Apr 30, 2021 | News
The ICJ today condemned the Sri Lankan cabinet’s approval of the proposed ban on face coverings, which, if adopted by Parliament would directly discriminate against Muslim women
The Cabinet on 27 April approved the proposal put forward by Minister of Public Security Sarath Weerasekara on March 13 to ban face coverings including the burqa and niqab citing national security grounds.
The ICJ has called on the Sri Lankan Parliament to categorically reject this discriminatory proposal as a violation of the right to freedom of religion.
“The Sri Lankan Government’s justification for banning face coverings rings hollow during a time when it has quite sensibly made the wearing of face masks in public mandatory to address the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Ian Seiderman, ICJ’s Legal and Policy Director.
The Government of Sri Lanka temporarily banned full-face coverings by way of an emergency regulation in the aftermath of terrorist attacks on Easter April 2019, in which 269 people were killed and at least 500 others injured. This ban resulted in the stigmatization and harassment of Muslim women, including those who were only wearing a hijab (head covering).
“While the Sri Lankan Government has an obligation to protect its inhabitants from the threats to their lives and well-being, that protection is a part of, and not in conflict with, its overall duty to protect human rights,” said Ian Seiderman.
Freedom of religion and belief is guaranteed under article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Sri Lanka is a party. Freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of one’s choice is similarly guaranteed by Article 10 of the Sri Lankan Constitution. Article 14 (1) (e) ensures the freedom to manifest one’s religion in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
The UN Human Rights Committee has affirmed that under the ICCPR “the observance and practice of religion or belief may include not only ceremonial acts, but also such customs as the wearing of distinctive clothing or head coverings.”
The ICJ concurs with Ahmed Shaheed, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, who has stressed that “burqa bans are incompatible with international law guarantees of the right to manifest one’s religion or belief and of freedom of expression.”
“While the authorities may take necessary and proportionate steps to confirm a person’s identity to meet a specific security concern, a blanket ban on face coverings in the name of national security does not hold water,” Seiderman said. “It would invariably result in discriminatory practices and lead to the stigmatization of Muslim women,” he added.
Under ICCPR article 18(3) any limitation on freedom of religion must be non-discriminatory and must be necessary and proportionate to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
The UN Human Rights Committee has consistently held that under international law, a blanket ban on face coverings cannot be justified as necessary or proportionate to its stated legitimate aim of promoting public safety, while recognizing the need for States, in certain contexts, to be able to require that individuals show their faces. Even this restriction, however, would generally only apply to veils that fully cover faces and not, for example, to head coverings.
Contact
Osama Motiwala, ICJ Asia-Pacific Communications Officer, e: osama.motiwala(a)icj.org
Apr 29, 2021 | News
The Indian Government must urgently remedy failures that have aggravated the impact of the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic and led to people in the country suffering record-high rates of infection and death, said the ICJ today.
The ICJ urged India’s central and state governments to comply with judicial orders regarding guaranteeing access to adequate, timely and nominally priced oxygen supply, hospital beds, COVID-19 medicines, COVID-19 tests and vaccines, in line with India’s constitutional and international legal obligations.
“The Indian federal and state governments failed to prepare for the predictable second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, aggravating the horrific impact of the pandemic and the avoidable tragedy of between 1,500 to over 3,000 deaths daily,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Secretary General.
Since 15 April India has reported more than 200,000 cases per day and on 27 April, it reported 360,960 – the highest globally – in a devastating second wave, with the official number of deaths hovering at over 1,500 – 3,000 per day, and feared to be higher actually.
Many hospitals have reportedly turned away patients due to lack of space and some hospitals have reportedly asked those they admit to sign forms accepting the risk in case of death caused by exhaustion of oxygen supply.
The government’s failures have driven people to seek recourse in the courts. At least 11 High Courts across the country have taken cognizance of the crisis and have passed orders regarding matters including access to oxygen supply and oxygen tankers, access to medicines such as Remdesivir and to hospital beds; restriction on black marketing and private hoarding of medicines and oxygen; and prevention of violations of COVID19 regulations relating to mask wearing and social distancing.
Courts have also ordered that accurate data on COVID19 cases and deaths be relayed by the state government. The Indian Supreme Court also took suo moto cognizance of the issue and has called for a report from the central government on issues related to supply of oxygen, essential drugs, vaccine pricing.
The Delhi High Court on 21 April asked the central government to ensure that “the emergent needs of various hospitals in Delhi… would be met so that no causalities are suffered on account of discontinuing the supply of Oxygen to seriously ill COVID patients.” On 27 April, the Delhi High Court asked the Delhi government to ensure transparency in accounting of supply of oxygen and drugs to prevent hoarding and black-marketing.
The Bombay High Court on 22 April gave directions to ensure uninterrupted oxygen supply to city hospitals, access to medicines and beds, and tests.
“While the ICJ commends the Indian judiciary in trying to respond to this crisis urgently, the fact remains that a lack of a national public health strategy by the Indian Government has resulted in acute shortages of essential drugs, oxygen, and hospital beds in places where they are needed,” said Zarifi.
India is obligated under Article 12, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), to guarantee the right to health. Under Article 12(c), ICESCR, the Indian State is required to prevent, treat and control all diseases including epidemic diseases such as COVID-19. Moreover, Article 12(d), ICESCR, requires India to create conditions that allow for “medical service and medical attention” to all in the event of a sickness, such as COVID-19. The minimum core obligations under Article 12, ICESCR, include, among others, provision of essential drugs, and a national public health strategy and a plan of action on the basis of epidemiological evidence, addressing the health concerns of the whole population. The Indian State has failed egregiously in meeting its minimum core obligations under the right to health.
The ICJ recommends, in line with decisions of Indian courts, that the Indian federal government work effectively with various state governments and other entities to remove bottlenecks in supply of medicines and oxygen, and set up additional facilities for COVID19 patients. The Indian government must also promote and model COVID appropriate behavior such as masking and social distancing and begin preparing for any subsequent waves of the pandemic.
Contact
Maitreyi Gupta, ICJ India Legal Adviser, t: +91 77 560 28369 e: maitreyi.gupta(a)icj.org
Apr 23, 2021 | News
The parliamentary resolution tabled by Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa would aggravate Sri Lanka’s culture of impunity and undermine the rule of law, said the ICJ today.
The Resolution tabled on 9 April seeks the approval of the Sri Lankan Parliament to stop ongoing trials against military officials and other high-ranking officials accused of serious human rights violations, as well as family members of the President and Prime Minister currently facing charges of corruption.
“The Parliament should categorically reject this ‘impunity resolution’ that interferes with the ongoing work of the judiciary and the Attorney General’s office in their efforts to provide for at least a modicum of accountability for serious violations,” said Ian Seiderman, ICJ’s Legal and Policy Director.
The Resolution seeks parliamentary approval to implement the recommendations of the so-called Commission of Inquiry on Political Victimization (COI), which were presented to President Gotabaya Rajapaksa last December. The COI and its work have been widely discredited as an affront to the independence of judiciary and the rule of law and its report has not been made available to the public.
“The report by the COI calls for the withdrawal of investigations and convictions even in the handful of cases of serious human rights violations that have been brought before courts, including in cases where perpetrators have been convicted,” Seiderman said.
The recommendations made by the COI that would be implemented by the Resolution include the withdrawal of indictments filed by the Attorney- General and the discharge of several accused in cases that have been recognized as emblematic and referred to in the report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and in UNHRC Resolution 46/1. They also included similar dropping of cases of serious financial misappropriation.
Examples of emblematic cases where the COI recommends discharge of the accused include the case of alleged abductions of 11 persons by members of the Navy including Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda; unlawful killings of Tamil National Alliance MP Nadaraja Raviraj, Wasim Thajudeen, Sunday Leader Editor Lasantha Wickrematunge, Tamil National Alliance MP Joseph Pararajasingam; the alleged enforced disappearance of journalist Prageeth Ekneligoda; and the abduction of Editor Keith Noayhr.
In certain cases that have resulted in convictions for murder or torture, including one case affirmed on appeal to the Supreme Court, the COI has recommended that the Attorney-General review the convictions and discharge the accused.
“The recommendations of the COI, incorporated in this “impunity resolution”, constitute an interference with the independent functioning of the judiciary as judicial decisions and court proceedings have been reassessed outside the judicial structure,” Seiderman stated. “Involving the Parliament in giving effect to these recommendations is contrary to the principle of separation of powers as provided for in the Sri Lankan Constitution.”
The UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary makes clear that “the judiciary shall have jurisdiction over all issues of a judicial nature and shall have exclusive authority to decide whether an issue submitted for its decision is within its competence as defined by law” and that “there shall not be any inappropriate or unwarranted interference with the judicial process, nor shall judicial decisions by the courts be subject to revision.”
The recommendations by the COI go even further and recommend the prosecution of investigators, lawyers and prosecutors in those cases under the Penal Code and the Bribery Act for “fabrication” of evidence and corruption.
“Recommending that action be taken against lawyers and prosecutors for carrying out their professional and statutory duties is an all-out assault on a free and independent bar and this recommendation must be summarily rejected,” Seiderman said.
The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers obliges the State to ensure that lawyers “are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference” and that they “shall not suffer, or be threatened with, prosecution or administrative, economic or other sanctions for any action taken in accordance with recognized professional duties, standards and ethics.”
The UN Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors establish that “States shall ensure that prosecutors are able to perform their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment, improper interference or unjustified exposure to civil, penal or other liability.”
Contact
Osama Motiwala, ICJ Asia-Pacific Communications Officer, e: osama.motiwala(a)icj.org
Apr 15, 2021 | News
The ICJ today condemned the promulgation by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa of new vague and overbroad anti-terrorism regulations, which make the already deeply flawed Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) open to further abuse.
The Prevention of Terrorism (Proscription of Extremist Organisations) Regulations No. 2 of 2021, published by way of Gazette notification on the 13 April 2021, outlaw 11 organisations identified as ‘extremist’ and provides criminal penalties for those accused of various kinds of associations with these and other organizations that may be similarly disfavoured.
A person who acts in contravention of the regulations is liable to a term of imprisonment up to twenty years, while any person who “conspires to commit or attempts, abets or engages in conduct in preparation to commit an offence” may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of up to ten years.
“These ill-defined offences follow a similar pattern of the Sri Lankan executive unilaterally promulgating abusive regulations in the name of fighting terrorism over the years” said Ian Seiderman. “These latest ones come just a month after the decreeing of the ‘de-radicalisation’ regulations which allow for the Government to arbitrary detain people for up to two years without trial.”
Moreover, the listed acts shall amount to an offence not only in relation to the eleven
identified organizations, but also to any other organisation “representing or acting on behalf of such organisation or is connected with or concerned in such organisation or which is reasonably suspected of being connected with or concerned in any of the activities”. This is in violation of the principle of legality as the State may ex post facto identify any organisation as having associated with the eleven banned organisations.
The ICJ said that the Regulations were in contravention of the guarantees under article 13 of the Sri Lankan Constitution and its international legal obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
A key precondition to a fair trial recognized internationally is that criminal offences must be prescribed by law and conform to the principle of legality. Vague laws undermine the rule of law because they leave the door open to selective and arbitrary interpretation and prosecution. The vague wording of a law also has an adverse impact on framing of the charge against the accused.
Following the promulgation of the ‘de-radicalisation’ regulations a number of persons belonging to minority communities were reportedly arrested under the PTA, including for ‘spreading Wahhabism via social media’ and ‘promoting terrorism related activities’.
“While the Sri Lankan Government has an obligation to protect its inhabitants from the threat of terrorism, that protection is a part of, and must not be seen in conflict with, its overall duty to protect human rights; ‘threats to national security’ can never be used as a justification for contravening basic standards in relation to freedom from arbitrary arrest”, said Ian Seiderman.
The ICJ has consistently called for the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which has been used to arbitrarily detain suspects for months and often years without charge or trial, facilitating torture and other abuse. The ICJ reiterates its call for the repeal and replacement of this vague and overbroad anti-terror law and all regulations brought under it, in line with Sri Lanka’s international obligations.
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in her most recent report on Sri Lanka has reiterated the call for a moratorium on the use of the Prevention of Terrorism Act for new arrests until it is replaced by legislation that adheres to international best practices.
Contact
Osama Motiwala, ICJ Asia-Pacific Communications Officer, e: osama.motiwala(a)icj.org
Mar 18, 2021 | News
The ICJ today condemned Sri Lanka’s new ‘de-radicalization’ regulations, which allow for the arbitrary administrative detention of people for up to two years without trial. The regulations could disproportionately target minority religious and ethnic communities.
Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa promulgated Prevention of Terrorism (De-radicalization from holding violent extremist religious ideology) Regulations No. 01 of 2021, which was publicized by way of gazette notification on 12 March, 2021. The “regulations”, which were dictated by the executive without the engagement of Parliament, would send individuals suspected of using words or signs to cause acts of “religious, racial or communal violence, disharmony or feelings of ill will” between communities to be “rehabilitated” at “reintegration centres” for up to two years without trial.
“These regulations, which have been dictated by executive fiat, allow for effective imprisonment of people without trial and so are in blatant violation of Sri Lanka’s international legal obligations and Sri Lanka’s own constitutional guarantees under Article 13 of the Sri Lankan Constitution.”
– Ian Seiderman, ICJ’s Legal and Policy Director
Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Sri Lanka is a party, provides for a number of procedural guarantees for any person deprived of their liberty, many of which are absent in the Regulation. Administrative detention of the kind contemplated under the Regulations, is not permitted, as affirmed repeatedly by the UN Human Rights Committee.
Even prior to the promulgation of the new regulations under Sri Lanka’s Prevention of Terrorism Act No. 48 of 1979 (PTA), Sri Lankan authorities had already been invoking the PTA and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Act, No. 56 of 2007 (enacted to incorporate certain provisions of the ICCPR into domestic law) effectively to persecute people from minority communities. Yet little or no action has been taken by the authorities against those inciting hatred or violence against minorities.
“The new regulations are likely to be used as a bargaining tool where the option is given to a detainee to choose between a year or two spent in “rehabilitation” or detention and trial for an indeterminate period of time, instead of a fair trial on legitimate charges.”
– Ian Seiderman, ICJ’s Legal and Policy Director
Contact
Osama Motiwala, Communications Officer – osama.motiwala@icj.org
Background
Section 3(1) of the ICCPR Act which prohibits advocacy of hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, violence or hostility has hitherto been misused to target members of minority communities. In April 2020, Ramzy Razeek, a retired government employee, was arrested for a Facebook post calling for an ideological ‘jihad’ against the policy of mandatory cremation of people who had died as a result of Covid-19. He was detained under the ICCPR Act for more than five months and finally released on bail due to medical reasons in September 2020.
In May 2020, Ahnaf Jazeem, a young Muslim poet, was arrested under the PTA in connection with a collection of poems he had published in the Tamil language, which were apparently misinterpreted by Sinhalese authorities to be read as containing extreme messages. Just last week, a few days after the promulgation of the new regulations, Ahnaf’s lawyers expressed alarm that both Ahnaf and his father were being pressured to make admissions that he had engaged in teaching ‘extremism’. The ICJ had previously raised concerns about the arbitrary arrest and prolonged detention of Human Rights lawyer Hejaaz Hizbullah. After being detained under the PTA for 10 months without being given reason for his arrest, he is now being tried for speech-related offences under the PTA and ICCPR Act.
The ICJ has consistently called for the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which has been used to arbitrarily detain suspects for months and often years without charge or trial, facilitating torture and other abuse. The ICJ reiterates its call for the repeal and replacement of this vague and overbroad anti-terror law and regulations brought under it, in line with Sri Lanka’s international obligations.
The new PTA regulations require those who surrender or are arrested on suspicion of using words or signs to cause acts of violence, disharmony or ill will between communities to be handed over to the nearest Police Station within 24 hours after which a report is to be submitted by the Police to the Defence Minister (the position is currently held by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa) to consider whether the suspect should be detained further. The regulations would also apply to those who had surrendered or been taken into custody under the PTA, the Prevention of Terrorism (Proscription of Extremist Organizations) Regulations No. 1 of 2019 and the Emergency (Miscellaneous Provisions and Powers) Regulation, No. 1 of 2019.
The Attorney General is given the power to decide if a suspect should be tried for a specific offence or be send to a rehabilitation centre as an alternative. If the decision is to rehabilitate, the suspect would be produced before a Magistrate with the written consent of the Attorney General. The Magistrate may thereafter order that the suspect be referred to a rehabilitation centre for a period not exceeding one year. Such period can be extended by a period of six months at a time up to one more year by the Minister upon the recommendation of the Commissioner-General for Rehabilitation. The regulations further state that the Commissioner–General should provide the detainee with psycho-social assistance and vocational and other training during the rehabilitation period to ensure reintegration into society. The regulations also provide that such detainee may with the permission of the officer in charge of the Centre be entitled to meet their parents, relations or guardian once every two weeks.
Mar 15, 2021 | Advocacy, News
The ICJ and a group of Sri Lankan judges have agreed on the importance of taking effective measures to address discrimination and equal protection in accessing justice in the country.
On 6 and 13 March 2021, the ICJ, in collaboration with the Sri Lanka Judges’ Institute (SLJI), organized the National Judicial Dialogue on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and Enhancing Women’s Access to Justice. This event was organized under the ‘Enhancing Access to Justice for Women in Asia and the Pacific’ project funded by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA).
Twenty magistrates and District Court judges from around Sri Lanka, with judicial and legal experts from other countries, participated in this judicial dialogue which was conducted virtually due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The dialogue highlighted how Sri Lankan women continue to face a myriad of challenges including legal, institutional and cultural barriers when accessing justice. Gender biases and discriminatory behaviour prevalent in every aspect of justice delivery needs to be dealt with in order to effectively enhance women’s access to justice.
Boram Jang, ICJ International Legal Advisor remarked that “judiciaries have an important role to play in eliminating gender discrimination in justice delivery as it is a critical component in promoting women’s access to justice. In order to do so, the judges should be equipped with a full understanding of Sri Lanka’s obligations under the CEDAW and other human rights instruments.”
Honorable L. T. B. Dehideniya, Justice of the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka and Executive Director of the SLJI expressed hope that judicial dialogues such as this would “enhance the capacity of participant judges to use the international legal instruments, which Sri Lanka has ratified, in domestic judicial work especially with regard to the elimination of gender inequalities and biases.”
Ms. Bandana Rana, Vice Chair of the CEDAW Committee led a discussion with the judges on the application of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), pointing out that “judges play a pivotal role in identifying the incongruences between existing laws and international human rights standards and ensuring that the full gamut of women’s human rights is retained in line with the CEDAW framework.”
Justice Ayesha. M. Malik, High Court Judge, Lahore, Pakistan affirmed the importance applying the right to access to justice under international human rights law and suggested strategies for reflecting these international standards in judicial decisions.
Attorney Evalyn Ursua addressed on gender stereotypes and biases in justice delivery and engaged the participants on how these could be effectively eliminated. She stated that “the judiciary as a part of the State has the obligation to eliminate gender discrimination.” She encouraged the judges to use the cultural power of law to change language and attitudes surrounding gender discriminatory behaviour and stigma.
The second day featured a discussion on the specific barriers that women in Sri Lanka face when they access justice. Hon. Shiranee Tilakawardane, former Justice of the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka led a discussion on the role and measures available to the judiciary as an institution to enhance access to justice for Sri Lankan women.
Justice Tilakawardane stated that “While theoretically, the Sri Lankan constitution enshrines equality before the law, in reality women continue to feel disadvantaged when they try to access justice” and added “the Sri Lankan judiciary can empower its women only when it understands, acknowledges and addresses the disadvantages they face owing to their gender.” She impressed upon the participant-judges that “ensuring equality is no longer a choice, nor is it merely aspirational, but a pivotal part of judicial ethics.”
The panelists on the second day surveyed the legal, institutional and cultural challenges faced by women at every step of the judicial process. The panel comprised of Prof. Savitri Goonesekere, Emeritus Professor of Law and Former member of the CEDAW Committee, Mrs. Farzana Jameel, P.C, Additional Solicitor General of the Attorney General’s Department and Mrs. Savithri Wijesekara, Executive Director of Women in Need.
Contact
Osama Motiwala, Communications Officer – osama.motiwala@icj.org
