May 5, 2021 | News
The ICJ condemns the Danish authorities’ practice of revoking residence permits of Syrian refugees, mainly women and older men, on the false premise that Syria is safe for refugees’ return. Partly due to a lack of diplomatic relations with Syria, Denmark cannot forcibly remove refugees and instead detains them.
These practices should end immediately, individual assessments must be carried out in each case, and those detained pending removal should be immediately released, the ICJ said.
“International law requires that before any forcible removal, an individualized assessment of risks for each individual must be made and the principle of non-refoulement must be respected at all times,” said Róisín Pillay, ICJ Europe and Central Asia Director.
The principle of non-refoulement, prohibiting States to transfer anyone to a country where he or she faces a real risk of persecution or other serious human rights abuses, is a fundamental principle of international law and one of the strongest limitations on the right of States to control entry into their territory and to expel aliens as an expression of their sovereignty, as set out in Article 33 of the Geneva Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the Convention against Torture.
“Immigration detention pending removal is permitted only for as long as removal proceedings are in progress, and only if such proceedings are executed with due diligence and there is a realistic prospect that removal will be carried out within a reasonable time. Denmark’s practices fail to meet these standards as set out in international and EU law,” Pillay added.
At least 189 Syrians have had applications for renewal of temporary residency status denied since last summer, a move the Danish authorities said was justified because of a report that found the security situation in some parts of Syria had “improved significantly”. In March, ECRE and the Danish Refugee Council reported that the geographical scope of reassessments of cases of Syrian nationals has been expanded to include cases from greater Damascus with hundreds of cases set to be reassessed by the Appeals Board in 2021.
“The ‘improved situation’ assessment in Syria does not reflect the reality on the ground and runs counter to assessments of the UN, the European Parliament and other countries,” said Róisín Pillay.
On 11 March, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the conflict in Syria which “(r)eminds all Member States that Syria is not a safe country to return” for refugees, and “calls on all EU Member States to refrain from shifting national policies towards depriving certain categories of Syrians of their protected status, and to reverse this trend if they have already applied such policies.” The EP also opposed any “normalization of diplomatic relations with the Syrian regime as long as there is no fundamental progress on the ground in Syria, with clear, sustained and credible engagement in an inclusive political process.”
The UNHCR considers that “changes in the objective circumstances in Syria, including relative security improvements in parts of the territory, are not of a fundamental, stable and durable character so as to warrant cessation of refugee status on the basis of Article 1C(5) of the 1951 Convention.” Furthermore, “in light of continued conflict, insecurity, and contamination with explosive remnants of war (ERW); severe concerns about the rule of law and widespread human rights violations and abuses, including against returnees; fragmented community relations and a lack of genuine reconciliation efforts; massive destruction and damage to homes, critical infrastructure and agricultural lands; and deepening economic and humanitarian crises, which are compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic, UNHCR continues to call on states not to forcibly return Syrian nationals and former habitual residents of Syria, including Palestinians previously residing in Syria, to any part of Syria, regardless of whether the area is under control of the Government or under control of another state or non-state entity. ”
“The Danish authorities’ assessment of the situation in Syria refers solely to the situation of wide-spread violence and bombing in some parts of Syria, in total disregard of the continuing hostilities in other parts of the country, as well as Syria’s abysmal human rights record, including widespread and systematic use of torture and other ill-treatment, arbitrary detention and enforced disappearances,” said Said Benarbia, ICJ MENA Director.
Read the full statement here.
May 5, 2021 | Agendas, Events, News
On 7 May, the ICJ will hold a public consultation, together with the UN Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights and Equinet on Access to Justice for Housing Discrimination and Spacial Segregation.
Featured speakers include Special Rapporteur on the right to housing Balakrishnan Rajagopal; retired Justice Zak Yacoob of the South African Constitutional Court; Supreme Court of India Advocate Vrinda Grover; and Equinet human rights defender Valérie Fontaine
More info here.
May 4, 2021 | News
The removal of Lebanese public prosecutor Ghada Aoun from financial cases she had been overseeing constitutes a further attack on the independence of an already enfeebled judiciary, the International Commission of Jurists said today.
On 15 April 2021, Lebanon’s General Prosecutor removed Ghada Aoun, Mount Lebanon Public Prosecutor, from the financial cases she had been overseeing, including high-profile corruption and illegitimate gains cases. Aoun had charged Riad Salameh, the Governor of Lebanon’s Central Bank, with dereliction of duty and breach of trust, and had charged former Prime Minister Najib Mikati with illegitimate gains. She had also been overseeing and issuing arrest warrants in other high-profile cases.
“The Lebanese judiciary has a long history of utter subordination to the ruling political class in Lebanon,” said Said Benarbia, the Director of the ICJ MENA Programme.
“Removing prosecutors and investigating judges from cases solely because they carry out their legitimate functions flies in the face of the independence of the judiciary and sends a chilling message to others who might dare challenging the authorities.”
Aoun’s ouster followed the removal of investigative judge Fadi Sawan from the 2020 Beirut port blast case. Sawan was removed on 18 February 2021 by the Court of Cassation after bringing criminal negligence charges against the acting President of the Cabinet and former ministers in relation to the devastating explosion on 4 August 2020, in which nearly 200 people died and thousands more were injured. His removal by the Court of Cassation came after two former Ministers who were facing criminal charges filed a complaint against Fadi Sawan before the General Prosecutor, requesting his removal from the case.
The Lebanese authorities, including judicial authorities, should comply with their obligations under international law and ensure that judges and prosecutors be able to exercise their functions independently, free of any influences, pressures, threats or interference from any quarter or for any reason.
In August 2020, the ICJ urged the Lebanese authorities to work with the United Nations to establish a special, independent mechanism to probe the Beirut blast in line with international law and standards with a view to establishing the facts and making recommendations for appropriate accountability measures, including criminal prosecutions.
The call was informed by the ICJ publications and findings on the independence and functioning of the judiciary in Lebanon, including recommendations to ensure that the judiciary is not subject to any form of undue influence by political actors and confessional communities, and that it is able to fulfill its responsibility to uphold the rule of law and human rights.
This press release is also available in Arabic.
Contact:
Said Benarbia, Director, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3817; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Asser Khattab, Research and Communications Officer, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, e: asser.khattab(a)icj.org
May 3, 2021 | News
The ICJ today condemned the detention, interrogation and searches of premises of lawyer Ivan Pavlov, a prominent lawyer and head of the human rights legal group Team 29.
Pavlov was detained by Federal Security Service (FSB) agents on 30 April after a raid on his Moscow hotel suite and released later that day. According to the order to initiate criminal proceedings, Pavlov was charged with “disclosing the information of preliminary investigation” under Article 310 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
According to the charging order, Pavlov is accused of transmitting to the Vedomosti Newspaper a copy of a charging order against his client, journalist Ivan Safronov. Furthermore, Pavlov is charged with disclosing the nickname of one of the witnesses in the case.
According to the decision of the Basmanny Court on a preventive measure for Pavlov, he is prohibited from communicating with witnesses in his criminal case, except for close relatives, using the Internet and other means of communication.
“Russian authorities must stop this harassment of Ivan Pavlov and Team 29, which is almost certainly due to their representation of clients in several high profile cases,” said Roisin Pillay, ICJ’s director for Europe and Central Asia.
“These raids clearly interfere with lawyer-client privilege. The case files seized during the search should be returned to the lawyers and Pavlov should be able to continue his work in defence of all his clients free of harassment or fear of retaliation, as required by international standards,” she added.
According to the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers governments must ensure that lawyers “ … are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference; […] and (c) shall not suffer, or be threatened with, prosecution or administrative, economic or other sanctions for any action taken in accordance with recognized professional duties, standards and ethics” (Principle 16). Furthermore, lawyers cannot “be identified with their clients or their clients’ causes as a result of discharging their functions” (Principle 18).
Ivan Pavlov represents clients in a number of high-profile cases, including many who have been the subject of investigation by the FSB. His clients have included the Foundation Against Corruption of the Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny, the case of Russia’s Electric Energy Company (Inter RAO) manager Karina Tsurkan, physicist Victor Kudryavtsev, journalist Ivan Safronov and journalist Grigory Pasko.
Besides the raid on Pavlov’s hotel suite, authorities searched the office of Team 29 in St.Petersburg and the apartment of Pavlov’ wife. As a result of the searches, almost all of the case materials on Pavlov’s client Ivan Safronov were taken by law enforcement officers. These searches cannot be justified by allegations of disclosing information related to the investigation and raise concern that there may be illegitimate reasons for the criminal prosecution of the lawyer.
“While secrecy of a preliminary investigation may be a legitimate procedure, it does not afford justification for interference with the work of lawyers, including by accessing lawyers’ premises and files, and should never be misused as a means of intimidation and retaliation against lawyers”, said Roisin Pillay.
“The ICJ urges the Russian investigative authorities to cease any investigative actions which may breach the rights of the lawyer and to respect lawyer-client privilege in cases where he represents clients no matter how sensitive the cases may be perceived to be”.
Communications and documentation that lawyers maintain in respect of their professional relationship with their clients is legally protected, under international and Russian law, from seizure and disclosure pursuant to the lawyer-client privilege principle. In particular, the rights to a fair trial, and family and private life are guaranteed under the European Convention for Human Rights (articles 6 and 8 respectively) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (articles and 14 and 17 respectively).
As the European Court of Human Rights repeatedly stated “[…] persecution and harassment of members of the legal profession strikes at the very heart of the Convention system. Therefore the searching of lawyers’ premises should be subject to especially strict scrutiny. ” (Kolesnichenko v. Russia (Application no. 19856/04 para 31). This right is equally protected by Russian legislation, in particular Article 8 of the Law on Lawyers’ Activity and Advokatura in the Russian Federation, and as shown by the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in the Balayan and Dzhuba case (see below).
The full story with additional information can be downloaded here:
Russia-end-harassment-of-lawyer-Ivan-Pavlov-2021-ENG
May 3, 2021 | News
European leaders at the May 8, 2021 summit with their Indian counterparts should prioritize the deteriorating human rights situation in India, including the right to health, the ICJ and seven other organizations said today.
With a devastating Covid-19 crisis affecting the country, Europe should focus on providing support to help India deal with the acute shortage of medical supplies and access to vaccines. At the same time, European leaders should press the Indian government to reverse its abusive and discriminatory policies and immediately release all human rights defenders and other critics who have been jailed for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.
The organizations are Amnesty International, Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW), Front Line Defenders (FLD), Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), International Dalit Solidarity Network (IDSN, International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), and World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT).
India has the fastest-growing number of Covid-19 cases in the world and is facing severe healthcare shortages – of testing capacity, medicines, ambulance services, hospital beds, oxygen support, and vaccines. The European Union and its member states should reconsider and reverse their opposition to India and South Africa’s proposal before the World Trade Organization to temporarily waive certain intellectual property rules under the TRIPS Agreement to facilitate increased manufacturing and production of vaccines and related products globally, until widespread vaccination is in place the world over.
The Covid-19 crisis has also highlighted growing human rights concerns in India.. Faced with widespread criticism of its handling of the pandemic, the Indian government has tried to censor free speech, including by ordering social media content taken down and criminalizing calls for help. The government has also ignored calls from the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for countries to release “every person detained without sufficient legal basis, including political prisoners, and those detained for critical, dissenting views” to prevent the growing rates of infection everywhere, including in closed facilities such as prisons and detention centers.
Instead, the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government has increasingly harassed, intimidated and arbitrarily arrested human rights defenders, journalists, peaceful protesters, and other critics, including under draconian sedition and counterterrorism laws.
The authorities have jailed a number of human rights defenders, student activists, academics, opposition leaders, and critics, blaming them for the communal violence in February 2020 in Delhi as well as caste-based violence in Bhima Koregaon in Maharashtra state in January 2018. In both cases, BJP supporters were implicated in the violence. Police investigations in these cases were biased and aimed at silencing dissent and deterring future protests against government policies, the groups said.
The government uses foreign funding laws and other regulations to crack down on civil society. Recent amendments to the Foreign Contributions Regulations Act (FCRA) added onerous governmental oversight, additional regulations and certification processes, and operational requirements, which adversely affect civil society groups, and effectively restrict access to foreign funding for small nongovernmental organizations. In September 2020, Amnesty International India was forced to halt its work in the country after the Indian government froze its bank accounts in reprisal for the organization’s human rights work, and many other local rights groups struggle to continue doing their work.
The Indian authorities have also enacted discriminatory laws and policies against minorities. Muslim and Dalit communities face growing attacks, while authorities fail to take action against BJP leaders who vilify minority communities, and against BJP supporters who engage in violence. The Indian government has imposed harsh and discriminatory restrictions on Muslim-majority areas in Jammu and Kashmir since revoking the state’s constitutional status in August 2019 and splitting it into two federally governed territories.
The authorities carried out counterterrorism raids in October on multiple nongovernmental organizations in Kashmir and Delhi, and a newspaper office in Srinagar to silence them, causing a chilling effect on human rights defenders who fear for their safety.
Yet, despite the considerable deterioration in the country’s human rights record under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Indian government has effectively shielded itself from the international scrutiny and reactions that the seriousness of the situation should have warranted. Focusing on strengthening trade and economic ties with India, the European Union and its member states have been reluctant to formulate public expressions of concern on human rights in India, with the exception of occasional statements focused solely on the death penalty.
To read the full statement, click here.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Secretary General, t: +66 627026369, e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Apr 30, 2021 | News
The ICJ today condemned the Sri Lankan cabinet’s approval of the proposed ban on face coverings, which, if adopted by Parliament would directly discriminate against Muslim women
The Cabinet on 27 April approved the proposal put forward by Minister of Public Security Sarath Weerasekara on March 13 to ban face coverings including the burqa and niqab citing national security grounds.
The ICJ has called on the Sri Lankan Parliament to categorically reject this discriminatory proposal as a violation of the right to freedom of religion.
“The Sri Lankan Government’s justification for banning face coverings rings hollow during a time when it has quite sensibly made the wearing of face masks in public mandatory to address the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Ian Seiderman, ICJ’s Legal and Policy Director.
The Government of Sri Lanka temporarily banned full-face coverings by way of an emergency regulation in the aftermath of terrorist attacks on Easter April 2019, in which 269 people were killed and at least 500 others injured. This ban resulted in the stigmatization and harassment of Muslim women, including those who were only wearing a hijab (head covering).
“While the Sri Lankan Government has an obligation to protect its inhabitants from the threats to their lives and well-being, that protection is a part of, and not in conflict with, its overall duty to protect human rights,” said Ian Seiderman.
Freedom of religion and belief is guaranteed under article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Sri Lanka is a party. Freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of one’s choice is similarly guaranteed by Article 10 of the Sri Lankan Constitution. Article 14 (1) (e) ensures the freedom to manifest one’s religion in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
The UN Human Rights Committee has affirmed that under the ICCPR “the observance and practice of religion or belief may include not only ceremonial acts, but also such customs as the wearing of distinctive clothing or head coverings.”
The ICJ concurs with Ahmed Shaheed, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, who has stressed that “burqa bans are incompatible with international law guarantees of the right to manifest one’s religion or belief and of freedom of expression.”
“While the authorities may take necessary and proportionate steps to confirm a person’s identity to meet a specific security concern, a blanket ban on face coverings in the name of national security does not hold water,” Seiderman said. “It would invariably result in discriminatory practices and lead to the stigmatization of Muslim women,” he added.
Under ICCPR article 18(3) any limitation on freedom of religion must be non-discriminatory and must be necessary and proportionate to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
The UN Human Rights Committee has consistently held that under international law, a blanket ban on face coverings cannot be justified as necessary or proportionate to its stated legitimate aim of promoting public safety, while recognizing the need for States, in certain contexts, to be able to require that individuals show their faces. Even this restriction, however, would generally only apply to veils that fully cover faces and not, for example, to head coverings.
Contact
Osama Motiwala, ICJ Asia-Pacific Communications Officer, e: osama.motiwala(a)icj.org
