Mar 29, 2021 | Advocacy, News
On 25 March 2021, the ICJ filed two submissions to the UN Human Rights Council Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) ahead of the review of Thailand’s human rights record in November 2021.
For this particular review cycle, the ICJ made two joint UPR submissions to the Human Rights Council.
In the joint submission by ICJ and Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR), the organizations provided information and analysis to assist the Working Group on the UPR to make recommendations addressing various human rights concerns that arise as a result of Thailand’s failure to guarantee, properly or at all, a number of civil and political rights, including with respect to:
- Constitution and Legal Framework: concerning the 2017 Constitution that continues to give effect to some repressive orders issued by the military junta after the 2014 coup d’état, the Emergency Decree, the Martial Law, and the Internal Security Act;
- Freedom of Expression and Assembly: concerning the use of laws that are not human rights compliant and, as such, arbitrarily restrict the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly, in the context of the Thai government’s response to the pro-democracy protests and, purportedly, to COVID-19; and
- Right to Life, Freedom from Torture and Enforced Disappearance: concerning the resumption of death penalty, the failure to undertake prompt, thorough and impartial investigations, and to ensure accountability of those responsible for the commission of torture, other ill-treatment and enforced disappearance, and the failure, to date, to enact domestic legislation criminalizing torture, other ill-treatment and enforced disappearance.
In the second, joint submission by ICJ, ENLAWTHAI Foundation and Land Watch Thai, the organizations provided information and analysis to assist the Working Group to make recommendations addressing various human rights concerns that arise as a result of Thailand’s failure to guarantee, properly or at all, a number of economic, social and cultural rights, including with respect to:
- Human Rights Defenders: concerning threats and other human rights violations against human rights defenders, and the restrictions on civil society space and on the ability to raise issues that the government deems as criticism of its conduct or that it otherwise disfavours;
- Constitution and Legal Framework: concerning the continuing detrimental impact of the legal framework imposed since the 2014 coup d’état on economic, social and cultural rights;
- Community Consultation: concerning the lack of participatory mechanisms and consultations, as well as limited access to information, for affected individuals and communities in the execution of economic activities that adversely impact local communities’ economic, social and cultural rights;
- Land and Housing: concerning issues relating to access to land and adequate housing, reports of large-scale evictions without appropriate procedural protections as required by international law, and the denial of the traditional rights of indigenous peoples to their ancestral lands and natural resources; and
- Environment: concerning the widespread and well-documented detrimental impacts of hazardous and industrial wastes on the environment, the lack of adequate legal protections for the right to health and the environment, and the effectiveness of the environmental impact assessment process set out under Thai laws.
The ICJ further called upon the Human Rights Council and the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review to recommend that Thailand should take various measures to immediately cease all aforementioned human rights violations; ensure adequate legal protection against such violations; ensure the rights to access to justice and effective remedies for victims of such violations; and ensure that steps be taken to prevent any future violations.
Download
UPR Submission 1 (PDF)
UPR Submission 2 (PDF)
Mar 28, 2021 | News
The credibility of the criminal trials currently ongoing before Tunisia’s Specialised Criminal Chambers depends on their capacity to deliver justice and reparation to victims and their families in a manner consistent with international law, said more than 25 Tunisian lawyers and human rights defenders at a workshop organized with the ICJ and international experts.
The workshop, which was held in Tunis on 25 and 26 March, aimed at enhancing the capacity of participants to use international law in the preparation and litigation of cases before the Specialized Criminal Chambers (SCC) effectively.
The participants discussed the application of international law and standards relating to the notions of victims and persons entitled to reparation before the SCC. Participants also considered the various forms of reparation, including restitution, compensation, rehabilitation and satisfaction, and guarantees of non–repetition.
The workshop was attended by international and Tunisian experts, along with ICJ representatives.
The Director of ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa Programme, Said Benarbia, emphasized the importance of guaranteeing the right of victims to effective remedies and reparations, especially in transitional justice contexts.
Mondher Cherni, the Secretary–General of the Tunisian Organization Against Torture (OCTT), underlined that reparations must be comprehensive. “Tunisian courts should ensure the adoption of a comprehensive notion of harm, while addressing the violations suffered by victims in Tunisia,” he said.
Rachel Towers, Legal Advisor at Dignity (The Danish Institute Against Torture)highlighted that there is no justice without remedies and reparations; accordingly, Tunisia should ensure that victims of gross human rights violations may enjoy these rights effectively.
Clive Baldwin, Senior Legal Advisor at Human Rights Watch, said that “Tunisia is not only bound to punish and sanction gross human rights violations, but also to prevent them from occurring in the future.” Baldwin also emphasized the importance of providing a comprehensive set of guarantees of non–repetition, including legislative and institutional reforms aiming to ensure effective civilian control of military and security forces and the independence of the judiciary.
Participants also addressed the lack of compliance in law and practice of the Tunisian transitional justice framework with international law and standards.
“The functioning and delivery of transitional justice in Tunisia has been enduring numerous and complex challenges over the last years,”said Benarbia.“The Tunisian authorities should immediately respond to these challenges with a holistic action plan, based on concrete reforms and solutions” Benarbia added.
Contact
Valentina Cadelo, Legal Adviser, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, e: valentina.cadelo(a)icj.org
Asser Khattab, Research and Communications’ Officer, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, e: asser.khattab(a)icj.org
Mar 26, 2021 | News
In a joint communication to five United Nations Special Procedures, the ICJ and its partners urged the mandate holders to call on the Tunisian authorities to immediately stop hampering the transitional justice process.
The organizations expressed their concern at the ongoing attempts to undermine the transitional justice process and accountability efforts for past gross human rights violations.
“The Tunisian transitional justice process has been under serious attack since its inception in 2013. Today, the ICJ and its partners are urging the United Nations Special Procedures to take urgent action to deter such attacks, demand justice for the victims and secure accountability for the perpetrators,” said the Director of ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa Programme, Said Benarbia.
The joint communication highlights the following areas of concern:
- The recent political initiatives to dismantle the transitional justice process;
- The incessant attacks against the Truth and Dignity Commission (Instance Verité et Dignité, IVD) and its 2018 final report’s findings;
- The lack of support to the Specialized Criminal Chambers (SCC) and the numerous obstacles that risk to severely impair access to justice and effective remedies for victims of gross human rights violations.
The communication is addressed to the following United Nations Special Procedures:
- The Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence;
- The Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
- The Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers;
- The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention; and
- The Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances.
The communication was submitted jointly by the ICJ along with:
- The World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT)
- The Ligue tunisienne des droits de l’homme (LTDH)
- The Forum Tunisien pour les Droits Economiques et Sociaux (FTDES)
- Avocats Sans Frontières (ASF)
- The Association of Tunisian Magistrates (AMT)
- Al Bawsla
- International Alert
- The Association KARAMA
- The Association INSAF pour les anciens militaires
- No Peace Without Justice
- The Organisation Contre la Torture en Tunisie (OCTT)
- The Organisation Dhekra we Wafa, pour le martyr de la liberté Nabil Barakati
- The Coalition Tunisienne pour la Dignité et la Réhabilitation
- The Association Tunisienne pour la Défense des Libertés Individuelles
- The Association des Femmes Tunisiennes pour la Recherche sur le Développement
- The Association Internationale pour le Soutien aux Prisonniers Politiques
- The Réseau tunisien de la justice transitionnelle
Contact
Valentina Cadelo, Legal Adviser, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, e: valentina.cadelo(a)icj.org
Asser Khattab, Research and Communications’ Officer, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, e: asser.khattab(a)icj.org
Download
Tunisia-Special-Procedures-Joint-Submission-2021 (PDF, in French)
Mar 25, 2021 | Agendas, Events, News
Today, the ICJ, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) Regional Office for Central Asia (ROCA) and the Supreme School of Judges of the Republic of Uzbekistan (SSJ) are holding a final conference on the implementation of international law on economic, social and cultural rights in the national legal framework of Uzbekistan.
This is the final event of a three-year project “Advancing Civil Society in Promoting economic, social and cultural rights Standards” (ACCESS), implemented by the ICJ, funded by the European Union.
Participants will discuss the obstacles to the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural (ESC) rights in Uzbekistan and how to strengthen protection of these rights through access to justice and legal remedies. The discussions will aim to strengthen the implementation of international law on ESC rights, including rights to housing, healthcare and rights to equal protection in the workplace, and ensure that the justice system provides effective protection and remedies where they are violated.
The OHCHR for Central Asia, the SSJ, Tashkent State University of Law, the Nationwide Movement “Yuksalish,” national and international experts will participate in the final conference.
“This is a very important project, which was timely but also challenging to implement during the period of COVID-19 pandemic. The right time to raise awareness around economic, social and cultural rights in particular. This is about accompanying the important reforms of the Government of Uzbekistan, it is about promoting human rights and the rule of law, which is also an important part of our EU Central Asia Strategy,” said H.E. Charlotte Adriaen, Ambassador of the European Union to Uzbekistan.
Ryszard Komenda, Regional Representative of the UN Human Rights Office for Central Asia noted that “this project to promote economic, social and cultural rights in Uzbekistan was and remains highly relevant and needed, including for the dissemination of legal knowledge on human rights among lawyers and representatives of civil society. The implementation of this project during the period of ongoing reforms in the country and participation of UN experts from CEDAW and CRC, makes the project especially effective, unique and timely.”
“Uzbekistan has a solid legal basis to meet its obligations to protect economic, social and cultural rights. But to realize the law’s potential in practice, people whose rights are violated need effective access to the justice system, and the courts need to apply the rights set out in international law,” said Róisín Pillay, Director of the ICJ Europe and Centra Asia Programme.
“We are happy to share our recommendations designed to ensure that people’s economic and social rights, as guaranteed in international law, are protected in practice, including through the justice system. I look forward to discussions with national and international partners during our final event,” she added.
“This project is a clear example of international cooperation of the Supreme School of Judges, which is fully consistent with its priorities. Of course, the implementation of international law on economic, social and cultural rights at the national level in Uzbekistan is one of the most significant national priorities, which requires active interaction between State authorities, the academic and expert community, and of course cooperation with international organizations,” said Khadji-Murod Isakov, the Director of the Supreme School of Judges under the Supreme Judiciary Council of the Republic of Uzbekistan.
Agenda in English
Agenda in Russian
Compilation of papers in Uzbek, Russian and English: Realising economic, social and cultural rights-2021
Contacts:
Ms. Dilfuza Kurolova, ICJ Legal consultant, t: +998 90 9050099 ; e: dilfuza.kurolova(a)icj.org
Ms. Guljakhon Amanova, National Program Officer, Uzbekistan, Regional Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), e:gamanova@ohchr.org
Mr. Utkir Khalikov, Head of the international department The Supreme School of Judges under the Supreme Judicial council of the Republic of Uzbekistan for Central Asia, e: inter.dep.ssj@mail.ru
The Project is financed by the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Uzbekistan
Watch the video
Mar 23, 2021 | Advocacy, News, Op-eds
[TOC]By Tim Fish Hodgson, Legal Adviser on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights at the International Commission of Jurists and Rossella De Falco, Programme Officer on the Right to Health at Global Initiative on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Historically pandemics have often catalyzed significant social change. As historian of epidemics Frank Snowden puts it: “epidemics are a category of disease that seem to hold up the mirror to human beings as to who we really are”. At the moment gazing in that mirror remains a regrettably unpleasant experience.
United Nations human rights Treaty Body Mechanisms and Special Procedures, the World Health Organization (WHO), UNAIDS and numerous local, regional and international human rights organizations have produced reams of statements, resolutions and reports bemoaning the human right impacts of COVID-19 and almost every single aspect of the lives of almost all people around the world. The latest being the UN Human Rights Council Resolution adopted today by consensus on “Ensuring equitable, affordable, timely and universal access for all countries to vaccines in response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic”.
Key amongst the human rights law and standards underpinning these analyses is the protection of the right to the highest attainable standard of health, which, certainly for the 171 States Parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights places an obligation on States to take all necessary measures to ensure “the prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases”, and, in the context of access to medicines the right to “enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications”.
Despite these legal obligations, in late February, the UN Secretary General António Guterres felt compelled to highlight the rise of a “pandemic of human rights abuses in the wake of COVID-19”, including, but extending beyond violations of the right to health. The impact of COVID-19 on human rights has, and continues to be, sufficiently ubiquitous that an Indonesian transwoman activist Mama Yuli perhaps captured it best when telling a journalist that she and others in her position were “living like people who die slowly”.
Vaccines for the few, but what about the many?
Disappointingly, however, instead of a symbol of hope of a light at the end of the Coronavirus tunnel, the COVID-19 vaccine has fast become yet another pronounced illustration of the parallel pandemic of human rights abuses described by Guterres. The disastrous state of COVID-19 vaccine production and distribution throughout the world – and even within particular countries where vaccines are available – is now often described by many activists, including significantly the People’s Vaccine campaign, as “vaccine nationalism” and profiteering which has produced a “vaccine apartheid”.
What this means, in human rights language, is that States have often arranged their own affairs in a way that is detrimental to access to vaccines in other countries in spite of their extraterritorial legal obligations to, at very least, avoid their actions that would foreseeably result in the impairment of the human rights of people outside their own territories.
It is worth emphasizing that it has still been only some four months since the first mass vaccination campaigns began in December 2020. At the time of writing, approximately 450 million people had been vaccinated worldwide, while many African nations, for example, had yet to administer a single dose. While in North America 23 COVID-19 vaccine doses have been administered per 100 hundred people, with the number standing at 13/100 in Europe, the ratio decreases dramatically in the Global South with 6.4/100 in South America, 3.8/100 in Asia, 0.7/100 in Oceania and a mere 0.6/100 in Africa.
Vaccines, State Obligations and Corporate Responsibilities
The inadequate and inequitable distribution of vaccines has a variety of causes.
First, is the generally dysfunctional nature of the global health system due to what the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights described in its first statement on COVID-19 as early as April 2020 as “decades of underinvestment in public health services and other social programmes”. The incredible inequities caused by privatization of healthcare services, facilities and goods in the absence of sufficient regulation is well-documented, both in the Global North and the Global South.
Second, are the obstacles to vaccine access created and maintained by States, singly but collectively in the form of intellectual property rights regimes. This is not for a lack of guidance or legal mechanisms to ensure the flexible application of intellectual property protections in favour of the protection of public health and the realization of the right to health. The TRIPS agreement is an international legal agreement concluded by members of the World Trade Organization which sets minimum standards for intellectual property rights protections.
States are specifically permitted to interpret intellectual property rights protections “in the light of the object and purpose of” TRIPS and States therefore retain “the right to grant compulsory licences and the freedom to determine the grounds upon which such licences are granted” in the specific context of public health emergencies. Nor is it the first time that epidemics have necessitated the engagement of flexible arrangements to ensure expeditious, universal, affordable and adequate access to life saving medications and vaccines.
This is why the majority of States and an overwhelming majority of civil society actors have supported South Africa and India’s request that the WTO issue a “waiver” of the application of intellectual property rights for COVID-19 “diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines”. This request has also been formally supported by a number of independent experts of the UN Human Rights Council of UN Special Procedures, and recently received the emphatic endorsement of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. There is already precedent for such TRIPS waivers, with the WTO having already applied a waiver until 2033, for example, for least-developed countries (LDCs), which are exempted from applying intellectual property rules on pharmaceutical products and clinical data.
Disappointingly, however, the ink had barely dried on the issuing of the CESCR’s statement, when, plainly disregarding all of these recommendations, the waiver was blocked by a coalition of wealthier nations, many of whom already have substantial and advanced vaccine access. Importantly, the CESCR’s recommendations were not just made on vague policy grounds, but as the best way to fulfill States’ clear legal obligation in ICESCR that, “production and distribution of vaccines must be organized and supported by international cooperation and assistance”.
The recently adopted Resolution of the UN Human Rights Council, led by Ecuador and States of the Non-Aligned Movement and adopted on 23 March 2021 provides some hope of the alteration of this existing collision course with disaster. The resolution, which calls for “equitable, affordable, timely, and universal access by all countries”, reaffirms vaccine access as a protected human right and openly acknowledges “unequal allocation and distribution among countries”.
The resolution proceeds to call on all States, individually and collectively, to “remove unjustified obstacles restricting exports of COVID-19 vaccines” and to “facilitate the trade, acquisition, access and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines” for all.
However, despite the protestations of civil society organizations involved in deliberations about the resolution, the resolution only restates the right for States to utilize TRIPS flexibilities, as opposed to endorsing such measures as a best practice for realizing State human rights obligations. This tepid approach (which follows principles of international trade while, ironically given the resolution emanates from the Human Rights Council, ignoring human rights standards) to perhaps the pressing issue relating to vaccine access is inconsistent with the Resolution’s otherwise firm grounding of vaccine access in human rights. It therefore remarkably even falls short of insisting that States comply with their own long-established international human rights obligations.
The resolution also inexplicably fails to address corporate responsibilities, including those of pharmaceutical companies, to respect the right to health in terms of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and States’ corresponding duty to protect the right to health through adopting adequate regulatory measures.
Third, and connected to the above, is the general failure of States to fully and adequately centre their human rights obligations in the broader context of COVID-19 responses worldwide. The subtle but important phrasing of the exercise of TRIPS flexibilities as a “right of States” rather than as one of the optimal ways of fulfilling an obligation, exposes the degree to which the attitudes by State policy makers and legal advisors towards and understanding of human rights are out of sync with the obligations that they have willingly assumed by becoming party to treaties like the ICESCR.
A Critical Moment: it does not have to be this way
As Snowden’s insightful work predicted, the COVID-19 pandemic represents a critical moment in human history. States, collectively and individually, are presented with a unique opportunity to set a precedent and begin to seriously address the root causes of inequality and poverty which are prevalent across the world.
Making the right decision and taking a moral stand on the importance of access to COVID-19 vaccines is both practically and symbolically important if these efforts are to succeed. Vaccines must be accepted and acknowledged as global public health goods and human rights. Private companies too should not stand in the way of equitable and non-discriminatory vaccine access for all people.
For this to happen, bold leadership is required from international human rights institutions such as the UN Human Rights Council, the UN General Assembly and the WTO. Unfortunately, at present, not enough has been done and politicking and private interest continue to trump principle and public good. Until this changes, many people around the world will continue to exist, “living like people who are dying slowly”. It does not have to be this way.
