Apr 6, 2020 | Advocacy, Analysis briefs, News
The briefing paper is published today in the context of significant uncertainty and distress experienced by migrant workers, refugees, asylum seekers, stateless people and other non-citizens in South Africa as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the measures that the authorities have taken with the stated aim of responding to it.
“All people residing in South Africa have the right to work and in earn a living in the country under international human rights law. The Government of South Africa should guard against laws, policies and public statements that discriminate against non-citizens especially during the public health emergency caused by COVID-19. Lockdown regulations and directions must be conceived and implemented in a way that fully enables all migrant workers performing essential services, including informal traders, waste reclaimers and shop owners to operate on an equal basis with South African citizens,” said Arnold Tsunga, the ICJ’s Africa Director.
The ICJ has previously condemned discriminatory statements made about non-citizen owners of “spaza shops” made by Minister Khumbudzo Ntshavheni in the context of COVID-19, and called on President Ramaphosa to publically repudiate these statements.
The briefing paper, which was produced in consultation with domestic, South African human rights organizations: the Socio-Economic Rights Institute and Lawyers for Human Rights, sets out the following clear principles of international human rights law regarding non-citizens’ right to work in South Africa:
- Everyone, regardless of citizenship status, has the right to work in South Africa under, among others, the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights;
- This right to work, which is binding on South Africa, adds to the government’s constitutional obligations in terms of rights at work or the “right to fair labour practices”;
- The right to work protects both formal and informal workers, including non-citizens, in accordance with ILO Recommendation 204 and the General Comments of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;
- The right to work applies to non-citizens irrespective of their documentary status in South Africa;
- No restrictions on the “core” obligations placed on states in terms of the right to work, as set out by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, are permissible;
- Restrictions or limitations on the right to work are permissible if they are set out in clearly in legislation, in pursuit of a legitimate objective, and are reasonable and proportionate taking into account the need to protect human dignity consistently with international human rights law and the Constitution;
- Any restrictions on non-citizens’ rights to work should be administrative (such as requiring permits or documentation), rather than substantive or categorical, otherwise they are likely to amount to prohibited forms of discrimination in terms of international and South African law; and
- Any administrative process designed by the State in this regard must be reasonable and proportionate and geared towards facilitating non-citizens ability to work in SA instead of limiting them.
Contact:
Tim Fish Hodgson, ICJ Legal Adviser, e: tim.hodgson(a)icj.org ; c: +2782871990
Shaazia Ebrahim, ICJ Media Officer, e: shaazia.ebrahim(a)icj.org ; c: +27716706719
Download
South Africa-Non Citizens Right to Work-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2020-ENG (full paper in PDF)
Mar 24, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
In light of the global COVID-19 pandemic outbreak—qualified as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization (WHO)—the ICJ, together with 39 other organizations, today expressed grave concern over the situation of detainees and prisoners across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and called on governments in the MENA region to:
- Make known to the public their country-specific, and if relevant, facility-specific policies and guidelines in place to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in detention centers, prisons, and police stations.
- Share their emergency preparedness plans and provide specific training to relevant staff and authorities to ensure sufficient and sustained access to healthcare and hygiene provision.
- Conduct a thorough review of the prison population and in turn, reduce their prison populations by ordering the immediate release of:
-
- “Low-risk” detainees and prisoners, including those convicted or held in pretrial detention (remand) for nonviolent offences; administrative detainees; and those whose continued detention is not justified;
- Detainees and prisoners particularly vulnerable to the virus, including the elderly, and individuals with serious underlying conditions including lung disease, heart disease, diabetes, and autoimmune diseases.
- Allow individuals serving probation and probationary measures to fulfill their probation and probationary measures in their homes.
- Guarantee that individuals who remain in detention:
-
- Have their right to health effectively upheld by being granted full access to medical care as required;
- Access COVID-19 testing and treatment on a standard equal to that governing the general population;
- Are provided with means of communication and opportunities to access the outside world when in-person visits are suspended;
- Continue to enjoy their right to due process, including but not limited to the right to challenge the lawfulness of their detention, and their right not to experience delays that would render their detention arbitrary.
Full English language joint statement (in PDF): MENA-Covid-19-Prisons-Advocacy-2020-ENG
Full Arabic language joint statement (in PDF): MENA-Covid-19-Prisons-Advocacy-2020-ARA
Mar 12, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
At the UN, the ICJ today highlighted the need for Kazakhstan to ensure the independence of the legal profession and the judiciary, in particular by ending the arbitrary disbarment of lawyers.
The statement, delivered during the adoption of the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review of Kazakhstan by the Human Rights Council in Geneva. The statement read as follows:
“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) welcomes the acceptance by Kazakhstan of the recommendations by Denmark (138.83), France (139.85), Mexico (139.86) and Austria (139.113) to uphold the rule of law and to protect the independence of the legal profession and the judiciary.
The ICJ however regrets that Kazakhstan only noted and did not explicitly support the recommendation by Czechia to “take immediate measures to ensure the effective protection of lawyers, media workers, bloggers and human rights defenders against any form of harassment” (139.114).
Furthermore, based on ICJ research, we regret to report that Kazakhstan’s assertion that the accepted recommendations are “in the process of implementation” (A/HRC/43/10/Add.1, para. 4) is simply not correct.
On the contrary, the ICJ considers that the independence of the legal profession is being actively undermined in the country.
The ICJ expresses particular concern at disbarment proceedings initiated by the Ministry of Justice, including the recent disbarment of Amanzhol Mukhamediarov and Yerlan Gazymzhanov.[1]
Finally, the situation is exacerbated by a Law on Advokatura that does not require the Bar Association’s authorisation to initiate disbarment proceedings.
To actually implement the recommendations accepted by Kazakhstan, ICJ calls on Kazakh authorities to stop all harassment of lawyers through disciplinary proceedings, readmit the lawyers unduly disbarred and reform its Law on Advokatura in line with international standards on independence of the legal profession.”
[1] See ICJ statement at https://www.icj.org/kazakhstan-disbarment-of-erlan-gazymzhanov-and-amanzhol-mukhamediarov-undermines-the-independence-of-the-legal-profession-icj-says/ .
Mar 11, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
ICJ has joined other NGOs in urging India, Pakistan and the Human Rights Council, to take action to address the grave situation for human rights in Jammu & Kashmir.
The joint statement read as follows:
“Our organizations express grave concern over the human rights situation in Jammu & Kashmir, where the authorities imposed severe restrictions after a decision to revoke constitutional autonomy on 5 August 2019, including one of the world’s longest internet shutdowns, which the Indian Supreme Court has said violates the right to freedom of expression.
Hundreds were arbitrarily arrested, and there are some serious allegations of beatings and abusive treatment in custody, including alleged cases of torture. Three former chief ministers, other leading politicians, as well as separatist leaders and their alleged supporters, remain in detention under the Public Safety Act (PSA) and other abusive laws, many without charge and in undisclosed locations outside of Jammu & Kashmir. This violates fair trial safeguards of the criminal justice system and undermines accountability, transparency, and respect for human rights. Journalists and human rights defenders have been threatened for criticizing the clampdown. These violations, as those committed over the past decades, are met with chronic impunity.
We urge the government of India to ensure independent observers including all human rights defenders and foreign journalists are allowed proper access to carry out their work freely and without fear, release everyone detained without charge, and remove restrictions on the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of movement, including where they have been denied the right to leave the country by being placed on the ‘Exit Control List’.
We also call on the governments of India and Pakistan to grant unconditional access to OHCHR and other human rights mechanisms to Kashmir.
We further urge the Council to establish an independent international investigation mechanism into past and ongoing crimes under international law and human rights violations by all parties in Kashmir, as recommended by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Thank you.
- Amnesty International
- Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
- CIVICUS – World Alliance for Citizen Participation
- Human Rights Watch
- International Commission of Jurists
- International Federation for Human Rights Leagues (FIDH)
- International Service for Human Rights
- World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT)”
Mar 10, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ and other NGOs today highlighted the discriminatory character of India’s Citizenship Amendment Act, and called for accountability for violence and excessive use of force in relation to protests against it, today at the Human Rights Council in Geneva.
The joint statement, delivered in a general debate, read as follows:
“India’s Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) arbitrarily excludes certain groups at risk of persecution, such as Muslims, from accessing an expedited path to citizenship, based on their religious affiliation.
The CAA is inconsistent with rule of law principles and international law, including the right to equality before the law and the right to non-discrimination, protected under human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, to which India is a party.
The implementation of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam risks making 1.9 million persons stateless. A nationwide NRC will put more people at risk.
Our organizations urge the Indian government to amend the CAA to ensure that any path to citizenship provides for equal protection for persecuted persons, and does not discriminate on grounds such as religion or national origin.
We also urge India to develop a comprehensive refugee law that addresses the plight of persecuted minorities in a non-discriminatory manner, and to accede to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol.
We further call on India to respect the right to peaceful assembly, and to ensure accountability for those alleged to have instigated violence or used excessive force in relation to the nationwide protests against the CAA.”
The statement was delivered by ICJ on behalf also of Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), CIVICUS – World Alliance for Citizen Participation, Human Rights Watch, International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), Minority Rights Group International, and World Organization against Torture (OMCT).
The statement can be downloaded in PDF format here: ICJ statement GD item 4 India (10-03-2020)
Mar 10, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today spoke in the final interactive dialogue with the current UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar, at the Human Rights Council in Geneva.
The statement read as follows:
“The ICJ salutes what the current Special Rapporteur has achieved in the mandate despite withdrawal of cooperation by the Government, and shares the concerns expressed in this final report (A/HRC/43/59), particularly the urgent need to establish peace and security in Rakhine State without compromising human rights law and international criminal accountability for gross human rights violations.
The ICJ recalls the obligations of Myanmar under international human rights law. The Government must ensure that human rights are not violated in the context of conflict with the Arakan Army. The longstanding internet shutdown in Rakhine and Chin States must be ended. Due process rights of persons arrested must be respected.
The ICJ also welcomes the Order of provisional measures in the case brought by The Gambia at the International Court of Justice. Myanmar must comply and prevent further acts of genocide.
The Myanmar Government must also ensure accountability for mass atrocities. In a briefing paper last year, the ICJ proposed Constitutional, legislative and institutional reform of Myanmar’s National Human Rights Commission to enable it to independently and effectively investigate allegations of human rights violations. The Myanmar Government should also cooperate with the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar and the International Criminal Court.
The ICJ would like to ask: based on your experience in the mandate, how can States best strengthen support for the mandate and the various international accountability initiatives underway?”
