Jan 26, 2021 | News
Lawyers for Lawyers (L4L) and the ICJ condemn the spurious charges under the Anti-Money Laundering brought against Ugandan lawyer and human rights defender Nicholas Opiyo and call for them to be dropped.
The organizations consider that this action stands to impede work of lawyers in the country of carrying out their professional functions, particularly regarding human rights work.
There do not appear to be legitimate grounds for these charges or the ongoing prosecution. The organizations are further concerned at numerous alleged violations surrounding the arrest, detention and pre-trial proceedings.
Nicholas Opiyo, Executive Director of Chapter Four Uganda, a civil rights charity working to defend human rights and civil liberties, was arbitrarily arrested on 22 December 2020, not informed of the reason for his arrest and effectively held in incommunicado detention for a prolonged period.
On 22 December 2020, plain clothed law enforcement officers who did not identify themselves seized Mr. Opiyo from a restaurant, along with four other individuals, including three lawyers.
He was later charged under section 3 (c) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act on allegations that he acquired USD 340,000 through the bank account of Chapter Four Uganda, knowing that “the said funds were proceeds of crime”.
Chapter Four Uganda have confirmed that these are legitimate donor funds for lawful purposes.
Sophie de Graaf, the Director of Lawyers for Lawyers, said:
“Lawyers play a vital role in the protection of the rule of law and human rights. It is the responsibility of lawyers to protect and establish the rights of citizens from whatever quarter they may be threatened. Their work is indispensable for ensuring effective access to justice for all. To fulfil their professional duties effectively, lawyers should be able to practice law freely and independently, without any fear of reprisal.”
Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh, ICJ’s Africa Director, added:
“Uganda is required under its Constitution and under its international legal obligations, to respect and protect the independence of lawyers. These baseless charges seek to intimidate and harass Mr. Opiyo and interfere with his work as a lawyer”.
Lawyers for Lawyers and the ICJ call on the Ugandan authorities to drop the spurious charges against Mr. Opiyo and to ensure that his rights to due process and fair trial are fully respected.
The organizations emphasize that the responsibilities authorities must comply with Uganda’s international legal obligations to ensure that members of the legal profession can carry out their professional functions without harassment and improper interference, including arbitrary arrest and incommunicado detention.
Background
Article 23 of Uganda’s Constitution stipulates that suspects under detention should be brought before a court of law within 48 hours from the time of arrest. Article 27 of Uganda’s Constitution requires that a person charged with a criminal offence should be informed immediately of the charges against them. Article 28 of the Ugandan Constitution guarantees for every person the right to a fair hearing and the right to legal representation. These rights are protected under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, to which Uganda is a party.
International and regional standards on ensuring the independence of lawyers are set out in the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers (UN Basic Principles) and the Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa.
Contact:
Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh, ICJ Africa Director Kaajal.Keogh(a)icj.org +27 84 5148039
Tanveer Jeewa, Media and Legal Consultant Tanveer.Jeewa(a)icj.org
Jan 23, 2021 | News
The ICJ stated today that a newly appointed Commission of Inquiry tasked to review reports on past human rights and humanitarian law violations was unlikely to bring justice to victims of conflict era atrocities.
On 21 January 2021, Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa appointed a three-member Commission of Inquiry (CoI), headed by sitting Supreme Court Judge A.H.M. Nawaz to assess the findings and recommendations of preceding CoIs and Committees on human rights violations, serious violations of international humanitarian law and other such serious offences.
“Sri Lanka has an appalling track record on accountability in relation to toothless inquiry mechanisms.” said Ian Seiderman, ICJ’s Legal and Policy Director. “the tendency to set up these kinds of processes just ahead of sessions the UN Human Rights Council raises the suspicion that the announcement is targeted to deflect robust action by the Council beginning next month”
Sri Lanka is due to be taken up at the 46th session of the UN Human Rights Council on 24 February 2021, where the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights will present her report on Sri Lanka’s implementation of Council Resolution 30/1.
The decision to set up this COI was first announced in February 2020, by the Minister of Foreign Affairs at the 43rd Session of the UN Human Rights Council when he declared the Government’s withdrawal of support for the process under Resolutions 30/1, 34/1 and 40/1.
The Commission is tasked with the responsibility of identifying the “manner in which the recommendations have been implemented so far in terms of the existing law and what steps need to be taken to implement those recommendations further in line with the present Government policy.” It has been given a six-month mandate.
COIs and similar bodies established by successive Sri Lankan governments have been ineffective and deeply deficient in terms of their mandate, functions and independence. As the ICJ has previously documented, such mechanisms have largely been partisan mechanisms for punishing political opponents or for shielding perpetrators and institutions from responsibility.
The ICJ called upon the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Member States to acknowledge the Sri Lankan Government’s categorical inability and unwillingness to ensure accountability domestically and urges the Council to explore viable international alternatives to ensure justice for victims of gross human rights violations.
Contact
For questions and clarifications, please contact Osama Motiwala, Communications Officer – osama.motiwala(a)icj.org
Jan 20, 2021 | News
Justice for serious human rights violations requires more effective evidence collection and prosecution, said victims and experts, at a conference organized by the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the ICJ, today.
Keynote speakers included the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, UN Assistant Secretary General for Human Rights, Ilze Brands Kehri, and victim representatives from Myanmar and Yemen.
“The quest for global accountability has progressed tremendously since the ICJ began working nearly 70 years ago,” said Sam Zarifi, Secretary General of the ICJ.
“Over the last three decades in particular we have seen increasing efforts to seek justice at the international level as well as through national courts.”
“We now have to ensure these efforts are more coherent and are able to gather and preserve evidence critical for the successful prosecution of crimes under international law,” he added.
The ICJ has dedicated a Global Accountability Initiative to combat impunity and promote redress for serious human rights violations around the world through the entrenchment of the rule of law.
The Initiative works at the national, regional, and global level to facilitate victims’ access to justice.
“All over the world, perpetrators of serious human rights violations still go unpunished,” said Stef Blok, Foreign Minister of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
“But this climate of impunity cannot be allowed to continue,” he added.
Impunity for serious human rights violations remains a significant challenge for a variety of reasons including when certain countries obstruct the work of the International Criminal Court.
In response, UN Bodies, including the Human Rights Council and General Assembly, are increasingly being called upon to establish innovative accountability mechanisms often with an evidence collection and preservation function.
Examples include Syria, Myanmar and Yemen where the lack of an UN Security Council referral to the International Criminal Court led the UN General Assembly and Human Rights Council to take action.
At the same time, accountability mechanisms have indicated challenges, including failures of political support, lack of international cooperation, and difficulties in securing the necessary resources and staffing in the amount and time required to effectively fulfill their mandates within the mandate period.
Mr Blok opened today’s online event, in which over 30 countries, numerous NGOs and victim’ advocacy groups discussed how best to enhance these various efforts. The event was moderated by Sam Zarifi.
Fatou Bensouda, Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court
Radya Al-Mutawakel, President of the Mwatana Organization for Human Rights
Ambia Perveen, Vice chairperson of the European Rohingya Council
Omar Alshogre, Syrian refugee and human rights activist
The full video of the conference can be viewed here.
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, Director of Global Accountability and International Justice, kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Jan 20, 2021 | Advocacy, News
Today the ICJ in collaboration with Cordaid issued a report on a webinar series held on 21-22 October 2020 on enhancing access to justice for women in the context of religious and customary laws.
The Webinar discussions aimed to address the challenges of existing inequalities and discrimination experienced by women, girls and persons from other marginalized groups that have intensified amidst a wider increase in attacks worldwide on the rule of law.
The webinar platform served to facilitate exchange of views and strategies among human rights defenders, justice sector actors and persons from the religious community.
Webinar 1 grappled with what are often perceived as conflict between women’s human rights and pathways to justice based on custom and religion.
Webinar 2 involved a discussion of obligations under international human rights law and best practice to ensure access to justice in cultural and religious contexts.
Participants came from Asia, the Middle East and Africa, and exchanged experiences, expertise and perspective on ensuring gender equality and eliminating gender discrimination in the context of custom and religion. The key challenges identified when accessing justice in contexts where customary and religious laws are prevalent include:
- Many women live in situations where laws and policies operate to discriminate against women and there are serious deficiencies exist in the legal protection of women’s human rights and women’s ability to access justice.
- In some places, the plurality of customary and religious laws themselves contribute to a lack of equality among women and hinders access to justice for women.
- Poverty and lack of knowledge of human rights also contribute to inhibiting women from seeking or receiving justice .
- Negative experiences when interacting with justice systems also discourage women from further engaging with the system, and is a barrier to access to justice.
Some preliminary conclusions and recommendations identified through the webinar series include the following:
- All justice actors should understand that under international human rights law the objective of maintaining or promoting particular traditions, customs or religions, is not alone a valid basis for restricting, let alone violating, human rights.
- Human rights actors should continuously seek opportunities for communication and engagement with informal justice systems.
- Religious laws and customary laws can change over time to give effect to women’s access to justice, whether in response to internal or external factors or both.
- Women should be empowered and have a good understanding of their legal status and demanding their rights.
- It is important to build and expand strategic alliances between formal and informal systems to promote access to justice for women.
Contact
Nokukhanya (Khanyo) Farisè, Legal Adviser (Africa Regional Programme), e: nokukhanya.farise(a)icj.org
Tanveer Jeewa, Communications Officer (Africa Regional Programme), e: tanveer.jeewa(a)icj.org
Download
Universal-Webinars a2J women-Advocacy-2021-ENG (full report in English, PDF)
Universal-Webinars a2J women-Advocacy-2021-FRE (full report in French, PDF)
Universal-Webinars a2J women-Advocacy-2021-IND (full report in Indonesian, PDF)
Universal-Webinars a2J women-Advocacy-2021-DAR (full report in Dari, PDF)
Universal-ICJ The Tunis Declaration-Advocacy-2019-ENG (the Tunis Declaration, in PDF)
Universal-ICJ Congresses-Publications-Reports-2019-ENG (the ICJ Congresses booklet, in PDF)
Watch
The first webinar is available here.
The second webinar is available here.
Read also
The report on the Tunis Declaration is available here.
Cordaid, Diverse Pathways to Justice for all: Supporting everyday justice providers to achieve SDG16.3, September 2019, available here.
ICJ/Cordaid Webinar Series addresses the need for equal access to justice for women where religious and customary laws are in force, available here.
Jan 18, 2021 | News
Soltan Achilova, Loujain AlHathloul and Yu Wensheng, three outstanding human rights defenders based in authoritarian states are nominated for the 2021 Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders. The ICJ is member of the MEA Jury.
In isolated Turkmenistan, Soltan Achilova documents human rights violations and abuses through photojournalism.
Imprisoned in Saudi Arabia, Loujain AlHathloul is a leading advocate for gender equality and women’s rights.
A lawyer, Yu Wensheng defended human rights cases and activists before his conviction and imprisonment in China.
The Finalists distinguish themselves by their bravery and deep commitment to the issues they defend, despite the many attempts to silence them by respective governmental authorities.
“Every year thousands of human rights defenders are persecuted, harassed, imprisoned, even killed. The Martin Ennals Foundation is honored to celebrate the 2021 Finalists, who have done so much for others and whose stories of adversity are emblematic of the precarity faced by the human rights movement today,” said Isabel de Sola, Director of the Martin Ennals Foundation.
“Authoritarian states tend to believe that by jailing or censoring human rights defenders, the world will forget about them. During the COVID-pandemic, it seemed like lockdowns would successfully keep people from speaking out. This year’s Finalists are a testament to the fact that nothing could be further from the truth,” added Hans Thoolen, Chair of the Jury.
Nothing can stop us from celebrating human rights defenders
Each year, the Martin Ennals Award honors human rights defenders from around the world who distinguish themselves by their strong commitment to promoting our fundamental rights – often at the risk of their own lives.
The 2021 Martin Ennals Award Ceremony will celebrate their courage on 11 February during an online ceremony hosted jointly with the City of Geneva which, as part of its commitment to human rights, has for many years supported the Award.
The 2021 Finalists
In Turkmenistan, one of the world’s most isolated countries, freedom of speech is inexistant and independent journalists work at their own peril. Soltan Achilova (71), a photojournalist, documents the human rights abuses and social issues affecting Turkmen people in their daily lives. Despite the repressive environment and personal hardships, she is one of the very few reporters in the country daring to sign independent
In Saudi Arabia, women still face several forms of gender discrimination, so much so, that the Kingdom ranks in the bottom 10 places according to the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report 2020. Loujain AlHathloul (31) was one of the leading figures of the Women to drive movement and advocated for the end of the male guardianship system. She was imprisoned in 2018 on charges related to national security together with several other women activists. Tortured, denied medical care, and subjected to solitary confinement, Loujain was sentenced to 5 years and 8 months in prison on 28 December 2020.
In China, more than 300 human rights activists and lawyers disappeared or were arrested in 2015 during the so called 709 Crackdown. A successful business lawyer, Yu Wensheng (54) gave up his career to defend one of these detained lawyers, before being arrested himself. Detained for almost three years now, Yu Wensheng’s right hand was crushed in jail and his health is failing.
Contact
Olivier van Bogaert, Director Media & Communications, ICJ representative in the MEA Jury, t: +41 22 979 38 08 ; e: olivier.vanbogaert(a)icj.org
Chloé Bitton, Communications Manager, Martin Ennals Foundation, t +41 22 809 49 25 e: cbitton(a)martinennalsaward.org
MEA Finalists Bios-2020-ENG (full bios of finalists, in PDF)
MEA Finalists Bios-2020-ARA (full story and bios of finalists in Arabic, PDF)
Jan 18, 2021 | News
The ICJ today condemned the arbitrary arrests in recent days of prominent Zimbabwean human rights defenders Hopewell Chin’ono, Fadzayi Mahere and Job Sikhala, who have been critical of the government led by President Emmerson Mnangagwa.
The ICJ is concerned that their arrests and potential prosecutions are based solely on their exercise of protected human rights, including freedom of expression. The ICJ calls for their immediate release and the dropping of the charges against them.
The three have been charged with contravening section 31 of the Criminal Code which prohibits “publishing or communicating false statements prejudicial to the state”.
The alleged offences arise from posts made on social media and comments issued by all three in connection with an incident at a Harare taxi rank in which a police officer is alleged to have assaulted a mother with a baby on her back.
ICJ’s Africa Director Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh said:
“The use of judicial processes to silence these three human rights defenders constitutes a continuing assault on members of the bar and journalists and is a clear attempt to chill others from carrying out their professional functions when these activities offend government authorities. Of concern is the continued use of criminal defamation (section 31) charges which were declared unconstitutional in 2014 yet continues to be weaponised against human rights defenders.”
Chin’ono, a journalist, was arrested on 8 January and had his application for bail rejected on 14 January. He has been handcuffed and held in leg irons during court appearances, despite a Magistrate’s ruling on 12 January that forcing Chin’ono to be shackled in leg irons and handcuffing him amounts to inhumane and degrading treatment.
Mahere is a lawyer and spokesperson of the opposition political party Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) Alliance. She was arrested on 11 January. On 15 January Magistrate Trynos Utahwashe failed to hand down his ruling on her application for bail as required.
Bail was however granted today. Mahere did raise concerns about the absence of essential COVID-19 measures in her detention, including the lack of temperature checks or sanitisers at the entrance to the police station; the failure to practice social distancing in the waiting area or holding cells; the unavailability of masks in the cells and use of old masks by cellmates; as well as the failure to provide sanitary materials to female inmates.
Sikhala is a human rights lawyer, the MDC Alliance Vice National Chairperson, and MP for Zengeza West.
He was part of Chin’ono’s legal team. On 15 January Magistrate Ngoni Nduna dismissed his bail application stating that there was overwhelming evidence against him not to grant it. He remains in prison custody while he awaits trial. Sikhala has also been handcuffed and held in leg irons during court appearances.
Ramjathan-Keogh added:
“The courts have unlawfully employed the denial of bail as well as the repeated prolonged bail proceedings as a punitive tool in these cases. Pre-trial detention without the opportunity for bail, with exceptions not applicable here, is a violation of the right to liberty. The government has an obligation to provide safe and humane conditions of detention.”
The ICJ recalls that that Zimbabwe’s Constitution guarantees the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of the media (Article 61); freedom from arbitrary detention (Article 50). Zimbabwe has an international legal obligation to protect these rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 9 and 19) and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Articles 6 and 9).
Contact:
Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh, Director of ICJ Africa Programme, e: Kaajal.Keogh(a)icj.org ; t: +27845148039
Tanveer Jeewa, Legal and Communications Consultant, e: Tanveer.Jeewa(a)icj.org
Background Information:
Hopewell Chin’ono has been arrested on three separate occasions. He has been denied bail on each occasion and those bail proceedings have been unduly and unfairly prolonged. He was initially arrested in July 2020 after he expressed support on Twitter for an anti-corruption protest, which was planned for 31 July. He was charged with incitement to participate in public violence and breaching anti-corona virus health regulations.
He appeared in court three times to apply for bail and was only granted bail in September 2020, nearly two months after his arrest. On 3 November 2020, he was re-arrested for contempt of court for allegedly violating section 182(1)(a) or (b) of the Criminal Code because of a tweet he posted. His tweet stated: “On day of bail hearing CJ was seen leaving court in light of what has been said by judges what does this say.” The arrest violates Zimbabwe’s constitutional provisions, in particular, section 61, which provides for freedom of expression and the right of a journalist to practice his profession. He was again arrested on 8 January 2021 for allegedly communicating falsehoods by tweeting that police beat a baby to death.
Chin’ono was in 2020 denied access to the legal representative of his choice. The magistrate’s order barring lawyer Beatrice Mtetwa from continuing as defence legal counsel for Chin’ono violated his right to a fair trial and Mtetwa’s right to express her opinions freely. See ICJ’s statement of 21 August 2020.
