Dec 28, 2018 | Multimedia items, News, Video clips
During a week of training and practical experience of UN human rights mechanisms in Geneva, women lawyers spoke of the ways in which civil society actors can use these mechanisms to strengthen advocacy efforts.
As part of a project supported by the German Mission to the United Nations in Geneva the ICJ invited two groups of women lawyers to Geneva to attend training workshops that took place during the course of the June and September ordinary sessions of the UN Human Rights Council.
Participants spoke about their experiences with the interplay between UN mechanisms and domestic changes.
Lebanese lawyer Nina Abdallah noted the limitations of these mechanisms when States do not accept mechanisms that allow for individual complaint. As Lebanon has not yet become party to the Optional Protocol of the CEDAW Convention this means that individuals cannot access the CEDAW Committee to seek a remedy for violations and against that State’s failure to meet obligations under the Convention.
However, she explained that although this limits the accessibility of certain mechanisms, civil society can still play an important role in raising rights issues, calling for removal of reservations and acceptance of complaint procedures for specific Conventions through other mechanisms, such as the Universal Periodic Review reporting process.
Maria Sol Taule, a lawyer from the Philippines working for human rights NGO Karapatan, noted that it is difficult for UN mechanisms to address individual cases when there are so many issues to deal with. However, she said that these mechanisms do still serve as an “effective tool to use as a platform to drumbeat our issues that haven’t been heard by our respective governments.”
Civil society participation in the Human Rights Council, State reporting processes for Committees and the UPR provide an occasion to highlight the human rights difficulties faced within specific countries. Ms Taule said this kind of engagement also offers the opportunity to enhance international solidarity with other organizations from other countries that are dealing with similar rights issues.
Dec 21, 2018 | News
CORE and the ICJ have been granted permission to intervene in an appeal before the United Kingdom Supreme Court (Vedanta Resources PLC and another v. Lungowe and others).
The two organizations will provide evidence on comparative law and international standards regarding the responsibilities of companies in relation to human rights and environmental protection, in particular the recognition of a duty of care of parent companies in relation to the communities living in the surrounding of companies operations.
In August 2015, 1800 Zambian villagers launched a legal action in the UK against mining company Vedanta Resources Plc and its Zambian subsidiary, Konkola Copper Mines, claiming that their water sources and farming land were poisoned from the copper mining operations of both companies.
Last year, the Court of Appeal upheld a High Court ruling that the Zambian claimants had a legal right to bring a claim through the courts in the UK and that a parent company may owe a duty of care to third parties affected by its subsidiary. Vedanta is appealing this ruling in the Supreme Court.
CORE and the ICJ have been lead participants in the elaboration processes of all major international instruments in the field of businesses’ human rights responsibilities in the last decade and are also specially situated to provide information on the state of the law in various jurisdictions.
Our submission is that the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that Vedanta arguably owed a duty of care to the claimants is supported by: international standards regarding the responsibilities of companies in relation to human rights and environmental protection; material published by the UK government with the aim of implementing those international standards; and comparative law jurisprudence.
The hearing will take place on 15-16 January 2019.
Dec 21, 2018 | Multimedia items, News, Video clips
The ICJ invited a number of women lawyers to Geneva to participate in a training workshop and gain practical experience of UN human rights mechanisms as part of a project supported by the German Mission to the United Nations in Geneva.
One group of women came to Geneva in June during the 38th session of the UN Human Rights Council and 70th session of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, and the other group came in September to coincide with the 39th session of the Human Rights Council.
During the week long training workshops participants learned about the international human rights mechanisms available to tackle issues of women’s access to justice and gained hands-on exposure to the operation of these mechanisms in practice.
Participants spoke about the impact that the CEDAW Convention has had in their domestic legislation.
Donia Allani a lawyer and lecturer at the Faculty of Legal, Political and Social Sciences of Tunis, discussed the impact of CEDAW in shaping legislation in Tunis to eliminate violence against women and facilitate access to justice but noted that women still faced stigmatization.
Donia Allani commented, however, that UN mechanisms could be improved to ensure that all activists and feminists can access these mechanisms without fear of reprisals.
Uzbek lawyer Sabina Saparova, also spoke of the impact that international law and standards can have domestically. She explained that Uzbekistan’s ratification of the CEDAW Convention provided an international commitment to incorporating equality between men and women into its legal structure. Recently the president of Uzbekistan initiated the first steps toward the adoption of a law on the prevention of domestic violence.
Dec 20, 2018 | News
Today the ICJ called for appropriate measures to ensure justice in the case of Amal Fathy, an Egyptian human rights defender who was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment following her conviction for criticizing the Egyptian authorities’ inadequate response to rampant sexual harassment on social media.
On 30 December, Cairo’s Misdemeanor Court of Appeal will decide on Amal Fathy’s appeal against the conviction. The ICJ stresses that Fathy’s conviction and her prolonged arbitrary detention violate her rights to freedom of expression and to liberty protected under Egyptian and international law.
On 29 September 2018, the Maadi Misdemeanor Court convicted Fathy of “broadcasting false information harmful to national security;” “publishing online material that insults public decency;” and the public “use of foul language.” The charges were in reaction to her posting a video on Facebook criticizing the Egyptian authorities for failing to protect women against sexual harassment and for the poor quality of public services.
The Court sentenced Amal Fathy to two years’ imprisonment for the first two charges and fined her 10,000 Egyptian Pounds (US$558) for the latter, and set bail at 20,000 Egyptian Pounds (US$1115) pending her appeal.
Amal Fathy is said to be suffering from acute stress and depression as a result of her detention.
“Amal Fathy was charged and convicted for exercising her human right to freely express herself, which she exercised by calling on the Egyptian authorities to meet their obligation to protect the population from gender-based violence and commenting on the effectiveness of the services they provide. This is hardly a threat to national security or insult to public decency,” said Said Benarbia, Director of ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa Programme. “We hope the Court will recognize the charges are completely without legitimacy.”
Amal Fathy was detained from the time of her arrest on 11 May 2018 and following her conviction, despite posting bail. Her ongoing detention was based on charges issued by the Supreme State Security Prosecution on 12 May 2018 in a second case (Case No. 621/2018), including “membership in a terrorist organization,” “the use of the internet to promote ideas and beliefs calling for terrorist acts” and “spreading false news and rumors that damage public order and harm national interest.” There are at least six other defendants in the case, including two political activists, a journalist and a satirical comedy TV reporter. It is unclear whether she was charged under the Penal Code or Anti-Terrorism Law of 2015. On 18 December 2018, the South Cairo Court of Felonies ordered her conditional release and she is expected to be released on 22 December 2018.
“The Egyptian authorities have increasingly used pre-trial detention to harass human rights defenders or anyone who opposes the authorities and to chill them from further exercising their rights,” said Said Benarbia. “Case 621 is a concrete example, where trumped up charges are used as a tool to such ends.”
Amal Fathy’s arbitrary arrest and detention is no isolated case. In September, UN experts condemned Egypt’s systematic targeting and prolonged arbitrary detention of human rights defenders, expressing particular concern over Amal Fathy’s case. Local and international organizations, including the ICJ, have also documented and criticized the persecution of human rights defenders and political activists in Egypt through the use of the courts. The ICJ has documented how the Egyptian justice system is consistently used as a repressive tool to silence and eradicate political expression and human rights work.
Contact:
Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3817; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Background:
Amal Fathy was arrested at dawn on 11 May 2018, along with her husband Mohamed Lotfy, Director of the Egyptian Commission for Rights and Freedoms, a human rights non-government organization. They were taken together with their three-year-old son to the Maadi Police Station. Lofty was released shortly after with their son and Fathy remained in detention until 18 December 2018. Fathy was charged under Articles 102bis, 178 and 306 of the Egyptian Penal Code (Case No. 7991/2018).
In the second case, which is still at the investigation stage, reports indicate the South Cairo Court of Felonies requires Amal Fathy to visit a police station for one hour each week and remain at her home unless she requires medical treatment as conditions of her release. Her next appearance is on 26 December 2018.
During the investigation of felonies related to national security, under Articles 143 and 206bis of the Egyptian Criminal Procedure Code, the Prosecutor can hold defendants in pretrial detention for up to five months (10 times 15-day renewals) before they must be referred to the competent criminal court for trial. Under Article 143, once the case is referred to the competent court, a defendant’s pre-trial detention can be extended each 45 days for up to 18 months, or “not exceeding two years if the penalty prescribed for the felony is life imprisonment or the death penalty.” Article 143 goes on to provide that “in cases of felonies punishable with the death penalty or life imprisonment, the Court of Cassation and the Court of Referral may order that the accused be held in custody for a renewable forty-five days, without the [above] time restriction.” This leaves the possibility for defendants to be detained indefinitely, which is open to abuse. In a mass trial of 739 defendants, all 320 arrested, including photo journalist Mahmoud Abu Zeid, remained in pre-trial detention for more than five years, before a verdict was handed down in September this year.
Article 9 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Egypt is a party, protects freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention and imposes an obligation on States to ensure a number of protections, including the right to be brought promptly before a judge and the right to habeas corpus. Article 19 of the ICCPR protects the right to freedom of expression. The United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders similarly protects such rights exercised by human rights defenders and enjoins States to protect them from violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary action for the lawful exercise of such rights.
Arabic language version of this statement in PDF format: NEWS-PR-EGYPT-AMALFATHY-AR-2018
Dec 20, 2018 | News
The ICJ today called on Hungarian President Áder János not to sign the Law on the Administrative Courts but to send it back to the Parliament for further review and discussion. In particular, the law should be re-considered in light of international standards as well as the forthcoming reasoned opinion of the Venice Commission, the ICJ said.
On 12 December, the Hungarian Parliament adopted, in a highly contested process, the Law on the Administrative Courts (T/3353). The vote took place despite the fact that an opinion of the Council of Europe Venice Commission on the new law is still awaited.
The administrative courts will have significant competencies in matters of public interest concerning the action of the executive and other public institutions. They will have jurisdiction over “administrative disputes” as well as other issues transferred to their jurisdiction by law (Article 1(3)).
The ICJ is concerned at the significant powers conferred on the executive over the proposed Administrative Courts, in particular the Minister of Justice’s powers in the appointment of administrative judges (Article 72(2)) as well as the powers of the Minister of Justice and of the Parliament in regard to the annual budget of these courts. Under the new law, judges of the administrative courts would be appointed by the Minister of Justice on the advice of a newly-established National Administrative Judicial Council, with the Minister having a discretion to reject the first-ranked nominee of the Council. In a context where the independence of the Hungarian judiciary is already being eroded, this role of the executive raises significant concerns regarding the independence of the new courts.
The new law comes at a time when measures put in place by the Hungarian government since 2011 have led to a severe deterioration of the rule of law and human rights, by weakening Constitutional rights protection, limiting judicial independence, suppressing independent media, civil society and academic institutions, and imposing arbitrary laws that violate the human rights of marginalized sections of society.
The ICJ recalls that judicial independence and the separation of powers are the bedrock of the rule of law. International law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, and other international standards such as the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, reflect the fundamental role of an independent judiciary in protecting human rights and the rule of law.
Dec 19, 2018 | News
The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2018 fails to protect the human rights of transgender people as guaranteed under the Indian constitution and international law and standards and must not be passed in its present form by the Rajya Sabha.
The Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha (Lower House of Indian Parliament) on 17 December, 2018. The next step in order for the Bill to progress is for the Rajya Sabha (Upper House of Indian Parliament) to pass it.
The ICJ considers this Bill to be a missed opportunity to address the serious problem of discrimination against transgender people in India. The ICJ calls for the rejection of its problematic parts by the Rajya Sabha and for the elaboration of a revised Bill in line with rights upheld by the Indian Supreme Court and India’s obligations under international law.
The 2018 Bill, if adopted, would effectively deny to most transgender people their right to self-identification, by providing an overly complex bureaucratic procedure requiring an individual’s application for a transgender certificate to be approved by two different sets of authorities, despite earlier widespread condemnation of this process by the transgender community.
“As the ICJ reported in 2017, the transgender community is continually harassed, stigmatized, and abused by the police, judges, their family and society. This Bill, if it becomes law would further serve to facilitate and compound human rights violations against people from a marginalized community”, said Ian Seiderman, Legal and Policy Director at the ICJ.
The Bill has also introduced mandatory sex reassignment surgery for those transgender people who seek to identify their gender within the binary (male/female) framework. This requirement would be in contravention of the Supreme Court’s judgment in NALSA v. UOI, which guarantees the right to self-identification without the need for medical intervention.
Further, the Bill would collapse all offences against transgender people into one provision which includes offences ranging from “sexual abuse” and “physical abuse”, to “compel[ing] or entice[ing] a transgender person to indulge in the act of begging” among others. These crimes have not been defined in the Bill.
It also would provide for the same six-month to two-year sentence for all offences against transgender people. In some cases, this could be a significantly lighter sentence than when the same crime is committed against others, including discriminated groups such as cis-gendered women, under the general criminal law. In addition, the identification of “beggary” as an offence under the Bill is problematic since for many transgender people in the country, it remains one of the limited livelihood opportunities.
Further, the Bill does not address the question of reservations in employment and education despite specific directions by the Supreme Court in NALSA v. UOI.
Lastly, while the proposed law guarantees the right to non-discrimination to transgender people against persons, state and private sector bodies, it does not provide a definition of discrimination, nor does it provide an enforcement mechanism for ensuring transgender people’s right to non-discrimination.
The ICJ calls on the Rajya Sabha to substantially revise the problematic provisions of the Bill before resubmitting it for parliamentary consideration.
Background
The provisions identified above do not accord with protection of the rights of transgender people to equality, non-discrimination, equal protection of the law, enshrined in the Constitution and international law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which India ratified in 1979. Further, they are incompatible with international standards such as the Yogyakarta Principles on the application of international human rights law in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity.
The ICJ, as part of SAATHII Vistaara Coalition, earlier this year drafted a Briefing Paper on India: Legal and Jurisprudential Developments on Transgender Rights, SAATHII Vistaara Coalition. The paper analyses in detail the domestic judicial developments on transgender rights as well as the legislative process undertaken until the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2018 was passed on 17 December 2018.
Additional Reading Material
- ICJ Briefing Paper on The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2016, analyzes the 2016 Bill, its shortcomings, and India’s international obligations, as it is the basis of the 2018 Bill.
- ICJ Briefing Paper on Implementation of NALSA Judgment discusses the 2014 April NALSA decision that affirmed that transgender people have the right to decide their self-identified gender. The paper analyses the responsibilities placed on Indian authorities, gaps in implementation, and India’s relevant international law obligations.
Contact
Maitreyi Gupta (Delhi), ICJ International Legal Advisor for India
e: maitreyi.gupta(a)icj.org, t: +91 7756028369
