Mar 5, 2021 | News, Op-eds
An opinion piece by ICJ Commissioner, Rodrigo Uprimny, asks whether the existing COVID-19 vaccine patenting arrangements favouring the intellectual property interests of pharmaceuticals come at an unacceptable cost to protecting the life and health of millions. Commissioner Uprimny is also Researcher at Dejusticia and member of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
During an informal conversation I was asked:
“Why is it that, although so many of us are dying due to COVID-19 and suffering from the dramatic state of the economy, we continue to wait for vaccines despite the availability of so many safe and effective ones? Is it that we cannot produce the vaccines locally?
The answer to this simple but essential question is that vaccine access is no longer a technical but also a political issue.
While Colombia cannot technically manufacture or produce some COVID-19 vaccines such as those based on the RNA messengers, many other countries, including several in the global South such as India, Argentina or Brazil, could. As has been highlighted by Doctors without Borders, there is no technical obstacle to mass vaccine production that would allow to vaccinate every one of the 7.8 billion human beings on earth within a few months
Instead, the obstacle is legal and political. It is the intellectual property that provides patents to pharmaceutical companies, who have developed COVID-19 vaccines. That creates a temporary monopoly. During such a temporary monopoly period, which usually lasts 20 years, no other company can produce their vaccines without permissions. As a consequence, those companies can impose and regulate the prices and conditions for the production of their vaccines.
Patents are defended by high-income countries, where many large pharmaceutical companies are based. They argue that there would be no innovation without patents as companies would not have incentives to research and develop new products.
Here, I will not dispute this defense of intellectual property, which is highly debatable. I would instead like to pose this question: even if patents were good and helped innovation, is it fair that they remain intact during the COVID-19 pandemic if they prevent rapid access to vaccines all over the world? The answer to this question is no, because we are condemning millions of people to die, but also because the epidemiological risks are extremely high. Each contagion poses a new risk for a novel coronavirus mutation that may eventually result in a variant that could escape the efficacy of current vaccines. It is also possible that a new mutation has a severe impact on the health of children, who have been somewhat spared from the more lethal impacts of COVID-19 until now.
In light of the current situation, without challenging the institution of intellectual property as such, South Africa and India issued a proposal to the World Trade Organization, the international organization overseeing such trade-related issues. They proposed a temporary exemption (or “waiver”) of patents on vaccines and treatments for COVID-19 at least until the pandemic is under control. A potential, fair compensation for companies who discovered the vaccines might also been considered, although obviously discounting the immense financial support they have already received from public funding.
This temporary exemption is crucial as current flexibilities in patent rights, such as compulsory licenses, are too rigid and limited to face the current crisis. This waiver provides the only opportunity for companies and States, with sufficient technical capabilities, to mass-produce necessary vaccines without having to fear the severe penalties of patent (intellectual property) violations.
While this proposal continues to face resistance from certain countries in the Global North, it is receiving growing support from many states, scientific and humanitarian organizations. Regrettably, the Colombian government has refrained from supporting it, with the shameful argument that more evidence needs to be provided. More evidence of what? Does it not suffice that we currently do not have access to necessary vaccines, although technically we could produce ample amounts? Or that available vaccines are, above all, headed to high-income nations? And is this mainly due to patents on vaccines that, far from being a fair award for innovation, seem to be letters of marque in favor of pharmaceutical companies, without any consideration of deaths and harms caused by the global lack of COVID-19 vaccines?
This op-ed was first published on El Espectador, 27 February 2021.
Download the Op-Ed in English and Spanish.
ICJ Statements on Vaccine Access:
Global: “ICJ calls on States to ensure human rights compliant access to COVID-19 vaccines (UN Statement)”: (1 March 2021)
Global: “ICJ urges the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to call on States to comply with their obligations to ensure equitable access to vaccines for all” (15 Feb 2021): https://www.icj.org/icj-urges-the-un-committee-on-economic-social-and-cultural-rights-to-call-on-states-to-comply-with-their-obligations-to-ensure-equitable-access-to-vaccines-for-all/
Peru: “The COVID-19 vaccine demands international and national solidarity” (23 Feb 2021): https://www.icj.org/the-covid-19-vaccine-demands-international-and-national-solidarity/
Africa: “The ICJ recommends that the African Union acknowledge COVID-19 vaccines are a “public good” (4 Feb 2021): https://www.icj.org/the-icj-recommends-that-the-african-union-acknowledge-covid-19-vaccines-are-a-public-good/
Zimbabwe: “The ICJ and ZimRights ask for urgent intervention on access to COVID-19 vaccines from African Commission Mechanism” (19 Feb 2021): https://www.icj.org/the-icj-and-zimrights-ask-for-urgent-intervention-on-access-to-covid-19-vaccines-from-african-commission-mechanism/
Further reading:
UN Special Procedures: “COVID-19: UN experts urge WTO cooperation on vaccines to protect global public health” (1 March 2021): https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=26817&LangID=E
UN Special Procedures: “Statement by UN Human Rights Experts Universal access to vaccines is essential for prevention and containment of COVID-19 around the world” (9 Nov 2020): https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=26484&LangID=E
UN CESCR Committee: “Statement on universal and equitable access to vaccines for the coronavirus disease (COVID-19)” (27 Nov 2020) https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=E/C.12/2020/2&Lang=en
IACHR and its SRESCER: “IACHR and its SRESCER Call on American States to Make Public Health and Human Rights the Focus of All their Decisions and Policies Concerning the COVID-19 Vaccine” (5 Feb 2021): http://www.oas.org/en/IACHR/jsForm/?File=/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2021/027.asp
Mar 4, 2021 | News
Israeli and Palestinian authorities should immediately grant the International Criminal Court unhindered access to Palestinian territory to investigate alleged crimes under international law committed by all parties to the conflict, the International Commission of Jurists said today.
The International Criminal Court’s prosecutor yesterday announced the initiation of an investigation into “war crimes [that] have been or are being committed in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.”
“Israel, the United States and other States must refrain from any efforts undermining the Office of the Prosecutor and the integrity of its investigation,” said Said Bearbia, ICJ’s MENA programme director. “Rather, they should comply with universally recognized norms on the independence and impartiality of judges and prosecutors.”
The ICJ calls on all states and concerned organizations to cooperate fully with and provide any necessary assistance to Office of the Prosecutor in carrying out its investigation.
The Israeli and Palestinian authorities, in particular, should grant the Office of the Prosecutor and its members unhindered access to all Palestinian territory without delay, and allow them to visit sites, meet and speak freely and privately with victims and witnesses, and access any relevant documentation or records.
It is critical that the ICC’s investigators and prosecutors, like any other investigators and prosecutors, should be able to perform their professional functions independently, impartially, diligently and without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference.
“The ICC investigation offers a unique opportunity to begin addressing the structural impunity that prevails over past and ongoing crimes under international law in Palestine,” Benarbia added. “It’s a crucial initial step in the realization of the victims’ rights to justice, truth and reparations.”
On 5 February 2020, the ICC decided it can assert its jurisdiction over serious crimes alleged to have occurred in the State of Palestine since 13 June 2014.
On 16 March 2020, the ICJ submitted amicus curiae observations in support of the Court’s territorial jurisdiction.
Find the Press Release in Arabic here: PalestineIsrael-PR-ICC-ARA2-2021
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, asser.khattab@icj.org
Mar 4, 2021 | News
The escalating killing of peaceful protestors by Myanmar’s security forces should be independently investigated as possible crimes against humanity, said the ICJ today on the eve of a closed-door UN Security Council session on the situation.
According to reliable information provided to the ICJ, security forces have unlawfully killed approximately 50 unarmed people – including at least five children – in more than 10 cities on different days since the military overthrew the civilian government on 1 February 2021. On 3 March, at least 38 people were reported killed by security forces.
In addition, numerous protestors have been injured and a total of 1,498 people have been arrested, charged or sentenced in relation to the military coup, according to The Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (AAPP).
“As the scale of the violence continues to increase, seemingly as part of a systematic, centralized policy to use lethal force against peaceful protestors, it is hard to escape the conclusion that Myanmar’s security forces are perpetrating crimes against humanity,” said Kingsley Abbott, Director of Global Accountability and International Justice at the ICJ. “This underscores the urgent need for all states, including the permanent members of the UN Security Council, to stop shielding the Myanmar military and work together towards opening avenues to justice for the Myanmar people.”
The UN Security Council will meet this Friday for a closed-door session at the request of the United States which is President of the Council in March 2021.
“The UN Security Council should immediately refer Myanmar to the International Criminal Court for a full independent and effective investigation,” added Abbott.
In addition to acts that may constitute murder as a crime against humanity, security forces have also reportedly committed acts which, when committed in a widespread and systematic manner, would amount to other crimes against humanity, including imprisonment, torture, and enforced disappearance – all of which also go towards supporting the existence of an attack.
“These killings and other crimes under international law are a direct result of the culture of impunity that has been allowed to persist in Myanmar for decades,” added Abbott. “All states should support the different accountability initiatives underway, including the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar which is collecting evidence for use in future legal proceedings.”
“It is long past time for perpetrators of serious human rights violations in the country to be brought to justice before the International Criminal Court or in any national jurisdictions willing and able to exercise universal jurisdiction.”
Background
On 12 September 2018, following an independent investigation, the United Nations Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar called for Myanmar’s military to be “…investigated and prosecuted in an international criminal tribunal for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes” concerning alleged violations in Shan, Kachin and Rakhine States and elsewhere throughout the country.
Under general international law, including customary international law and treaties and statutes of international criminal courts, crimes against humanity must be prosecuted. The authoritative definition of crimes against humanity is contained in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Under Article 7 of the Rome Statute, for killings to amount to crimes against humanity, they must be committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack. According to the elements of crimes of the Rome Statute, “’Attack directed against a civilian population’ in these context elements is understood to mean a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in Article 7, paragraph 1, of the Statute against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack. The acts need not constitute a military attack. It is understood that ‘policy to commit such attack’ requires that the State or organization actively promote or encourage such an attack against a civilian population.”
Generally speaking, “widespread” refers to the geographical scope of the attack and the number of victims, but not exclusively. “Systematic” refers to the organized nature of the acts of violence and the improbability of their random occurrence.
Myanmar is not a State Party to the Rome Statute of the ICC. However, the ICC is investigating crimes committed against the Rohingya minority as part of waves of violence in Rakhine State in 2016 and 2017 where one element or part of the crime was committed inside Bangladesh, which is a party to the Rome Statute. The ICC would be able to conduct a full investigation of the situation in Myanmar if the UN Security Council used its Chapter VII powers to refer the matter to the ICC pursuant to Article 13(b) of the Rome Statute.
Universal jurisdiction refers to the legal concept that States have the authority, and in some cases the obligation, to bring proceedings in relation to certain crimes, including crimes against humanity, because they are so serious it does not matter where the crimes were committed or the nationality of the perpetrators or the victims. States are generally entitled to exercise jurisdiction for serious under crimes under international law.
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Director of Global Accountability and International Justice; e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Secretary General, sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Mar 2, 2021 | News
Justice and accountability in Libya can only be achieved if activists and lawyers fully engage with and support the UN Independent Fact-Finding Mission on Libya (FFM) in documenting and collecting evidence of serious violations in the country, the ICJ said today.
To facilitate such engagement, the ICJ’s Question and Answer (Q&A) published today provides guidance for Libyan and international civil society actors on:
- the role and mandate of the FFM;
- the FFM’s relationship with other accountability mechanisms, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC);
- what the FFM may be expected to achieve; and
- how to engage with the FFM.
“The success of the FFM’s mandate rests largely on its ability to establish the facts about and collect evidence of violations and abuses of international human rights and humanitarian law perpetrated in Libya.”
“We urge lawyers, activists and civil society actors to fully support the FFM in achieving these objectives and bringing about the accountability that has so far eluded Libya.”
– Said Benarbia, the ICJ’s MENA Programme Director.
The FFM was established by the UN Human Rights Council on 22 June 2020 through resolution 43/39. Its mandate includes:
- Establishing facts and circumstances of the human rights situation throughout Libya;
- Collecting and reviewing relevant information;
- Documenting alleged violations and abuses of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, including any gendered dimensions of such violations and abuses; and
- Preserving evidence with a view to ensuring that perpetrators be held accountable.
While the FFM cannot conduct criminal investigations or prosecute individuals, the evidence preserved may be used by Libyan judicial authorities, the ICC, and third countries exercising universal jurisdiction.
The FFM has issued a call for submissions of relevant information and materials, the deadline for which is 30 June 2021.
Contact
Said Benarbia, Director, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme; t: +41 22 979 3817, e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Vito Todeschini, Legal Adviser, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme; t: +216 53 334 679, e: vito.todeschini(a)icj.org
Asser Khattab, Research and Communications Officer, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme; e: Asser.Khattab(a)icj.org
Download
Q&A on the UN International Fact-Finding Mission in English and Arabic.
Press Release in English and Arabic.
Mar 2, 2021 | News
Myanmar’s military government should reverse its post-coup d’etat revisions of legal protections for human rights in the country, the ICJ and Human Rights Watch said today.
Myanmar’s State Administration Council (SAC), appointed by the country’s military after it overthrew the elected civilian government on February 1, 2021, has dictated key revisions to the country’s legal system that criminalize even peaceful protests, and enable violations of the right to privacy and arbitrary arrests and detention. The changes were made through orders signed by the commander-in-chief, Sr. Gen. Min Aung Hlaing, on behalf of the SAC, and outside the parliamentary process.
“As Myanmar’s military increasingly relies on excessive force and intimidation to quell peaceful protests against its coup, it is trying to give a veneer of legality to its actions by subverting existing protections in the legal system.”
“These revisions, which violate the principle of legality and Myanmar’s international obligations, in no way excuse or legitimate the widespread violations of human rights now taking place in Myanmar.”
– Ian Seiderman, ICJ’s Director of Law and Policy.
Since the coup on February 1, the military junta has:
- arbitrarily suspended sections of the Law Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens (2017), removing basic protections, including the right to be free from arbitrary detention and the right to be free of warrantless surveillance and search and seizure;
- amended the Penal Code to create new offenses and expand existing offenses to target those speaking critically of the coup and the military, and those encouraging others to support the “Civil Disobedience Movement”;
- amended the Ward and Tract Administration Law to reinstate the requirement to report overnight guests;
- amended the Code of Criminal Procedure to make the new and revised offenses non-bailable and subject to warrantless arrest; and
- amended the Electronic Transactions Law to prevent the free flow of information and criminalize the dissemination of information through cyberspace, including expression critical of the coup or the acts of the junta.
Under international legal standards, any restrictions on human rights must be strictly necessary to protect a legitimate interest and proportionate to the interest being protected, even in times of public emergency or for legitimate national security purposes (conditions that do not apply in Myanmar currently). The orders issued by the SAC fail to meet that standard, as they will arbitrarily interfere with the exercise of rights protected under international law, including freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly, the right to liberty, and the right to privacy. Certain rights, such as the rights to bodily integrity and nondiscrimination, are not subject to restriction.
“By stripping the people of Myanmar of their basic rights, the military is once again demonstrating its disdain for international human rights protections,” said Linda Lakhdhir, Asia legal advisor at Human Rights Watch. “The junta cannot justify the oppression of Myanmar’s inhabitants through the unilateral creation of arbitrary new laws.”
Contact
Osama Motiwala, ICJ Asia-Pacific Communications Officer, e: osama.motiwala(a)icj.org
Mandira Sharma: ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, e: mandira.sharma(a)icj.org
Analysis of Legal Code Changes
Law Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens (2017)
On February 13, the State Administration Council arbitrarily suspended sections 5, 7 and 8 of the Law Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens, eroding basic protections for individuals.
Section 5 required the presence of two witnesses whenever the police enter a residence for the purposes of search or seizure “to ensure that there is no damage to the privacy or security of the citizen.” The suspension of that protection significantly raises the risk of abuses during searches and arrests.
Section 7 required a court order for any detention of more than 24 hours. Suspension of the provision will facilitate violations of international law, which provides that any person detained on a criminal charge be promptly taken before a judge.
Section 8 provided protections of an individual’s right to privacy by prohibiting search and seizure, surveillance, spying, or any investigation affecting the privacy, security, and dignity of the individual without a court order – protections that the junta has removed. Under international law no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with their privacy, family, home or correspondence.
Penal Code Amendments
On February 14, the SAC announced amendments to the Penal Code that could lead to criminal liability for thousands of demonstrators exercising their rights to free expression of their views, and anyone publicly criticizing the military coup d’etat through any means.
The SAC inserted a new provision, section 505A, that could be used to punish comments regarding the illegitimacy of the coup or the military government, among others. The new section would criminalize comments that “cause fear,” spread “false news, [or] agitates directly or indirectly a criminal offense against a Government employee.” Violation of the section is punishable by up to three years in prison.
Section 505(a) previously made it a crime to publish or circulate any “statement, rumor or report” “with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, any officer, soldier, sailor or airman, in the Army, Navy or Air Force to mutiny or otherwise disregard or fail in his duty.” It has been replaced with much broader language clearly designed to penalize those encouraging members of the civil service of the security services to join the Civil Disobedience Movement.
Under the revised provision, any attempt to “hinder, disturb, damage the motivation, discipline, health and conduct” of the military personnel and government employees and cause their hatred, disobedience or disloyalty toward the military and the government is punishable by up to three years in prison.
The SAC also significantly broadened the “treason” provisions in section 124 of the Penal Code. Section124A, which already criminalized comment that “bring into hatred or contempt” or “excite disaffection against” the government, was expanded to include comments relating to the defense services and defense services personnel, effectively criminalizing any criticism of the military or military personnel. Violation of the section is punishable by up to 20 years in prison.
The newly added section 124C imposes a prison term of up to 20 years on anyone who intends to “sabotage or hinder the performance of the Defense Services and law enforcement organizations who are engaged in preserving the stability of the state.” This provision would criminalize efforts to encourage security forces to join the Civil Disobedience Movement or permit unauthorized protests.
Finally, under section 124D, a person can be sentenced up to seven years in prison if they hinder a government employee from carrying out their duties. This provision is so broad that any actions of protesters could be interpreted as preventing security personnel or defense service officers from performing their duty.
Code of Criminal Procedure
On February 14 the junta amended the Code of Criminal Procedure Amendment Law to make offenses under sections 505A, 124C and 124D non-bailable and subject to arrest without a warrant.
Ward or Village Tract Administration Law (13/2/21)
The amendments to the Ward or Village Tract Administration Law (13/2/21) further increase the military’s ability to conduct surveillance on people’s movements, in particular on human rights defenders seeking shelter away from their own homes. Amendments to section 17 of the Act require all overnight guests from other wards or villages to be reported to the ward or village tract administrator, who are authorized by section 13 to “take action” against any who “failed to inform the guest list.” Section 27 reintroduces criminal sanctions for failing to report overnight guests. Such provisions existed under previous military governments and were deeply resented.
Electronic Transactions Law (Law No 7/ 2021)
On February 15, the junta also amended the Electronic Transactions Law to include, among others, provisions that had been proposed in the draft Cybersecurity Law.
As was true under that much-criticized draft law, the amended Electronics Transactions Law permits government agencies, investigators, or law enforcement to access personal data in relation to “cyber-crimes,” “cyber misuse” or any criminal investigation.
The amendments also include several provisions (articles 38(d) and (e)) that provide criminal penalties for “unauthorized” access to online material and that could be used to prosecute whistle blowers, investigative journalists, or activists who use leaked material for their work.
Section 38B criminalizes “obtaining, disclosing, using, destroying, modifying, disseminating, or sending someone’s personal data to anyone else without approval,” with one to three years in prison. While the protection of the right to privacy online is important, this provision goes well beyond legitimate protections on privacy and imposes arbitrary restrictions on freedom of expression.
In particular, “personal data” is defined in a manner so broad as to include virtually any information associated with a person. The law is therefore impermissibly vague and overbroad, as it would likely prevent even the disclosure of information about anyone involved in alleged human rights violations, including by human rights defenders and journalists.
Section 38C criminalizes the creation of “misinformation or disinformation with the intent of causing public panic, loss of trust or social division on cyberspace,” and provides for imprisonment of one to three years in addition to fines. These provisions are similarly vague and overbroad and unnecessarily and disproportionately limit the exercise of expression online, including criticism of the coup and the military junta.
***
Download the full statement here.
Mar 1, 2021 | News
The Nepal government should immediately withdraw an ordinance that undermines the independence of constitutional human rights bodies and rescind recent appointments that were made without consultation or parliamentary approval, the ICJ, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International said today.
These government actions undermine public trust and confidence in the integrity of the judiciary and other constitutional bodies such as the National Human Rights Commission and the Election Commission. The illegitimate appointments process is not simply an abstract irregularity but will lead to ineffective and weak implementation of critical mandates to protect human rights and other rule of law objectives, the groups said.
“The government’s actions are a severe dent in Nepal’s long struggle for a rule of law-based constitution, which was finally adopted in 2015 to guarantee human rights,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “It is sad to see some of the same politicians who drafted the Constitution playing fast and loose with the charter just a few years later.”
On December 15, 2020, President Bidya Bhandari endorsed an executive ordinance to amend the law governing the Constitutional Council, which makes appointments to the judiciary, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), and other constitutional bodies including the Election Commission. Under the Constitutional Council Act, five out of six members must be present, but under the ordinance a simple majority is sufficient. Because one seat on the council is vacant the quorum has been reduced to three.
The Constitutional Council met the same day with a newly reduced quorum. Three council members made 38 nominations to vacant positions on constitutional bodies at that meeting. They included all five seats on the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), as well as nominations to bodies established to protect the rights of Dalits, women, and marginalized minorities, and to investigate corruption allegations.
Under the Constitution, appointments to these key institutions are supposed to be vetted by parliament. However, parliament was abruptly dissolved on December 20, five days after the appointments were announced. The nominees were sworn in on February 3, 2021, despite legal challenges in the Supreme Court to the constitutionality of the nominations and the dissolution of parliament. On February 23, the Supreme Court ruled that the dissolution of parliament was unconstitutional.
“In a context where repeated calls for institutional reforms have gone unheeded for decades, this move by the government further weakens the effectiveness of constitutional bodies that are supposed to be beacons of hope for victims of human rights violations and abuses,” said Mandira Sharma, senior international legal adviser at ICJ. “Independence, impartiality and legitimacy are preconditions for these bodies to effectively and efficiently deliver their mandates.”
Nepal’s Human Rights Commission, until recently, had played an important role in calling for accountability, including by releasing the names of people allegedly responsible for serious human rights violations such as torture and extra-judicial killing and recommending that they should be prosecuted. It is currently graded ‘A’ by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) for its compliance with the Paris Principles, which were adopted by the UN General Assembly as the basic standards governing the mandate and operation of effective national human rights organizations. Core among the Paris Principles is that a national human rights institution must be independent and that its independence must be guaranteed by law. The organizations are concerned that following the new appointments the commission no longer meets those standards.
Among the other constitutional bodies to which new commissioners have been appointed in the same manner are the Election Commission and the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA), Nepal’s anti-corruption agency. The Election Commission is seen by many people as playing an important role in efforts to achieve a society based on the rule of law and respect for human rights , while the CIAA has the authority to bring corruption cases against politicians.
Numerous appointments have also been made to commissions with mandates to protect the rights of people from vulnerable groups, including the National Women’s Commission, National Dalit Commission, and National Inclusion Commission. Many of these positions had lain vacant for years.
At least two Supreme Court petitions have been filed challenging the ordinance amending the Constitutional Council Act, and the new appointments to constitutional bodies. The chief justice, Cholendra Shumsher Rana, who sits on the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, participated in the three-member Constitutional Council meeting that made the disputed nominations, and he administered the oath of office to the new commissioners on February 3.
“The doubts over the independence and integrity of the NHRC and other commissions will endanger the protection of human rights in Nepal,” said Dinushika Dissanayake, Deputy South Asia Director of Amnesty International. “The government must immediately reverse these appointments and start a new process in consultation with the civil society and rights holders in Nepal.”
The Accountability Watch Committee, a group of prominent human rights defenders in Nepal, issued a statement on February 12 announcing that they would not “cooperate and engage with the NHRC and other constitutional bodies until the Supreme Court’s decision.” Accountability Watch also called upon “the United Nations, diplomatic missions in Nepal and international organizations not to give legitimacy and cooperate with this appointment process which is currently sub-judice at the Supreme Court of Nepal.”
Foreign donor agencies that have previously engaged with the NHRC, and with the other commissions affected by this process, should stand clearly for a proper, open, and transparent appointments process that is based on international standards, Human Rights Watch, ICJ, and Amnesty International said.
Download the statement in English and Nepali.
Contact
In London, Meenakshi Ganguly (English, Bengali, Hindi): gangulm(a)hrw.org
In Colombo, Dinushika Dissanayake (English): dinushika.d(a)amnesty.org
In Kathmandu, Mandira Sharma (English, Nepali): mandira.sharma(a)icj.org
