Jun 2, 2020 | Advocacy, News
At a webinar hosted on 26 May, the ICJ heard from women human rights defenders (WHRDs) from Asia, Africa, and the Middle East discussed the adverse impact on women of lockdowns and other measures imposed by governments around the world as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Reports from around the world indicate a rise in the number of cases of domestic violence and new challenges faced by women victims in accessing justice.
“Support or assistance for women experiencing domestic violence was not classified as an essential service that may continue when the country went on lockdown,” said Nonhlanhla Dlamini who is the Director of Swaziland Action Group Against Abuse (SWAGAA) in Eswatini. Still, SWAGAA and other NGOs in Eswatini persisted in their work to lobby the government to classify their work as an essential service. The government later provided authorization to allow SWAGAA’s staff to move more freely in order to assist women experiencing gender-based violence during the lockdown.
Theresia Iswarini, Commissioner of Indonesia’s National Commission on Violence Against Women (KOMNAS Perempuan), observed that because of the limited movement during the lockdown, NGOs are having a hard time reaching women experiencing domestic violence who do not have phones or any devices to access the internet.
NGOs also face the challenge of placing these women in safehouses because they need to first present a certificate that they are COVID-free before they are accepted in the safehouse and such certificates are almost impossible to secure during the pandemic.
The WHRDs assisting women experiencing gender-based violence often also need psychosocial support, as “they also have to deal with the additional burdens of overseeing the homeschooling of their children and caring for family members who may have also fallen ill.”
In Sri Lanka, Mariam Dawood who is the Legal Adviser from Women in Need (WIN), noted that “women in Sri Lanka have always faced this problem and [of being] ignored when they report gender-based violence to police authorities.”
She also shared that while courts had started to operate on a limited basis in the country, women in maintenance cases risk being exposed to infection because they have to appear in court at least every month to get an order from the judge to compel their spouses to pay alimony or child support.
These orders were not automatically renewable and must be obtained by women every month from the court.
ICJ Commissioner and Member of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women Nahla Haidar asked participants to think about how civil society could mobilize other stakeholders in pandemics to give an ethical call on how behaviors can change at home.
“Who is responsible? We have been trying to speak to faith leaders, especially women faith leaders [in the MENA region]. I am wondering how these channels can be used, as well as within traditional leadership channels in Africa,” Haidar said.
ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, Emerlynne Gil, noted that many of the issues raised showed that even during the pandemic, governments reproduced patriarchal approaches to public polices which effectively saw women as subordinate to men.
“This inequality underlines many of the actions taken by governments around the world to curb the pandemic,” said Emerlynne Gil. She added: “This means that it is all the more important for groups like the ICJ to continue its work eliminating gender stereotypes and discriminatory practices in the work of justice actors around the world.”
During the webinar, the ICJ launched an animation calling on States to adopt gender-sensitive responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Watch the animation here:
The webinar was live streamed on ICJ Asia’s facebook. Watch the livestream here:
May 12, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ has written to the Commissioner for Human Rights and the Rapporteurs on Turkey of the Parliamentary Assembly to alert them to the continued detention of Selahattin Demirtaş and Osman Kavala despite rulings by the European Court of Human Rights.
The International Commission of Jurists recalled that in both the Demirtaş and Kavala cases the European Court of Human Rights, in finding a violation of article 18 ECHR, determined that the detention of the applicants had been ordered in pursuance of an ulterior purpose than those allowed by article 5.1 ECHR.
That purpose was silencing of human rights and other activists, stifling pluralism and limiting freedom of political debate and utilizing pre-trial detention as a method of arbitrary punishment.
The Turkish government is however not releasing the applicants on the ground that the Chamber judgments have not yet become final.
Meanwhile, the authorities have initiated new investigations against both Demirtas and Kavala, and issued new detention orders on similar though not identical charges as those reviewed in the Court’s judgments, with the apparent intent not to implement the ECtHR judgments.
The ICJ considers that these developments may be seen as integral to the ulterior purpose identified by the Court in its Kavala and Demirtaş decisions. Under these conditions, both Kavala and Demirtaş may expect their arbitrary detention to be continued for an unlimited period of time through arrest orders based on fabricated investigations.
The ICJ further reiterated the importance of enabling access to alternatives to detention for all pre-trial detainees who may be at risk because of COVID-19 if they do not pose a current threat to public safety, regardless of the nature of the offences with which they have been charged. It stressed that, since Mr. Demirtaş and Kavala, along with many politicians and human rights defenders accused of security related offences in Turkey, do not pose a threat to public safety, they should be released as soon as possible.
ICJ-Letter-DemirtasKavala-PACERapporteurs-2020-eng (download the letter to the PACE Rapporteurs)
ICJ-Letter-KavalaDemirtas-CommissionerHR-2020-eng (download the letter to the Commissioner for Human Rights)
May 6, 2020 | Advocacy, News, Publications
In a report published today, the ICJ called on the police and prosecutorial authorities in Myanmar to re-open the investigation into the death of journalist Ko Par Gyi in military custody in September 2014.
The report documented the many barriers that have prevented justice from being served in this case, as well as other cases of gross human rights violations in Myanmar.
The ICJ called on the Union Parliament to repeal or amend the 1959 Defence Services Act and other legislation that effectively provides immunity to military personnel accused of serious crimes. These and other barriers have been described at length in the ICJ’s 2018 report on Achieving Justice for Gross Human Rights Violations.
“More than three years ago, the police abruptly ended their formal inquiry into the killing of Ko Par Gyi, without providing any justifiable legal rationale for its closure,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Director. “In the intervening years, we have seen what happens when this culture of military impunity goes unaddressed.”
In the report, An unlawful killing: How Ko Par Gyi’s death highlights barriers to justice in Myanmar, the ICJ evaluated the various investigations into the death and identified three key obstacles to justice in the case:
- the existence and operation of national laws like the 1959 Defence Services Act that shield security forces from public criminal prosecutions, serving to deny victims and their families the right to truth about violations;
- sub-standard investigative practices that are vulnerable to political pressure and lacked independence, and simultaneous, separate and uncoordinated investigations that resulted in an unsystematic and ineffective approach to investigating the case; and
- a lack of transparency that denied the family their right to access information concerning the violations and accountability processes.
Ko Par Gyi was detained by police in Mon State and transferred to military detention on 30 September 2014. He died four days later in military custody. A deeply flawed inquiry carried out in military courts, pursuant to the 1959 Defence Services Act, resulted in the acquittal of the soldiers allegedly involved. Those same provisions are commonly used to transfer cases involving military personnel from civilian to military court. Under international standards, military courts should not be used to try military personnel or others for gross human rights violations and crimes under international law.
“It is no surprise that an international investigative mechanism has been established to look into alleged serious human rights violations in Rakhine and elsewhere in Myanmar,” said Rawski. “Myanmar’s legal framework does not provide adequate safeguards to ensure independent investigation into and prosecution of serious human rights violations. What happened to Ko Par Gyi’s case illustrates that all too clearly.”
The UN Human Rights Council has established an Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar (IIMM) to collect evidence and prepare files for criminal prosecution of the most serious international crimes and violations of international law committed in Myanmar since 2011.
Key recommendations in the report include:
- To the Executive and the Union Parliament: amend the 1959 Defense Services Act to align it with democratic principles, the constitutional guarantee of equal legal protection, and the State’s international law obligation to protect the right to life, including by prosecuting serious violations.
- To the Tatmadaw: apply standards and procedures in military courts that conform to international law, ensure all crimes perpetrated against civilians are tried in the civilian judicial system, and reform rules of engagement to explicitly instruct soldiers to protect life, consistent with international law.
- To the Myanmar Police Force and the Union Attorney General’s Office: align investigative procedures and practices with international law and standards.
- To the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission: take an active and broad interpretation of the MNHRC mandate to address serious human rights violations including those which have gone before courts.
- To UN Member States and international organizations: ensure any organizational support to security forces is contingent on and enables demonstrable commitments to prevent and punish violations by its members.
This report was produced as part of the ICJ’s Global Accountability Initiative, which aims at combatting impunity and promoting redress for gross human rights violations around the world through the entrenchment of the rule of law
Download
An unlawful killing: How Ko Par Gyi’s death highlights barriers to justice in Myanmar in English and Burmese.
Press statement with additional background information on Ko Par Gyi in English and Burmese.
Contact:
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director, (Bangkok), t:+66 64 4781121, e: frederick.rawski@icj.org
Kingsley Abbott, Coordinator of the ICJ’s Global Accountability Initiative, t: +66 94 470 1345; e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
May 1, 2020 | Advocacy
The ICJ, the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI), and the Centre for Civil and Political Rights (CCPR Centre) today published a legal opinion by ICJ Commissioner Professor Sarah Cleveland, on compliance of Kazakhstan’s Draft Law on the Procedure for Organising and Holding Peaceful Assemblies, with the Republic of Kazakhstan’s international human rights obligations.
“Excessive restrictions on freedom of peaceful assembly in Kazakhstan have been of significant concern to the UN Human Rights Committee, the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe, and other human rights bodies for many years,” said Sarah Cleveland.
“Kazakhstan now has an important opportunity to bring its law into compliance with its international human rights obligations, but the draft law currently being considered does not achieve this.”
The Opinion finds that the proposed legislation includes of number of restrictions on freedom of assembly that are fundamentally contrary to Kazakhstan’s human rights obligations, including (1) excessive notification and approval requirements; (2) excessive authority to ban an assembly; (3) a prohibition on spontaneous assemblies; (4) restriction of assemblies to specific locations; (5) preferential treatment for assemblies organized by the government; (6) a prohibition against foreigners, refugees, stateless persons from organizing or participating in assemblies, (7) excessive obligations on organizers and participants; and (8) excessive sanctions for organizers and participants. The timing and process for adopting a law that so fundamentally impacts domestic compliance with core human rights obligations itself raises serious human rights concerns, given the limited ability of civil society organizations and the general public to participate in a robust public debate regarding the law during the quarantine.
In light of these serious human rights concerns, the IBAHRI, the ICJ and the CCPR Centre urge the Senate and/or the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan to halt consideration of the Draft Law, and to seek guidance from the OSCE/ODIHR Panel of Experts on Freedom of Assembly and Association, the Office of UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, and/or the Venice Commission regarding how the current law on freedom of peaceful assembly might be revised consistent with Kazakhstan’s international human rights obligations.
Kazakhstan-Assembly Law Opinion-Advocacy-2020-ENG (full text in PDF)
May 1, 2020 | Advocacy, News
The ICJ today condemned the recent decisions of the governments of the Republic of Benin and Côte d’Ivoire to withdraw their respective declarations that gave individuals and nongovernmental organizations the right to directly bring cases of human rights violations against those States, before the African Court on Human and Peoples Rights.
The ICJ called on the authorities of both States to reconsider and rescind these decisions.
Coming after a similar withdrawal by Tanzania in November 2019, these withdrawal decisions serve to deprive the inhabitants of these countries access to a judicial remedy at the regional level for human rights violations, and undermine the effective of the African regional human rights system.
The ICJ stressed that withdrawal decisions serve to undermine Aspiration 3 of the African Union’s AGENDA 2063, by which the AU aims at “[a]n Africa of good governance, democracy, respect for human rights, justice and the rule of law.”
Both States have offered vague and unsubstantiated rationales for their decisions, but their actions follow their dissatisfaction with the outcomes of particular cases against them. Responses of this kind are effectively an attack on the independence of the Court and can serve to undermine the integrity of the Court itself.
The ICJ recalls that in February 2020, the Executive Council of the African Union called on African States to accede to the Protocol Establishing the African Court and to make the declaration required under article 34(6) of the Protocol. These decisions of the governments of Benin and Côte d’Ivoire to withdraw their article 34(6) declarations fly in the face of this call by the Executive Council of the African Union and greatly threaten the progress that has been made towards protection of human rights in Africa.
Background
Article 34(6) of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights establishing the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights requires that State Parties to the Protocol make a separate declaration in order to allow direct access to individuals and non-governmental organizations to bring cases against them before the African Human Rights Court. Benin which deposited its declaration on 8 February 2016 announced its withdrawal of the declaration on 23 April 2020. Benin claimed that its decision is based ‘dysfunctions and slip-ups’ it has increasingly observed in the work of the African Human Rights Court, allegedly resulting in the Court’s increasing departure from its mandate and core area of competence. Benin cited the earlier withdrawals of Rwanda and Tanzania as further justification for its decision.
Côte d’Ivoire, which deposited its declaration on 23 July 2013 and announced its withdrawal on 29 April 2020, says that its decision was based on what it considers to be ‘the serious and intolerable actions that the African Court has allowed itself’ and which ‘not only undermines the sovereignty of the state of Côte d’Ivoire … but are also likely to cause serious disruption to the internal legal order of states’.
Contact:
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Africa Director, C: +27716405926, or +254 746 608 859 E: arnold.tsunga@icj.org
Solomon Ebobrah, Senior Legal Advisor, ICJ Africa, C: +234 8034927549; E: Solomon.ebobrah@icj.org
Full text, in PDF: Ivory-Coast-Statement-Advocacy-ENG-2020
Apr 30, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ has joined other NGOs in highlighting the contribution of independent UN human rights experts in ensuring that measures against COVID-19 are consistent with human rights.
The statement, delivered by Amnesty International on behalf of the group of NGOs in an informal online meeting of the UN Human Rights Council, read as follows:
“We thank the Coordination Committee for the update on the work undertaken by the Special Procedures to date to highlight the human rights impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.
As States undertake extraordinary measures to curb the spread of COVID-19, we recognize the good faith efforts of many States to effectively protect the right to life, the right to health and other human rights as well as the well-being of their populations, and to curb the spread of COVID-19. States must ensure that quality health services and goods necessary for prevention and care are accessible, available and affordable for all. Health workers and other front-line workers should be provided with adequate protective equipment, information, training and psycho-social support. Key health services, including sexual and reproductive health information and services, should be confirmed as essential services and their provision guaranteed.
We also recognize that in other contexts, States have used emergency powers to enact repressive measures that do not comply with the principles of legality, proportionality and necessity and that may have the effect or intention of suppressing criticism and minimizing dissent.
In this regard, we take heart at the Special Procedures statement that “[t]he COVID-19 crisis cannot be solved with public health and emergency measures only; all other human rights must be addressed too“.[1] We particularly value the vast and interconnected responses by the Special Procedures highlighting the wide-ranging effects of the pandemic itself, as well as of measures taken by states in the name of responding to the global health crisis.
The Special Procedures have addressed the impact on economic, social and cultural rights, such as the rights to health, housing, water and sanitation, food, work, social security, education, healthy environment and adequate standard of living, and to equality and non-discrimination as cross-cutting rights.
The Special Procedures have also highlighted the increased risks of people with underlying health conditions, older people, people who are homeless or in inadequate housing, people living in poverty, persons with disabilities, LGBTI people, children, migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers, people living in refugee or IDP camps, and people deprived of liberty. They have also highlighted the effects on women and girls, calling for responses to consider factors such as their “sex, gender, age, disability, ethnic origin, and immigration or residence status among others“.[2]
We also welcome the various tools that have been developed by some mandate holders, such as the COVID-19 Freedom Tracker, the Dispatches, video messages and guidelines in addition to the vast number of press releases.[3] Making these tools readily accessible to all stakeholders is critical, as is considering ways to receive feedback and share learnings about their application. We encourage the Special Procedures to continue to deepen their analyses of state responses, including through reports to the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly, and to offer guidance, through the tools mentioned, to states on how to respond to the crisis in a human rights compliant manner.
Last but not least, we urge UN member states to cooperate fully with the Special Procedures. While country visits are suspended for the time being, this should not be used as an excuse not to co-operate. We call on states to respond in a timely manner to communications from the Special Procedures and to seek technical and expert advice from relevant mandate holders in relation to draft legislation to ensure that these are in line with states’ obligations to respect, protect and fulfil all human rights.”
The statement was joined by the following organisations:
- Amnesty International
- Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
- Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (CELS)
- CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
- Conectas Direitos Humanos
- DefendDefenders (East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project)
- Human Rights Law Centre
- Human Rights Watch
- ILGA World – The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (International Lesbian and Gay Association)
- International Commission of Jurists
- International Service for Human Rights
[1] https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25746&LangID=E
[2] https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/News.aspx
[3] https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/COVID-19-and-Special-Procedures.aspx
