Jun 29, 2019 | News
Between 26 and 29 June 2019, in Guatemala City, ICJ and its partner, Fundación de Antropología Forense de Guatemala (FAFG), with the support of the Asociación Guatemalteca de Jueces por la Integridad (AGJI) and the Bufete de Derechos Humanos (BDH), undertook trainings of more than 12 judges and 20 prosecutors on the international law and standards that apply to the investigation of unlawful death and enforced disappearances.
The workshops were conducted as part of the project under the ICJ’s Global Accountability Initiative entitled, Promoting justice for extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances in Colombia, Guatemala and Peru, supported by the EU European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR).
Opening remarks were given by Tomás Pallás Aparisi, Head of Cooperation at the EU Delegation to Guatemala, Delia Dávila, Magistrate from the Supreme Court of Guatemala and Haroldo Vasquez, President of the Asociación Guatemalteca de Jueces por la Integridad AJGI.
Ramón Cadena, Director of the ICJ’s Central America Office, addressed the international law and standards that apply to the investigation and prosecution of unlawful death and enforced disappearances and their relevance to Guatemala. Edgar Pérez, director of Bufete de Derechos Humanos (BDH) discussed the situation of enforced disappearances in Guatemala and the value and applicability of international law and standards. Marco García, a representative of FAFG, outlined the role of forensic science in the investigation of unlawful death and enforced disappearances.
Kingsley Abbott, Senior Legal Adviser & Coordinator of the ICJ’s Global Accountability Initiative, provided an overview of the revised Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016), which formed the core of the materials used at the workshops.
The ICJ took the opportunity of the workshops to visit the office of its partner, the Asociación de Familiares de Detenidos-Desaparecidos de Guatemala (FAMDEGUA) and meet with Justice Delia Marina Davila Salazar of the Supreme Court of Justice of Guatemala.
Contacts:
Kingsley Abbott, Senior Legal Adviser & Coordinator of the ICJ’s Global Accountability Initiative, email: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Carolina Villadiego Burbano, ICJ Legal and Policy Adviser, Latin America, and Regional Coordinator of the Project, email: carolina.villadiego(a)icj.org
Jun 28, 2019 | News, Publications, Reports, Thematic reports
In a report released today in Rabat, the ICJ called for the removal and eradication of legal obstacles and discriminatory judicial attitudes hindering women’s and girls’ ability to seek justice and redress for sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) in Morocco.
The ICJ’s report Obstacles to Women’s and Girls’ Access to Justice for Gender-based Violence in Morocco (available in English and Arabic) explores the various obstacles that women seeking justice in Morocco face, and addresses recommendations to the Moroccan government and judiciary with a view to improving access to justice and effective remedies for women and girls who are victims of SGBV.
“The Moroccan authorities should amend Law 103/13 and the Penal Code to ensure compliance with international human rights law and standards. Morocco’s Office of the Public Prosecutor and the country’s judicial authorities, including the High Judicial Council, should ensure that detailed guidelines on investigation and prosecution of SGBV crimes are developed and complied with, and that awareness-raising programmes be rolled out to counter judicial stereotyping and victim-blaming,” said Saïd Benarbia, Director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at the ICJ.
Notwithstanding the recent adoption of Law 103/03 on combatting violence against women, SGBV has not been adequately addressed; it remains widespread in Morocco, with a profoundly detrimental human rights impact on victims and society at large. Law 103/3 fails to define rape in a manner consistent with relevant international law and standards, with the crime still addressed through the lens of morality and public decency, rather than as a violation of one’s bodily integrity and autonomy; Law 103/3 also fails to criminalize child and early marriage, lending support to this harmful practice.
In addition to discriminatory laws and procedures, women and girls seeking justice and redress as survivors of SGBV in Morocco have to face a judiciary that often harbours biased assumptions, and propounds negative gender stereotypes, including cultural norms rooted in patriarchy.
Against this background, the ICJ’s report analyses how exceedingly lenient sentences – for instance in cases of marital rape – and the heightened risk women and girls face of being charged with consensual extramarital sexual relations deter them from seeking justice and redress in case of physical and sexual abuse of which they may be victims, either at the hands of their husband or of individuals with whom they are not married.
To begin addressing women’s and girls’ predicament in these and other respects related to SGBV, the report calls on the Moroccan authorities to:
- Adopt legislation that recognizes one’s right to sexual autonomy, and that recognizes equal relationships as requiring free and full consent of both parties;
- Adequately define and fully criminalize through a gender-neutral definition acts of rape, including by criminalizing marital rape as a separate offence;
- Repeal Article 490 of the Penal Code criminalizing extramarital sexual relations, and ensure that Article 19 of the Family Code on the minimum age of marriage is stringently observed;
- Enact policies, legislative and procedural measures aiming at enhancing the effectiveness of judicial and other public sector services related to women’s access to justice, including enforcing spousal and child support, providing free legal assistance to victims of SGBV, granting protection orders, and adopting other urgent measures;
- Develop and enforce guidelines on investigating and prosecuting SGBV crimes;
- Develop a national protocol for SGBV-related medical, forensic examinations, and ensure forensic-testing services be available and affordable;
- Provide training and awareness-raising programmes aimed at countering judicial stereotyping, victim-blaming and other harmful practices.
Contact:
Saïd Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41.22.979.3817, e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Additional information:
ICJ Commissioner Martine Comte led the delegation that met with different Moroccan authorities, justice and civil society actors this week in Rabat in order to present ICJ’s report and discuss its findings and recommendations. The ICJ delegation met with Mr Mohamed Aujjar, Minister of Justice; Mr Taoufik El Maimouni, President of the Commission on Justice, Legislation, and Human Rights at the Chamber of Deputies; Mr Larbi Tabit, Secretary General at the Minister of Solidarity, Women, Family and Social Development; Ms Amina Bouayach, President of the National Human Rights Council and representatives of the judiciary and of the civil society.
Download:
Morocco-Obstacles GBV-Publications-Reports-Thematic report-2019-ENG (full report in English, PDF)
Morocco-Obstacles GBV-Publications-Reports-Thematic report-2019-ARA (full report in Arabic, PDF)
Morocco-Women HR report-News-2019-ARA (News story in Arabic, PDF)
Jun 28, 2019 | News
The ICJ categorically condemns Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena’s endorsement of death warrants of four people convicted of drug-related offences.
Today, the ICJ urged the President to stop the imminent execution of these four convicts and to respect the de facto moratorium Sri Lanka has observed on capital punishment that over the past 43 years.
The ICJ has called on Sri Lanka to move toward full abolition of the abhorrent practice.
“President Sirisena’s resolve to resume executions would be a violation of Sri Lanka’s obligations under international human rights law and a disastrous for human rights in the country. It is also inconsistent with the global trend towards the abolition of the death penalty,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia-Pacific Director.
Speaking to the media on Wednesday June 26, President Sirisena announced that four execution warrants of those convicted of drug offences had been signed and that the dates for the execution had also been determined.
Those dates were left unspecified. With 1299 people on death row, the lives of at least 46 more prisoners, whose execution warrants have been prepared, are now under imminent threat.
Sri Lanka is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, under which it is not permitted to impose the death penalty for drug offences, the resumption of the death penalty after an extended is also incompatible with the ICCPR.
The ICJ opposes the death penalty in all circumstances without exception. The death penalty constitutes a violation of the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
The UN General Assembly has adopted repeated resolutions, most recently in December 2018, by overwhelming majority in calling for all retentionist States to observe an immediate moratorium with a view to abolition.
Sri Lanka voted in favour of a moratorium on the use of the death penalty in the 2018 UN GA Resolution.
The ICJ urgently calls on the Government of Sri Lanka to immediately halt all plans for execution and to do away with the capital punishment once and for all in keeping with its own commitment before the UN General Assembly for a global moratorium on the use of death penalty.
Instead of resuming executions, the Sri Lankan authorities should focus on effective, evidence-based approaches to crime prevention in manners that conform to international human rights law and standards.
Background
The UN Human Rights Committee, the supervisory body for the ICCPR, has made it clear that the imposition of the death penalty for crimes that are not of extreme gravity involving intentional killing, such as “drug offences” is incompatible with the Covenant as such offences do not meet the threshold of “most serious crimes”.
It has affirmed that that States parties that are not yet totally abolitionist should be on an irrevocable path towards complete eradication of the death penalty, de facto and de jure, in the foreseeable future.
The death penalty cannot be reconciled with full respect for the right to life, and abolition of the death penalty is both desirable and necessary for the enhancement of human dignity and progressive development of human rights.
It is contrary to the object and purpose of article 6 for States parties to take steps to increase de facto the rate and extent in which they resort to the death penalty, or to reduce the number of pardons and commutations they grant.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Region Director, e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org, t: +66 644781121
Jun 25, 2019 | News, Publications, Reports
Colombia’s transitional justice tribunal, the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP in its Spanish acronym) has made progress in fighting impunity, but can do more to address the needs and demands of victims of the country’s long civil war, the ICJ said in a report released in Bogota today.
The report Jurisdicción Especial para la Paz: análisis a un año de su entrada en funcionamiento (available only in Spanish) will be presented by a high-level mission composed of the President of the ICJ, Prof Robert Goldman (former President of Inter-American Commission on Human Rights), the Vice President of the ICJ, Carlos Ayala (former President of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights), and ICJ Commissioner Philippe Texier, former judge of the Court of Cassation of France.
The commissioners will meet with different Colombian authorities including the President of Colombia, Iván Duque Márquez, and the President of the JEP, Patricia Linares Prieto.
They will also meet with victims and other members of civil society.
The JEP is charged with prosecuting and punishing gross violations of human rights and serious violations of international humanitarian law committed during the country’s civil war.
The JEP was established by the Peace Agreement entered into between the Colombian government and the former armed group FARC-EP, on November 24 of 2016.
“The JEP has made progress in guaranteeing victims’ rights and fighting impunity for gross violations of human rights and serious violations of international humanitarian law,” said Prof Robert Goldman, ICJ’s President.
“But the JEP must do more to strengthen the effective participation of victims in its procedures, as well as to guarantee victims’ rights to justice and full reparation in compliance with international standards,” he added.
Accordingly, the report identifies ways by which the JEP can achieve these goals.
The ICJ also expresses concern about security threats faced by human rights defenders and victims and witnesses appearing before the JEP. The ICJ urges the JEP and other Colombian public authorities to adopt effective measures to guarantee their safety.
The ICJ also considers it is necessary to ensure respect for the judicial independence of the JEP against external pressures to ensure the proper performance of its functions.
The report describes the findings of a mission carried out by ICJ Commissioners Carlos Ayala, Wilder Tayler and Philippe Texier in January 2019. The report includes an analysis of the main actions and decisions taken by the JEP as well as relevant decisions of other public authorities. It reflects developments up to June 7, 2019.
Jun 25, 2019 | News
The ICJ welcomes yesterday’s judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) which ruled that forcing the retirement of Polish Supreme Court judges by lowering their mandatory retirement age, violated EU law.
Following the judgement, the security of tenure of these judges must now be permanently ensured, the ICJ said.
“The independence of the judiciary in Poland has been systematically undermined by the Polish executive and legislative authorities in recent years. This is a landmark decision that should herald a return to the rule of law in Poland, including legal, institutional and practical protection for judicial independence,” said Róisín Pillay, Europe and Central Asia Programme Director at the ICJ.
“This decision should be fully complied with. But it should also prompt the Polish authorities to reverse the wider damage that has been done to the rule of law, to restore the independence of the institutions of the judiciary, and end the harassment of judges through unjustified disciplinary proceedings,” she added.
In its decision issued on 24 June, the CJEU found that the lowering of the retirement age for judges, without transitional arrangements for those already in office, was not justified by any legitimate objective and therefore undermined the principle of irremovability of judges, which is central to judicial independence. It therefore violated the principle of effective judicial protection in Article 19(1) of the Treaty of European Union.
The Court also considered the discretionary power of the President to allow a judge to remain in office following the mandatory retirement date.
It found that, although this power was based on the opinion of the National Council of the Judiciary, such opinions were in practice given without any reasons, and therefore did not provide an effective safeguard.
The Court found that the President’s discretionary power gave rise to reasonable doubts that judges could be subject to external influence, in violation of the principle of effective judicial protection under Article 19(1) TEU.
Background
A law on the Supreme Court, which entered into effect in July 2018, attempted to force the “retirement” of 27 of the 72 Supreme Court judges, including the First President, by lowering the mandatory retirement age for its judges from 70 to 65 years.
The ICJ has repeatedly condemned the “forced retirement” of the 27 Supreme Court Justices as violating the security of tenure of judges in direct contravention of the principle of judicial independence, as expressed in international law and standards.
These include the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, Council of Europe standards, the European Court of Human Rights’ jurisprudence and the rule of law principles enshrined in article 2 of the Treaty on European Union.
An ICJ letter of 11 July 2018, signed by 22 senior judges from all regions of the world, urged the Polish government to act immediately to reinstate the forcibly retired judges in office.
Proceedings against Poland under Article 258 TFEU were launched by the European Commission in October 2018, alleging infringement of Article 19(1) TEU (the principle of effective judicial protection) together with Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (the right to a fair hearing and an effective remedy).
Following an interim decision of the CJEU in December 2018, the judges who were forcibly retired were reinstated in office, under a Law on the Supreme Court that came into force in January 2019.
Jun 25, 2019 | News
Myanmar’s 1982 Citizenship Law, which has fueled widespread discrimination against various ethnic minority groups, is irreconcilable with core rule of law principles and the State’s obligations under international human rights law, the ICJ said today in a briefing paper.
The briefing paper Citizenship Law and Human Rights in Myanmar: Why Law Reform is Urgent and Possible (available in English and Burmese) analyses the legal framework for citizenship in Myanmar, and assesses certain provisions of the 2008 Constitution relevant to citizenship as well as the 1982 Citizenship Law.
This law embedded the current narrow definition of citizenship, which generally links citizenship acquisition to membership of a prescribed “national race.”
The resulting system enables and legitimizes discrimination against various groups, particularly against persons of South Asian or Chinese descent, members of whole ethnic groups, such as the Rohingya, and also the children of single mothers.
“Enacted by unelected military governments, Myanmar’s citizenship laws fuel widespread discrimination throughout the country,” said Sean Bain, Legal Adviser for the ICJ.
“The government must act immediately to dismantle this discriminatory system and to protect in law the human rights of all persons,” he added.
The intentionally discriminatory character of this law, and its equally discriminatory implementation, largely explain why many long-term residents of Myanmar lack a legal identity (more than 25 percent of persons enumerated in the 2014 Census).
The ICJ recommends three immediately achievable, concrete areas of law reform to the Government: 1) legislative reform, including most urgently of the 1982 Citizenship Law and the Child Rights Bill now being considered by the parliament; 2) Constitutional reform, to protect the right of citizens to full political participation; and 3) to institute interim measures to address discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity.
A review of the 1982 Law was recommended in 2017 by the Government’s advisory commission chaired by the late United Nations Secretary-General Mr Kofi Annan, but the Government has not yet demonstrated any tangible progress on this.
“The government has the means at hand to get rid of this discriminatory system, which has undermined the rule of law and blocked the development of a pluralistic democracy. The government can and must implement the recommendations of its own advisory commission. The pervasiveness of discrimination cannot continue to go unaddressed, and there are no reasonable legal grounds for further delay in initiating pathways to reform,” Bain said.
UN Member States, as well as International Finance Institutions and UN agencies, must also ensure that assistance to the Government of Myanmar enables necessary reforms, and does not, in any way, entrench the existing discriminatory system.
Coinciding with the launch of this report, yesterday the ICJ hosted an event in Yangon where a panel of Myanmar legal scholars and researchers discussed the impact of current legal arrangements for citizenship on human rights, and why law reform is both urgent and possible. Representatives including from diplomatic missions, UN agencies, the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission, a multilateral donor and Non-Government Organizations attended the event.
Background
“Citizenship” is a legal concept describing an individual’s relationship to the State. In contrast, “statelessness” is when somebody does not have citizenship of any State. Terms such as “nationality,” “race” or “ethnicity” are generally culturally embedded concepts, understood differently by different people and in different contexts.
In many countries, particularly those with diverse populations, the right to citizenship is defined broadly to include persons with different ethnicities and even nationalities. In post-independence Myanmar, the concept of being a “national” or “indigenous” had a generally broad definition, allowing persons of different backgrounds to become citizens, including but not limited to the descendants of persons who had immigrated to Myanmar.
The 1982 Citizenship Law embedded in legislation the concept of “national races,” and introduced a hierarchy of citizenship categories that effectively institutes first-class and second-class citizens. Under this system, many life-long residents of Myanmar have effectively been rendered stateless, including members of entire ethnic groups, and children of mixed ancestry.
This discriminatory system has fostered an environment where crimes against humanity have taken place with absolute impunity.
Although section 347 of Myanmar’s 2008 Constitution guarantees “any person to enjoy equal rights” and protections before the law, other constitutional provisions restrict “fundamental rights” to citizens, including the rights to health and to education. Even for citizens, political rights are limited if a parent, child or spouse is not a citizen of Myanmar – the most infamous example of this is Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, who is constitutionally barred from the Presidency because her sons are foreign citizens.
The formation in February of this year of a Constitutional Amendment Committee also presents opportunities to expand the narrow definition of “fundamental rights,” to ensure their compliance with the constitutional guarantee of equality and protection before the law for “any person” (section 347), and with the State’s international human rights law obligations.
The Child Rights Bill, currently under consideration by the parliament, also offers opportunities to ensure that Myanmar’s laws comply with its treaty obligations, for example, under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, including with respect to the right of a child to acquire a nationality (citizenship), and the State’s related obligation to prevent statelessness.
See also
ICJ convenes workshop on reforming 1982 Citizenship law
ICJ materials on human rights law in Myanmar
Download
Myanmar-Citizenship law reform-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2019-ENG (full report in English)
Myanmar-Citizenship law reform-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2019-BUR (full report in Burmese)
Myanmar-Citizenship law reform-News-web story-2019-BUR (full story in Burmese)
Contact
Sean Bain, ICJ Legal Adviser, sean.bain(a)icj.org
