May 8, 2020 | News
The ICJ today denounced the decision on 5 May 2020 by the Philippines’ National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) to issue an order to ABS CBN Corporation, one of the leading media outlets in the country, to cease its on-air operations.
The ICJ asserted that the action against ABS CBN violates the right to freedom of opinion and expression, which includes the rights of the media to operate without censorship or restraint and the public’s right to access information. This right is guaranteed under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Poliitical Rights (ICCPR). The Philippines is a State Party to the ICCPR.
“A free and unhindered media is essential in any society to ensure freedom of opinion and expression and other human rights. It is one of the cornerstones of a democratic society,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser.
The NTC’s basis for issuing the order is that ABS CBN’s legislative franchise has expired on 4 May 2020 and action has yet to be taken on its renewal by the House of Representatives. The ICJ fears that the reasons for this delay may be politically motivated.
Given the stakes for freedom of expression, the ICJ urges NTC to follow its own precedents whereby it has allowed broadcast and telecommunications companies to operate beyond their franchise expiry dates, pending the renewal.
“Limitations imposed on the right to freedom of opinion and expression have to pass the general tests, including that of necessity and proportionality, which do not appear to have been met here,” Gil added.
The action taken against ABS CBN is part of a pattern of harassment of independent media by governmental authorities in the Philippines. President Rodrigo Duterte has, in the past, expressed resentment towards ABS CBN for allegedly refusing to air his political ads when he ran for office in 2016. The network is also known to have aired views critical of his administration’s murderous ‘war on drugs’.
In December 2019, President Duterte said that he would make sure that ABS CBN’s franchise would not be renewed. This is not the first time that he has sought to silence a media outlet critical of his administration.
There are at least 11 bills seeking the renewal of the franchise currently pending at the House of Representatives, with the earliest filed in July 2019.
“It is taking the House of Representatives an inordinately long period of time to approve the renewal of ABS CBN’s franchise,” said Gil. “It appears that the allies of this administration in the House are holding the franchise renewal like a sword over ABS CBN’s head to chill it from airing critical views about the government.”
The UN Human Rights Committee, the ICCPR’s supervisory body, has said that States must avoid imposing onerous licensing conditions on broadcast media, and that the criteria for the application of these conditions should be reasonable, objective, clear, transparent, and non-discriminatory.
This action against ABS CBN comes in the middle of the state of public health emergency in the Philippines when access to information is vital in the country’s response to the COVID-19 crisis. The ICJ had earlier raised its concerns on abuses occurring during the lockdown in the Philippines.
The ICJ calls on the Philippine government to uphold and respect freedom of opinion and expression, and ensure that a free press can operate without censorship or restraint.
The ICJ also reminds the government that the public’s access to information is vital to ensure public health and safety during the COVID-19 crisis.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser, t: +662 619 8477 (ext. 206) or e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
May 6, 2020 | Advocacy, News, Publications
In a report published today, the ICJ called on the police and prosecutorial authorities in Myanmar to re-open the investigation into the death of journalist Ko Par Gyi in military custody in September 2014.
The report documented the many barriers that have prevented justice from being served in this case, as well as other cases of gross human rights violations in Myanmar.
The ICJ called on the Union Parliament to repeal or amend the 1959 Defence Services Act and other legislation that effectively provides immunity to military personnel accused of serious crimes. These and other barriers have been described at length in the ICJ’s 2018 report on Achieving Justice for Gross Human Rights Violations.
“More than three years ago, the police abruptly ended their formal inquiry into the killing of Ko Par Gyi, without providing any justifiable legal rationale for its closure,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Director. “In the intervening years, we have seen what happens when this culture of military impunity goes unaddressed.”
In the report, An unlawful killing: How Ko Par Gyi’s death highlights barriers to justice in Myanmar, the ICJ evaluated the various investigations into the death and identified three key obstacles to justice in the case:
- the existence and operation of national laws like the 1959 Defence Services Act that shield security forces from public criminal prosecutions, serving to deny victims and their families the right to truth about violations;
- sub-standard investigative practices that are vulnerable to political pressure and lacked independence, and simultaneous, separate and uncoordinated investigations that resulted in an unsystematic and ineffective approach to investigating the case; and
- a lack of transparency that denied the family their right to access information concerning the violations and accountability processes.
Ko Par Gyi was detained by police in Mon State and transferred to military detention on 30 September 2014. He died four days later in military custody. A deeply flawed inquiry carried out in military courts, pursuant to the 1959 Defence Services Act, resulted in the acquittal of the soldiers allegedly involved. Those same provisions are commonly used to transfer cases involving military personnel from civilian to military court. Under international standards, military courts should not be used to try military personnel or others for gross human rights violations and crimes under international law.
“It is no surprise that an international investigative mechanism has been established to look into alleged serious human rights violations in Rakhine and elsewhere in Myanmar,” said Rawski. “Myanmar’s legal framework does not provide adequate safeguards to ensure independent investigation into and prosecution of serious human rights violations. What happened to Ko Par Gyi’s case illustrates that all too clearly.”
The UN Human Rights Council has established an Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar (IIMM) to collect evidence and prepare files for criminal prosecution of the most serious international crimes and violations of international law committed in Myanmar since 2011.
Key recommendations in the report include:
- To the Executive and the Union Parliament: amend the 1959 Defense Services Act to align it with democratic principles, the constitutional guarantee of equal legal protection, and the State’s international law obligation to protect the right to life, including by prosecuting serious violations.
- To the Tatmadaw: apply standards and procedures in military courts that conform to international law, ensure all crimes perpetrated against civilians are tried in the civilian judicial system, and reform rules of engagement to explicitly instruct soldiers to protect life, consistent with international law.
- To the Myanmar Police Force and the Union Attorney General’s Office: align investigative procedures and practices with international law and standards.
- To the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission: take an active and broad interpretation of the MNHRC mandate to address serious human rights violations including those which have gone before courts.
- To UN Member States and international organizations: ensure any organizational support to security forces is contingent on and enables demonstrable commitments to prevent and punish violations by its members.
This report was produced as part of the ICJ’s Global Accountability Initiative, which aims at combatting impunity and promoting redress for gross human rights violations around the world through the entrenchment of the rule of law
Download
An unlawful killing: How Ko Par Gyi’s death highlights barriers to justice in Myanmar in English and Burmese.
Press statement with additional background information on Ko Par Gyi in English and Burmese.
Contact:
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director, (Bangkok), t:+66 64 4781121, e: frederick.rawski@icj.org
Kingsley Abbott, Coordinator of the ICJ’s Global Accountability Initiative, t: +66 94 470 1345; e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
May 1, 2020 | Advocacy, News
The ICJ today condemned the recent decisions of the governments of the Republic of Benin and Côte d’Ivoire to withdraw their respective declarations that gave individuals and nongovernmental organizations the right to directly bring cases of human rights violations against those States, before the African Court on Human and Peoples Rights.
The ICJ called on the authorities of both States to reconsider and rescind these decisions.
Coming after a similar withdrawal by Tanzania in November 2019, these withdrawal decisions serve to deprive the inhabitants of these countries access to a judicial remedy at the regional level for human rights violations, and undermine the effective of the African regional human rights system.
The ICJ stressed that withdrawal decisions serve to undermine Aspiration 3 of the African Union’s AGENDA 2063, by which the AU aims at “[a]n Africa of good governance, democracy, respect for human rights, justice and the rule of law.”
Both States have offered vague and unsubstantiated rationales for their decisions, but their actions follow their dissatisfaction with the outcomes of particular cases against them. Responses of this kind are effectively an attack on the independence of the Court and can serve to undermine the integrity of the Court itself.
The ICJ recalls that in February 2020, the Executive Council of the African Union called on African States to accede to the Protocol Establishing the African Court and to make the declaration required under article 34(6) of the Protocol. These decisions of the governments of Benin and Côte d’Ivoire to withdraw their article 34(6) declarations fly in the face of this call by the Executive Council of the African Union and greatly threaten the progress that has been made towards protection of human rights in Africa.
Background
Article 34(6) of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights establishing the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights requires that State Parties to the Protocol make a separate declaration in order to allow direct access to individuals and non-governmental organizations to bring cases against them before the African Human Rights Court. Benin which deposited its declaration on 8 February 2016 announced its withdrawal of the declaration on 23 April 2020. Benin claimed that its decision is based ‘dysfunctions and slip-ups’ it has increasingly observed in the work of the African Human Rights Court, allegedly resulting in the Court’s increasing departure from its mandate and core area of competence. Benin cited the earlier withdrawals of Rwanda and Tanzania as further justification for its decision.
Côte d’Ivoire, which deposited its declaration on 23 July 2013 and announced its withdrawal on 29 April 2020, says that its decision was based on what it considers to be ‘the serious and intolerable actions that the African Court has allowed itself’ and which ‘not only undermines the sovereignty of the state of Côte d’Ivoire … but are also likely to cause serious disruption to the internal legal order of states’.
Contact:
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Africa Director, C: +27716405926, or +254 746 608 859 E: arnold.tsunga@icj.org
Solomon Ebobrah, Senior Legal Advisor, ICJ Africa, C: +234 8034927549; E: Solomon.ebobrah@icj.org
Full text, in PDF: Ivory-Coast-Statement-Advocacy-ENG-2020
May 1, 2020 | News
The decision by Nepal’s Supreme Court to reject a petition by the government asking that it review its 2015 ruling against amnesties for grave conflict-era crimes is an important step in securing truth, justice and reparations for the thousands of victims of the country’s decade-long conflict, the ICJ and other groups said today.
The armed conflict between Maoist and government forces ended in 2006, but victims of serious abuses by both sides are still awaiting justice, accountability and reparations.
The ICJ, Amnesty International, TRIAL International, and Human Rights Watch called upon the Government to revise the 2014 Transitional Justice Act and ensure its implementation in accordance with the Supreme Court’s judgments, so as to assure access to justice for the victims of conflict-era abuses.
Nepal’s transitional justice law, which was passed by Parliament in April 2014, established a Truth and Reconciliation Commission and a Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons.
However, it contained provisions that could allow for amnesties even for crimes such as torture, including rape and other sexual violence and ill-treatment and enforced disappearance.
On 26 February 2015, the Supreme Court struck down the amnesty provisions and ordered the act to be amended accordingly. However, the government immediately petitioned to overturn the ruling. That petition was rejected by the court on April 27, 2020.
“With the Supreme Court’s decision, there can be no further excuse for government backsliding on ensuring truth, justice, reparations and guarantees of non-recurrence. The government should immediately amend the Enforced Disappearances Enquiry, Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act, 2014 in line with the Supreme Court’s orders and its own international obligations,” said Biraj Patnaik, South Asia Director at Amnesty International.
With its latest ruling the Supreme Court has upheld the principle that there can be no amnesties for those suspected of criminal responsibility for crimes under international law and human rights violations. More than 13 years since the Comprehensive Peace Agreement of November 2006 promised justice to the victims, no one has been made accountable for any conflict era crimes.
“The request filed by the Nepal Government to review the decision of the Supreme Court was another attempt to evade the real issue: accountability for mass human rights violations. We are delighted that the Supreme Court held its ground and reaffirmed the importance of fair and efficient transitional justice mechanisms,” said Cristina Cariello, the Head of Nepal Program at TRIAL International.
Amnesty International, the ICJ, Human Rights Watch and TRIAL International have repeatedly expressed concerns about the faltering transitional justice process. Besides the failure to amend the law to uphold basic principles of justice, there have been long delays and repeated political interference in appointments to the two transitional justice commissions.
“Over the past decade, the Supreme Court of Nepal has produced some of the most human rights compliant jurisprudence in South Asia. This petition cynically sought to have the Court undermine its own judgement, so that the government could sidestep its responsibility to provide accountability for conflict-related human rights violations,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Director. “The government has no excuse for not immediately amending the transitional justice legal framework so that it is consistent with the Court’s jurisprudence and Nepal’s international legal obligations.”
An effective transitional justice system requires strong legal foundations consistent with international law and standards, and the political will to address the demands of victims of the conflict, the organizations said.
“When Nepal stood for election to the United Nations Human Rights Council the government promised to uphold its human rights obligations, but 3 years later, as it seeks re-election, there has been nothing but impunity and evasion on transitional justice,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “These are crimes under international law, subject to universal jurisdiction, and if justice is denied at home victims may take their cases abroad.”
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director, frederick.rawski(a)icj.org, +66644781121
Download
English
Nepali
Apr 29, 2020 | Advocacy, News, Op-eds
An opinion piece by Carolina Villadiego Burbano, ICJ Legal and Policy Adviser for Latin America.
Several Latin American governments have adopted exceptional emergency measures to face the COVID-19 health crisis. The measures, motivated by policies with the objctive of urgently protecting people’s health, have been accompanied by restrictions to personal freedoms (i.e. quarantines, isolations).
Judiciaries have also adopted specific measures too to protect the right to health of persons involved in proceedings while providing services for guaranteeing access to justice during the emergency. They have reduced physical operations; adopted social distancing measures in courts; postponed proceedings; authorized remote work for judges and administrative officers; incorporated urgent mechanisms to guarantee fundamental rights and allowed the use of technology.
Judiciaries fulfil different roles under international humans rights law and, as a recent ICJ briefing note recalls, these roles remain as or even more important during the pandemic. Those roles include guaranteeing individual rights, including the right to a fair trial, freedom from arbitrary detention, freedom from torture and other ill-treatment and the right to an effective remedy. In addition, the responsibility of the judiciary is to securing the rule of law more generally by reviewing the government’s decisions during the emergency.
This blog illustrates measures adopted by South American judiciaries and some preliminary and personal reflections on some of the factors to be considered in assessing their proportionality and effectiveness.
Specific measures to protect health while guaranteeing access to justice
Brazil’s National Council of Justice has recommended to judges several measures that could reduce epidemiological risks, such as reassessing pre-trial detentions. This review could include revoking pretrial detentions when detainees were pregnant women or were under pretrial detention for more than 90 days.
Chile’s Supreme Court has established criteria for judges and other personnel to work remotely, and for holding specific hearings by videoconference with previous coordination with the parties and by ensuring due process guarantees. Also, instructions have been given to prioritize cases linked to the sanitary emergency and related to the protection of rights of persons in vulnerable conditions.
Colombia’s Judicial Council postponed proceedings except for urgent ones, such as those essential for the protection of fundamental rights (tutela), habeas corpus, constitutional and legal control of the emergency governmental decrees, decisions regarding persons deprived of liberty and protective measures related to domestic violence cases. The judiciary has published email addresses where urgent applications could be made electronically and allowed the use of videoconferencing and remote work for judges.
Ecuador’s Judicial Council has allowed remote working by judges, and videoconference hearings have been adopted for crimes committed in flagrante delicto. Judicial proceedings have been postponed, except for urgent cases, such as for crimes committed in flagrante delicto, domestic violence, juvenile justice and prisoners’ guarantees. The Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court has defined rules applicable to the procedures under their jurisdiction.
Peru’s Executive Council of the Judiciary postponed proceedings and established that some judges should work physically at courts on urgent proceedings, such as those related to rights of detainees, domestic violence and payment of parental support. Some remote work has also been allowed.
Other judiciaries have adopted similar measures. Provincial judiciaries from Argentina and judges from Bolivia have held hearings through videoconferences. Paraguay’s judiciary identified urgent matters for which it would provide services.
Judiciaries, right to an effective remedy and access to justice: what next?
More than one month after those judicial measures were adopted it is important to reflect on their proportionality and their effectiveness. It is also important to envision a middle-term plan to deal with the consequences of postponement of proceedings and the likely increase of judicial workload when restrictions end. I suggest three sets of issues that could be considered as a starting point for such reflection by Latin American judiciaries, civil society and international bodies and agencies:
- Effects on the protection of the right to health and on rights of judges and court personnel
- There should be a review of the measures adopted to guarantee in-person services, especially analyzing if adequate health standards have been guaranteed for all persons participating in proceedings. There has been some criticism that protective measures have been insufficient and sometimes they were only available for judges and courts’ administrative staff.
- There should be an assessment with judges and other personnel, whether the remote work complied with health-work standards. It is crucial to review the conditions of persons working remotely, in particular in relation to information technology, and if work schedules have been flexible when judges/personnel were caring for children or dependent adults.
- There should be a review as to whether there has been a disproportionate effect in the workload of female judges or other female personnel while working remotely, caring for children and performing domestic activities.
- General considerations with a human rights approach
The following questions might be considered:
- Review whether judicial proceedings continue to be accessible wherever necessary to guarantee the right to an effective remedy regarding human rights, and to otherwise ensure judicial review of the lawfulness of governmental decisions. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has established that “appropriate legal proceedings to ensure the full exercise of rights and freedoms” should not be suspended.
- Review whether judicial measures that guarantee the right to an effective remedy are accessible for all persons in a country, especially for those in a situation of vulnerability or risk.
- Establish priorities and policies for cases related to persons or groups in conditions of particular risk (e.g. detainees, migrants, refugees), and for persons without access to technology.
- Review if hearings held by videoconferences guaranteed parties’ rights, such as due process, right to defense, right to call and confront evidence, and right to consult confidentially with one’s lawyer.
- Assess whether the security protocols used by the remote work and videoconferencing technologies, ensure that sensitive, confidential or otherwise private information, is adequately protected.
- Adopt transparency policies and adopt public assessment of the measures adopted, so individuals can exercise control and oversight of these measures as they affect defendants, parties, lawyers and the general public.
- Medium-term plan for Judiciaries
- Judiciaries should develop a medium-term plan soon to guarantee the right to an effective remedy to address the adverse human rights effects that COVID-19 has brought and may continue to generate. The plan should be public and should consider the possible increase of workload due to postponement of proceedings and impacts on specific rights, such as health, work, water and sanitation and food. It could consider deploying teams of emergency judges to provide access to an effective remedy for these rights and the use of adaptive case management tools.
- Judiciaries should develop a strategy to ensure that cases of human rights violations that constitute crimes under international law, enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, torture and ill-treatment, are not indefinitely delayed, cancelled or otherwise compromised. Such impediments must not be allowed to result in impunity of perpetrators or pose obstacles to ensuring that victims receive complete information regarding the advance of their cases.
The COVID-19 pandemic has modified judiciaries’ methods of work. As they adopted specific measures to protect the health of persons as well as to provide judicial remedies, it is important to review their measures with a human rights approach. It is also critical that judiciaries themselves analyze their practices and adopt changes when necessary. The Inter-American Commission of Human Rights and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers should continue to specifically monitor these measures and report on them.
In PDF: Latin-America-Judiciaries-During-COVID-OpEd-2020-ENG
Apr 28, 2020 | Advocacy, News, Open letters
The ICJ today called on the South African government to take measures to ensure access to justice and the full fulfillment of the economic, social and cultural rights of all in the country.
The South African authorities must also remove legal hurdles in accessing just compensation for rights violations occurring during nationwide lockdown, the ICJ said.
The call comes as South Africa enters its final week of a lockdown period, which initially began on 26 March 2020. Since the beginning of the lockdown period the ICJ has been working closely with a broad coalition of local civil society organizations and movements called the C19 People’s Coalition.
“The ICJ applauds South Africa on its announcement that it will commit 10% of its GDP to a social relief and economic support package addressing poverty and in inequality which has been exacerbated by COVID-19,” said Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Africa Director.
“However we note with concern the high levels of repression and human rights abuses committed by enforcement officers enforcing Lockdown Regulations and the inadequacy of social assistance measures to ensure an effective elimination of poverty in accordance with South Africa’s international and domestic human right obligations.”
- Repression and human rights abuses by enforcement officers during Lockdown
Both the Disaster Management Act and Lockdown Regulations enacted in terms of it create doubt about whether victims of violations of human rights in the enforcement of lockdown will be able to claim compensation for such violations.
The ICJ has therefore written to President Cyril Ramaphosa (photo) and Speaker of the National Assembly Thandi Modise calling on the authorities to make the necessary legal amendments required to ensure the full protection of the right to access to justice, which includes the right to effective remedies and reparation.
The ICJ calls on authorities to ensure the amendment of the National Disaster Act and Lockdown Regulations to ensure that victims of human rights abuses have full and effective access to the right to remedy and reparation including compensation.
- Inadequate Social Assistance provided
Despite the large stimulus package announced by President Ramaphosa on 21 April, the C19 People’s Coalition has correctly argued that the new COVID-19 social grant of R350 ($18.44 USD) per month for unemployed persons is less than a third of the R1227 ($64.65) that government itself estimates individuals require to be lifted out of poverty.
In addition, the increase of the Child Support Grant of R500 ($26.35) per month appears, contrary to what the President’s announcement suggested, to be allocated per caregiver not per child thus drastically reducing its potential impact.
The ICJ calls on authorities to ensure the full provision of a social safety net to all in South Africa by: 1) raising the levels of all non-contributory social assistance benefits to a level that ensures an adequate standard of living for recipients and their families; and 2) ensuring that those between the ages of 18 and 59 with little or no income have access to social assistance.
These two measures were among those specified in the Concluding Observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to South Africa.
South Africa declared a moratorium on all evictions during the lockdown period on 26 March after local organizations and the ICJ had called for such a move.
Later amendments to Lockdown Regulations made it a criminal offence for any person to evict any other person. Despite this, evictions continue in some places unabated as is illustrated by statements of Abahlali BaseMjondolo and Abahlali BaseMjondolo Women’s League late last week.
These evictions have sometimes been violent and accompanied by serious allegations of attempted murder of community members and human rights defenders.
The ICJ calls on authorities to ensure the immediate cessation of all evictions. The President of South Africa and the Parliament of South Africa must make sure that police officers, security and other companies and government officials participating in evictions are clearly, decisively and publicly held to account.
Those carrying out evictions should be prosecuted in accordance with Lockdown Regulations. The police and prosecuting authorities should also investigate and where sufficient evidence exists pursue prosecution of those found to have committed crimes of violence or similar offences against those who are subjected to or defend against such evictions.
“The continued violent attacks experienced by human rights defenders and those simply trying to retain their homes is unacceptable. The time has come for the President of South Africa and Parliament of South Africa to intervene directly to prevent any further such attacks generally, but in particular with regard to Abahlali BaseMjondolo settlements in KwaZulu-Natal,” added Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Africa Director.
Contact:
Tim Fish Hodgson, ICJ Legal Adviser, t: +2782871990 ; e: tim.hodgson(a)icj.org
Shaazia Ebrahim, ICJ Media Officer, t: +27716706719 ; e: shaazia.ebrahim(a)icj.org
