Dec 7, 2020 | News
The ICJ called today on the Council of the EU, the European Parliament and the European Commission to give a central role to the judiciary and ensure effective judicial remedies to prevent and redress human rights violations, in the draft Regulation on “Terrorist Content Online”.
The call comes as the final phase of the negotiations between the EU institutions on the draft Regulation begin this Thursday 10 December..
The ICJ is concerned that without procedures that incorporate core rule of law principles in the Regulation, there is a risk of improper and overreaching suppression of content that will undermine freedom of expression and other rights online.
Among the ICJ ‘s concerns with the proposal as it currently stands, is that it does not provide for mandatory judicial authorization and judicial review of orders by national authorities to remove content online deemed to be “terrorist”.
According to draft Article 4 of the proposal, national “competent authorities” would have the power to issue a decision requiring a hosting service provider to remove “terrorist” content or disable access to it within one hour from receipt of the removal order.
The ICJ considers that the power to issue removal orders to censor content online within an hour, without prior judicial authorisation, risks leading to excessive, arbitrary or discriminatory interference with the freedoms of expression, religion, assembly and association online as well as with rights to privacy and data protection of persons residing or present in EU Member States.
Under international and EU human rights law applicable to EU Member States, any restriction on these rights must be prescribed by law so that their application is clear and foreseeable, must be necessary and proportionate in the circumstances of the individual case, must be non-discriminatory and must allow access to an effective remedy. Furthermore, any person must have access to a court of law to access justice against breach of their rights.
The proposal, if approved without modifications, would allow – as yet undetermined – national authorities to order the removal of content online from host service providers, even if these are residing outside of their State or of the EU, without any authorisation from a court of law.
Furthermore, the definition of “terrorist” content relies heavily on a recent EU Directive on Combatting terrorism (2017/541) that allows for excessively wide criminalisation of forms of expression, such as the offence of “glorification of terrorism”.
The proposal is also likely to trigger a jurisdictional quagmire among EU Member States that will in the medium term be counter-productive to the objective of countering terrorism.
The power of a non-judicial authority of a Member State to issue orders binding upon public and private entities of another Member State, without prior judicial approval on the constitutionality and lawfulness of the order and of the rights in each jurisdiction, will seriously undermine mutual trust among jurisdictions, a core principle for the functioning of the EU Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. This is particularly important in light of the serious threats to the Rule of Law occurring in certain EU Member States that are already impairing the functioning of other EU criminal cooperation instruments, such as the European Arrest Warrant.
The ICJ therefore calls on all the actors heading the negotiations on the EU Regulation on “Terrorist Content Online” to adjust the current draft in order to provide for a central role of judicial authorities of EU Member States in the scheme of the Regulation by requiring designated “competent authorities” under Article 4 of the Regulation to be judicial authorities; to provide for judicial review, and to include adequate safeguards in the Regulation to ensure the protection of the human rights of any person subject to their jurisdiction.
Background
In 2018 the European Commission published a proposal of the EU Regulation on “Terrorist Content” Online. The aim of the Regulation is to establish uniform rules to prevent the misuse of hosting services for the dissemination of terrorist content online.
The Regulation has been since discussed by the Council of the EU and the European Parliament, who are currently in the final stages of negotiation in the EU legislative procedure in closed sessions among representatives of the European Parliament, the Council of the EU and the European Commission (the so-called trialogue procedure).
Contact:
Karolina Babicka, Legal Adviser, Europe and Central Asia Programme, e: karolina.babicka(a)icj.org
Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser, Europe and Central Asia Programme, e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org, t: +41 79 749 99 49
Dec 2, 2020 | News
The ICJ today called upon the Sri Lankan authorities to conduct a prompt, thorough and impartial investigation into the events involving the use of lethal force by prison guards at Mahara prison on 29 and 30 November, which left at least nine inmates killed and over hundred others injured.
The action by the guards was taken in response to unrest resulting from protests by inmates over unsafe and overcrowded conditions in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The ICJ also called for urgent measure to address the unsafe conditions in Sri Lankan prisons to protect the right to health and life, including where necessary by releasing detainees.
“The tragic events of Mahara prison are a consequence of the failure of the Sri Lankan authorities to effectively address the situation of prison conditions, which has turned into a full blown human rights and public health crisis in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic”, said Ian Seiderman, ICJ Legal and Policy Director
The unrest was the culmination of a series of protests staged by the prisoners demanding an increase in coronavirus testing and new isolation facilities for infected prisoners. According to Senaka Perera, President of the Committee for Protecting the Rights of the Prisoners, around 200 inmates of the Mahara prison have been infected with COVID-19.
While the Minister of Rehabilitation and Prison Reforms and the Inspector General of Police have instructed the Criminal Investigation Department to probe the unrest caused at the Mahara Prison, the Minister of Justice has formed a separate five-member committee, chaired by former High Court Judge Kusala Saorini Weerawardena, to conduct its own investigation.
The ICJ recalls that under international law, the use of lethal force by State authorities is only permissible where strictly necessary to protect life. This standard should govern any investigation, and those responsible for unlawful conduct resulting in death or injuries to prisoners must be held to account.
“In addition to ensuring accountability and redress for any violations at the Mahara Prison, the authorities must act swiftly to meet the legitimate grievances of detainees throughout the country”, added Ian Seiderman.
“An effective response is not optional, but is necessary to fulfill the State’s legal obligation to provide for equal access to healthcare and health services to prisoners, who are among the most vulnerable to the ravages of COVID-19 in highly unsafe, enclosed and overcrowded environments.” Seiderman added.
The incident follows a wave of similar protests in several other prisons in the country. On 18 November, five inmates who were under quarantine at the Old Bogambara Prison attempted to break out and an inmate was shot dead when the prisoner officers opened fire at the fleeing inmates.
The ICJ called for the release of detainees who are particularly at risk of losing their life or suffering severe health effects from COVID-19. This would also apply to other convicts who could be released without compromising public safety, such as those sentenced for minor, non-violent offences.
Background
Speaking in Parliament on Monday, Minister of Rehabilitation and Prison Reforms Dr. Sudharshini Fernandopulle stated that the Government has taken steps to reduce overcrowding by directing COVID-19 positive prisoners out of the prisons to the Welikanda Hospital and moving all women inmates to the Kandakadu Rehabilitation Centre. She also stated that a mechanism has been put in place to obtain bail for those arrested for minor drug offences. Moreover, a presidential pardon has been granted to over 600 convicts of minor offences who were in remand due to their inability to pay the required fine.
Several UN bodies, including the WHO and OHCHR, came together in recommending that States consider limiting the deprivation of liberty including pretrial detention, to a measure of last resort and enhance efforts to resort to non-custodial measures.
Contact
Osama Motiwala, Communications Officer – osama.motiwala(a)icj.org
Nov 29, 2020 | News
The ICJ and its Swiss section (ICJ-CH) regret the results of the vote yesterday in Switzerland rejecting the popular initiative for responsible businesses. While the majority of the popular vote approved the initiative, there was no majority of voters in a majority of Cantons.
Under the Swiss constitution, to be approved, such initiative amending the constitution needs the majority of both the popular vote in Switzerland and in a majority of Cantons part of the Swiss Confederation.
“The strong support gathered by this initiative, expressed in the majority of the popular vote, is encouraging, and a strong message that the Federal Parliament and the Federal Council must take into account in the process of the implementation of the legislative counter-proposal and in further legislation,” said Marco Sassòli, ICJ commissioner.
A counter-proposal prepared by the Federal Council is now approved by default. This counter-proposal foresees due diligence obligations for some sectors and reporting obligations, but no specific legal liability.
The proposed initiative would have required multinationals based in Switzerland to respect human rights also abroad, and to carry out human rights due diligence to identify and prevent potential human rights abuses.
It would also have clarified the multinational’s legal responsibility for violations of internationally recognized human rights and environmental norms by enterprises that it controls and operate abroad.
Nov 26, 2020 | Advocacy, News
Pakistani authorities should urgently and impartially investigate a surge in violent attacks on members of the Ahmadiyya religious community, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the ICJ said today.
The authorities should take appropriate legal action against those responsible for threats and violence against Ahmadis.
Since July 2020, there have been at least five apparently targeted killings of members of the Ahmadiyya community. In only two of the cases have the police taken a suspect into custody. Pakistani authorities have long downplayed, and at times even encouraged, violence against Ahmadis, whose rights to freedom of religion and belief are not respected under Pakistani law.
“There are few communities in Pakistan who have suffered as much as the Ahmadis,” said Omar Waraich, head of South Asia at Amnesty International. “The recent wave of killings tragically underscores not just the seriousness of the threats they face, but also the callous indifference of the authorities, who have failed to protect the community or punish the perpetrators.”
On November 20, a teenage assailant is alleged to have fatally shot Dr. Tahir Mahmood, 31, as he answered the door of his house in Nankana Sahib district, Punjab. Mahmood’s father and two uncles were injured in the attack. The police reported that the suspect “confessed to having attacked the family over religious differences.”
Several recent attacks have occurred in the city of Peshawar, in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. On November 9, Mahmoob Khan, 82, was fatally shot while waiting at a bus station. On October 6, two men on a motorcycle stopped the car of Dr. Naeemuddin Khattak, 57, a professor at the Government Superior Science College, and fired five shots, killing him. His family said he had a “heated argument over a religious issue” with a colleague a day before. Jamaat-i-Ahmadiyya, a community organization, issued a statement saying Khattak had previously received threats and was targeted because of his faith.
On August 12, Meraj Ahmed, 61, was fatally shot as he was closing his shop in Peshawar. On July 29, an alleged 19-year-old assailant killed Tahir Ahmad Naseem, 57, inside a high-security courtroom. Naseem was facing trial for blasphemy accusations. In a video that circulated on social media, the suspect states that Naseem was a “blasphemer.”
Successive Pakistani governments have failed to protect the human rights and security of the Ahmadiyya community. The penal code explicitly discriminates against religious minorities and targets Ahmadis by prohibiting them from “indirectly or directly posing as a Muslim.” Ahmadis are banned from declaring or propagating their faith publicly, building mosques, or making the Muslim call for prayer.
The authorities arbitrarily arrest, detain, and charge Ahmadis for blasphemy and other offenses because of their religious beliefs. The police have often been complicit in harassment and bringing fabricated charges against Ahmadis or have not intervened to stop anti-Ahmadi violence. The government’s failure to address religious persecution of Ahmadis has facilitated violence against them in the name of religion.
“Pakistan was part of the consensus at the UN General Assembly that required that states take active measures to ensure that persons belonging to religious minorities may exercise fully and effectively all their human rights and fundamental freedoms without any discrimination and in full equality before the law,” said Ian Seiderman, legal and policy director at the International Commission of Jurists. “The Pakistani government has completely failed to do so in the case of the Ahmadis.”
The Pakistani government also promotes discriminatory practices against Ahmadis. For example, all Pakistani Muslim citizens applying for passports are obliged to sign a statement explicitly stating that they consider the founder of the Ahmadi community an “imposter,” and consider Ahmadis to be non-Muslims.
Pakistani laws against the Ahmadiyya community violate Pakistan’s international legal obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Pakistan ratified in 2010, including the rights to freedom of conscience, religion, expression, and association, and to profess and practice one’s own religion.
Independent experts of the United Nations Human Rights Council, including the special rapporteurs on the freedom of religion or belief and the UN special rapporteur on minority issues, and the special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, have previously expressed concern at the persecution of the Ahmadiyya community in Pakistan.
“Pakistan’s federal and provincial governments should take immediate legal and policy measures to eliminate widespread and rampant discrimination and social exclusion faced by the Ahmadiyya community in Pakistan,” said Patricia Gossman, associate Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The government should repeal the blasphemy law and all anti-Ahmadiyya provisions.”
Contact
In Brussels, for Human Rights Watch, Patricia Gossman: +32-472-982-925; or +1-347-322-8638 (WhatsApp); or gossmap@hrw.org. Twitter: @pagossman:
In Geneva, for the International Commission of Jurists, Ian Seiderman: e: ian.seiderman(a)icj.org
In Colombo, for Amnesty International, Omar Waraich: +44 7378 980870 (mobile); or omar.waraich@amnesty.org.
Nov 26, 2020 | Advocacy, News
Today, the ICJ joined other NGOs in condemning the Thai police’s use of force against peaceful protesters marching to the national parliament in Bangkok on November 17, 2020.
The statement reads:
We, the undersigned organizations, condemn the Thai police’s unnecessary and excessive use of force against peaceful protesters marching to the national parliament in Bangkok on November 17, 2020. We are concerned that authorities could employ similar measures when facing protesters who have declared they will march to the Siam Commercial Bank headquarters on November 25.
On November 17, police set out barriers and barbed wire to prevent a peaceful march organized by pro-democracy movements from reaching the parliament. Protesters planned to protest outside the parliament as members of parliament and senators debated seven different proposals for constitutional amendments, including an amendment proposed by the lawyers’ non-governmental organization iLAW (Internet Law Reform Dialogue), which was supported by the People’s Movement and its allies. Police refused to let protesters through the barriers, and when the demonstrators acted to breach those barriers, police crowd control units used water cannons laced with purple dye and an apparent teargas chemical, as well as teargas grenades and pepper spray grenades, to forcibly disperse thousands of demonstrators, including students, some of whom are children. Water cannons were first used at approximately 2:25 pm and police continued their efforts to disperse protesters, with constant use of water cannons, teargas and pepper spray into the evening.
Police also failed to prevent violence between pro-democracy protesters and royalist “yellow shirts” near the Kiak Kai intersection, near the parliament. Initially, riot police separated the two groups. However, video posted on social media later showed police officers informing the royalist protesters that they would withdraw and seconds later they vacated their position between the two groups. During the ensuing skirmishes, both sides were filmed throwing rocks and wielding clubs. Live broadcasts included sounds that appeared to be gunfire.
The Erawan Medical Centre reported that there were at least 55 protesters injured, mostly from inhaling teargas. It also reported that there were six protesters who suffered gunshot wounds. The injured included children: a kindergartener and elementary school students.
Although some pro-democracy protesters engaged in violent conduct in responding to royalist protesters, we emphasize that the overwhelming number of protesters were entirely peaceful. Furthermore, we wish to emphasize that while specific participants of an assembly who engage in violence are subject to a response that is lawful, strictly necessary and proportionate, they also retain all other human rights including the right to life, to security of person and to freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
International human rights law, as expressed in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Thailand acceded to in 1996, protects the rights to freedom of expression (article 19) and peaceful assembly (article 21). But Thai authorities have routinely enforced censorship and stifled public assemblies, meetings, and discussions about human rights, political reforms, and the monarchy’s role in society.
In General Comment 37, which sets out the content Thailand’s legal obligations in guaranteeing the right of peaceful assembly, the United Nations Human Rights Committee—the body responsible for interpreting and applying the ICCPR—made clear that there is a presumption in favor of considering assemblies to be peaceful. Isolated acts of violence by individuals should not be attributed to others, to the organizers, or to the assembly as such. While the right of peaceful assembly may in certain cases be limited, the onus is for the State to justify any restrictions, which must pass the tests of legality, legitimacy, and necessity and proportionality.
Read the full statement in English and Thai.
Nov 23, 2020 | Agendas, Events, News
The International Commission of Jurists and the Human Rights Joint Platform (IHOP) invite you to a Zoom workshop where Turkish and international experts will discuss the plight of violence against women in Turkey in light of the Council of Europe’s Istanbul Convention.
To participate, please register by writing an email to ihop@ihop.org.tr (the Human Rights Joint Platform).
Join our great panel of speakers:
– Dame Silvia Cartwright, ICJ Commissioner, former Governor-General and High Court judge of New Zealand, former CEDAW member
– Prof. Dr. Feride Acar, former Member of CEDAW, former Chair of GREVIO
– Zuzanna Warso, Lawyer, Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights of Poland
– Hülya Gülbahar, Women rights activist, Lawyer
– Nebahat Akkoç, Chair of KAMER Foundation
– Yasemin ÖZ, Lawyer, Kaos GL
– Feray Salman, General Coordinator of the Human Rights Joint Platform (IHOP)
– Massimo Frigo, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser
IHOPICJ-ZoomConference-WomenAccess2Justice-Agenda-2020-ENG (download the agenda in English)
IHOPICJ-ZoomConference-WomenAccess2Justice-Agenda-2020-TUR (download the agenda in Turkish)
The event is part of the REACT project: implemented jointly by ICJ and IHOP, this project seeks to support the role of civil society actors in turkey in ensuring effective access to justice for the protection of human rights. This project is funded by the European Union. The views expressed in the event do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the EU.
