures.
The joint civil society statement, delivered by International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) on behalf of the group, read as follows (not all text could be read aloud due to time limits):
“The Council reaffirmed that reprisals can never be justified. Council members rejected attempts to weaken the text including attempts to delete the references to the roles of the Assistant Secretary-General and the Human Rights Council Presidents. The resolution listed key trends such as the patterns of reprisals, increasing self-censorship, the use of national security arguments and counter-terrorism strategies by States as justification for blocking access to the UN, acknowledged the specific risks to individuals in vulnerable situations or belonging to marginalized groups, and called on the UN to implement gender-responsive policies to end reprisals. The Council called on States to combat impunity and to report back to it on how they are preventing reprisals, both online and offline. The Bahamas and the Maldives responded to this call during the interactive dialogue and we encourage more States to follow their good practice. We also encourage States to follow the good practice of Germany and Costa Rica in raising specific cases of reprisals. The Council also welcomed the role of the Assistant Secretary-General and invited the General Assembly to step up its efforts to address reprisals and ensure a coherent system-wide response.
We welcome the creation of a Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) on Venezuela as an important step towards accountability for the grave human rights violations documented by the High Commissioner. We urge Venezuela to cooperate with the FFM and to honor the commitments they have made during this session, including by allowing OHCHR unfettered access to all regions and detention centers and implementing their recommendations. Cooperation and constructive engagement and measures for international accountability and justice should be seen as complementary and mutually reinforcing.
We welcome the renewal and strengthening of the mandate of the Group of Eminent Experts on Yemen, sending a clear message to parties to the conflict – and to victims – that accountability is at the center of the mandate, and providing a crucial and much-needed deterrent to further violations and abuses. States should support the recommendations made by the GEE in their recent report, including prohibiting the authorization of transfers of, and refraining from providing, arms that could be used in the conflict to such parties; and clarifying the GEE’s role to collect and preserve evidence of abuses.
We welcome the renewal of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Cambodia, but regret that calls to strengthen the mandate of the OHCHR to monitor and report on the situation have been ignored. We regret that the resolution fails to accurately depict the continuing crackdowns on civil society and the severity and scale of recent attacks on the political opposition.
We welcome the renewal of the mandate of the Commission of Inquiry on Burundi. Its work is vital as the country heads towards elections in 2020. The Burundian Government should desist from denial and insults, and should cooperate with the Commission and other UN bodies and mechanisms.
We welcome that the EU and OIC have jointly presented a resolution on Myanmar requesting the High Commissioner to report on the implementation of the recommendations of the Fact-Finding Mission at HRC 45. However, the international community needs to take stronger action to ensure accountability for and cessation of grave international crimes, in particular by referring Myanmar to the ICC and imposing a global arms embargo – and by acting on the FFM’s reports, including those on economic interests of the military and on sexual and gender-based violence in Myanmar and the gendered impact of its ethnic conflicts.
The joint EU/OIC resolution on Myanmar welcomes the FFM report on the military’s economic interests, which identifies companies contributing to abuses. The High Commissioner, however, has still not transmitted the database of companies facilitating Israel’s illegal settlements more than 2 and a half years after its mandated release. The High Commissioner pledged in March to fulfil the mandate “within the coming months”. The ongoing unexplained and unprecedented delays have become a matter of credibility, for both the High Commissioner and the HRC. Mr. President, we request that you confer with the High Commissioner and advise as soon as possible when this important Council mandate will be fulfilled.
‘Cautious optimism’ best defines our approach to Sudan. While this year’s resolution, which welcomes the peaceful popular uprising, renews the Independent Expert’s mandate, supports the opening of an OHCHR country office, and highlights the role and needs of civil society, is an improvement on 2018, significant challenges remain. Ensuring accountability for the perpetrators of grave human rights and humanitarian law violations should be a central priority for the new Government, and the Council should assist in this regard.
We regret the lack of Council action on Kashmir and urge the Council, as well as India and Pakistan, to act on all the recommendations in the report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
On terrorism and human rights, we are deeply disappointed that Mexico and other States have partially acquiesced in attempts by Egypt to dilute or distract the work of the Special Rapporteur on counter-terrorism away from its appropriate focus on human rights violations while countering terrorism and human rights of victims of terrorism. We regret that States have asked the Special Rapporteur to spend the limited time and resources of the mandate, to comment on the overbroad concept of the “effects” of terrorism, by which Egypt and some other States seem primarily to mean macroeconomic, industrial, and investment impacts, rather than the human rights of individual victims. The length to which States seem willing to put the existing Special Rapporteur’s mandate at risk, in the name of protecting it, while failing even to incorporate stronger consensus text on human rights issues included in the most recent merged parallel resolution at the General Assembly, suggests that the merger of the previous Mexican and Egyptian thematic resolutions no longer holds any real promise of positive results for human rights.
We welcome the adoption of the resolution on the question of the death penalty, which is an important reflection of the movement towards the international abolition of this cruel punishment. Significantly, this resolution reiterates and affirms the position of international law that the abolition of the death penalty is an irrevocable commitment and that an absolute prohibition exists to guard against its reintroduction. We also welcome the acknowledgement of the ‘most serious crimes’ threshold that acts to restrict the death penalty, in States that have yet to abolish it, only to crimes of extreme gravity; this resolution plainly identifies that criminal conduct that does not result directly and intentionally in death can never meet the threshold test and can never serve as a basis for the use of the death penalty. We are very pleased to acknowledge that the adoption of this resolution is complimentary to the General Assembly’s resolution calling for an international moratorium on the death penalty and, together, they serve to illustrate the advancing global commitment to abolition.
We welcome the Council’s renewed attention to the protection of the right to privacy in the digital age: fully integrating human rights into the design, development and deployment of Artificial Intelligence, machine learning technologies, automated decision-making, and biometric systems, is essential to safeguard not only the right to privacy, but also to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and association, and economic social and cultural rights.
On human rights in the administration of justice, we welcome the focus in this year’s resolution on concrete measures to prevent and respond to violence, death and serious injury in situations of deprivation of liberty, which illustrates the potential of thematic resolutions to set out specific practical, legal and policy steps that can be drawn on by governments, civil society, and other stakeholders to have real positive impact at the national level.
We commend Australia for its leadership on Saudi Arabia, as well as the other States who stood up for women’s rights activists and accountability. We urge more States to live up to their commitment to defend civil society and sign the statement in the coming 2 weeks.
We appreciate the attention paid by individual governments to the situation in China, including the dire situation facing Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims; the crackdown on human rights defenders, including those working to draw attention to violations of economic, social and cultural rights; and the suppression of fundamental freedoms in Tibet. However, we deplore that the Council and many of its members have once again failed to take decisive action to ensure monitoring and reporting on the human rights situation in the country, especially Xinjiang, and press for access for the High Commissioner.
For five years since the last joint statement in March 2014, the Council has failed to hold Egypt accountable for continuing systematic and widespread gross human rights violations. In the latest crackdown on peaceful protests, reports indicate that more than 2000 people have been arrested in the past week. When will the Council break its silence and convene a Special Session to address the grave and deteriorating human rights situation in Egypt?”
Signatories:
- International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
- DefendDefenders (the East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project)
- Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI)
- CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
- Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies
- Asian Legal Resource Centre
- Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
- International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
- Amnesty International
- Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
- Human Rights Watch
- International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
Sep 26, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today highlighted challenges and urged strengthening and support for the Special Jurisdiction for Peace in Colombia, at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.
The statement was delivered during a general debate on technical assistance and capacity-building. It read as follows:
“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) appreciates the contribution of UN technical assistance and capacity-building to implementation of the Peace Agreement in Colombia.
Full implementation of the Peace Agreement is important to the fulfilment of Colombia’s international human rights obligations, including rights of victims. In particular, the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP by its Spanish acronym) is playing a key role in addressing accountability for gross human rights violations committed during the internal conflict in Colombia.
The JEP faces several challenges.[1] First, the JEP must do more to strengthen effective participation of victims in its procedures. Second, the Special Jurisdiction from the outset should ensure that the sanctions it imposes and reparation measures it orders are sufficient and appropriate to meet international standards. Third, national authorities, including the President and the Parliament, must respect the judicial independence of the Special Jurisdiction.
The ICJ also highlights the need for effective measures to address security threats faced by victims and witnesses appearing before the JEP.
We urge the UN, States and other stakeholders to provide technical assistance and capacity building towards strengthening guarantees for victim’s rights in the JEP’s procedures, and we urge the Human Rights Council to follow closely the work of the Special Jurisdiction for Peace to ensure it makes an effective contribution to fulfilling Colombia’s obligations under international law.”
[1] See also ICJ, Colombia: The Special Jurisdiction for Peace, Analysis One Year and a Half After its Entry into Operation (executive summary in English and full report in Spanish available at: https://www.icj.org/colombia-the-special-jurisdiction-for-peace-one-year-after-icj-analysis/).
