May 25, 2021 | News
As the third anniversary of the opening of trials before Tunisia’s Specialized Criminal Chambers (SCC) is approaching, the ICJ denounces the Tunisian authorities’ failure to adopt reforms necessary to advance accountability and justice for victims of gross human rights violations.
هذا البيان الصحفي متوفر باللغة العربية أيضاً
Trials before the SCC started on 29 May 2018. Since that first hearing, evident gaps and shortcomings in the Tunisian Criminal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Transitional Justice law have undermined efforts to hold perpetrators to account, bring justice to victims and prevent recurrence of gross human rights violations in the future.
“The Tunisian authorities have abdicated their responsibility to ensure the effective functioning of the SCC, depriving judges of basic tools to ensure that trials are conducted without undue delay and consistent with international fair trial standards,” said Said Benarbia, the ICJ’s MENA Programme Director.
Many offences referred by the Truth and Dignity Commission to the SCC are not adequately defined in the Tunisian law. Judicial rotation occurs mid-way through SCC trials, impacting the continuity of trials. Prosecutors are not effectively engaged in the conduct of trials. Accused are absent in most of the SCC trials, and the transitional justice framework does not provide for appeal chambers.
“By failing to address these obstacles, the Tunisian authorities are undermining the right of victims to truth and to effective remedies, and betraying the very promise of the transitional justice process to end impunity,” added Benarbia.” It’s high time for them to reverse course and live up to that promise.”
Background information
The ICJ has recommended reform to ensure the compliance of SCC proceedings with international law and standards, including through:
- Ensuring the adequate criminalization of gross human rights violations amounting to crimes under international law;
- Fully ensuring the rights of the accused to a fair trial;
- Ensuring the rights of victims, including their families, to an effective remedy and reparation;
- Ensuring the protection of victims and witnesses;
- Ensuring that the collection, admissibility and assessment of evidence guarantee the right of the accused to a fair trial and the victims’ right to an effective remedy.
In addition to the above reforms, the Tunisian authorities should remove all obstacles preventing the SCC and other judicial authorities from exercising their function in a manner that complies with international standards. To this end, the authorities should:
- Ensure that the Office of the Public Prosecutor and other investigative authorities carry out their mandate in an independent and impartial manner, as defined under the Code of Criminal Procedure;
- Ensure that the annual judicial rotation, as regulated by Organic Law No. 34 on the High Judicial Council, be consistent with the right of the accused to a fair trial
- Ensure that newly appointed SCC judges and prosecutors receive timely and adequate training in transitional justice as provided for by Organic Law No. 53 on Establishing and Organizing Transitional Justice;
- Ensure that, if the annual judicial rotation occurs mid-way through trials, safeguards be implemented with the view to ensuring that newly appointed judges hearing the case have the appropriate understanding of the evidence and arguments.
These recommendations are informed by the ICJ Practical Guide Series on Accountability Through the Specialized Criminal Chambers and findings on the role of international law and standards in proceedings before the SCC (Practical Guide 1), the investigation and prosecution of gross human rights violations under Tunisian and international law (Practical Guide 2), and the application of principles and best practices on evidence in the administration of justice before the SCC (Practical Guide 3).
The SCC were established in 2014 to adjudicate cases involving alleged “gross human rights violations” perpetrated between 1955 and 2013 and referred by the Truth and Dignity Commission (Instance Verité et Dignité, IVD) to the SCC.
At the end of its mandate in December 2018, the IVD’s referred to the SCC 200 cases of arbitrary deprivations of life, arbitrary deprivations of liberty, torture and other ill-treatment, enforced disappearance, rape and sexual assault and crimes against humanity committed by the former government.
In a briefing paper published in October 2020, the ICJ called on the Tunisian authorities to undertake substantial legal and policy reforms with a view to strengthening accountability and removing all obstacles preventing the SCC from functioning effectively.
Download this press release in PDF form here.
Contact:
Said Benarbia, Director, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3817; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Valentina Cadelo, Legal Adviser, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, e: valentina.cadelo(a)icj.org
Asser Khattab, Research and Communications’ Officer, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, e: asser.khattab(a)icj.org
May 19, 2021 | News
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and the Libyan Women’s Platform for Peace (LWPP) on 19 May 2021 convened a webinar on ‘Advancing women’s human rights in the constitutional reform process in Libya’.
The webinar was moderated by Zahra’ Langhi, co-founder and director of LWPP, with speakers: Jaziah Shaitier, Professor at the Criminal Law Department, University of Benghazi; Ibtisam Bahih, member of the Constitution Drafting Assembly; Nahla Haidar, Vice-Chair of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and an ICJ Commissioner from Lebanon; and Azza Maghur, a Libyan lawyer.
In her opening remarks, Zahra’ Langhi stressed that advancing women’s rights in in the constitutional reform process should not be limited to the protections of women’s rights in the draft Constitution, which were any way inadequate, but also the effective the participation of women in the entire constitutional-making process
Jaziah Shaitier focused her remarks on the limitations the Constitution:
“I had hoped that the constitutional process that followed the Revolution would state clearly that any person born to a Libyan father or a Libyan mother would be Libyan.”
“Libya needs gender-inclusive constitutional provisions, and implementing laws that would protect women against all forms of violence”, Shaitier said.
Langhi pointed out that Libyan women who are married to non-Libyans cannot even access essential COVID-19 vaccines.
Nahla Haidar spoke of the importance of states to comply with their obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), a treaty to which Libya is a party:
“Sharia’s place within the Constitution should be made clear, otherwise there would be no need for a Constitution at all.”
Haidar also stressed the need to address problematic provisions in the Libyan Draft Constitution, including draft discriminatory provisions and provisions perpetuating stereotypes about the role of women and men in society and in the family. “Women may also choose not to start a family at all, and that should not have any bearing on the enjoyment of their rights.”
Azza Maghur highlighted the inadequate representation of women in the Libyan constitutional process:
“Libyans dreamed of a Constitution that is theirs, one that guarantees rights and liberties. The representation of women was not adequate.”
A member of the Constitution Drafting Assembly herself, Dr Ibtissam Bahih, highlighted how the process had failed Libyan women, and how the need for reform was as urgent as ever.
You can watch the full webinar here.
Contact:
Said Benarbia, Director, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3817; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Asser Khattab, Research and Communications Officer, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, e: asser.khattab(a)icj.org
May 6, 2021 | News, Publications, Reports
Southern African States have individually and collectively failed to provide sufficient and equitable COVID-19 vaccine access to meet their human rights obligations, the ICJ said today in a new briefing paper entitled The Unvaccinated: Equality not Charity in Southern Africa.
The paper focuses on the impact of COVID-19 on countries of the Southern African Development Community (SADC), a regional economic community comprising 16 Southern African countries whose goal is to enhance the standard and quality of life of the peoples in the region.
The publication considers SADC and its Member States’ collective failure to ensure access to COVID-19 vaccines despite more than 63,000 lives lost to the virus and countless others’ lives and livelihoods affected in the region.
This is due to a multitude of reasons, some common amongst the countries and others unique to individual Member States. While Tanzania and Madagascar denied the existence of the virus and rejected COVID-19 vaccines respectively, other countries with relatively greater resources, such as South Africa, failed to mobilize their resources adequately and equitably.
“COVID-19 is a global pandemic, but its impact was aggravated in southern Africa by the failure of governments to prepare and respond, individually or through SADC,” said Tim Fish Hodgson, ICJ’s Legal adviser on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in Johannesburg.
Combatting deadly communicable diseases like COVID-19 is one of the founding objectives under SADC’s founding treaty, and is also accounted for under the SADC Health Protocol. Yet, SADC has failed to provide almost any concrete guidance or coordinating role in regional procurement of COVID-19 vaccines since October 2020, prior to the availability of COVID-19 vaccines. While SADC’s chair, President Filipe Nyusi of Mozambique has encouraged a regional pooling of resources to facilitate procurement of necessary vaccines and distribution in a statement in January 2021, SADC has since taken no clear action towards this goal.
“While powerful global actors have erected roadblocks to equitable vaccine access in southern Africa, this should not conceal the burning need for SADC States to take essential measures to mobilize their collective resources towards efficient and equitable vaccine acquisition, allocation and distribution. As our research shows, they have failed to do so and SADC has been conspicuously silent,” Hodgson said.
These dire circumstances have led Fatima Hassan, South African human rights defender and director of the Health Justice Initiative, to observe that “philanthropy [and] benevolence cannot fund equality” in vaccine access. Indeed, the donation of vaccine doses through COVAX and other measures are not enough, and without rapid and adequate action to ensure equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines, it might be too late.
The ICJ’s research at a global and regional level have emphasized the urgent need for international institutions like the World Trade Organization and wealthier States to help countries to manufacture or otherwise acquire and distribute vaccines at affordable prices unimpeded by rigid intellectual property rights restrictions.
“All States should urgently heed the proposal by South Africa and India before the WTO for a waiver of the TRIPS intellectual property rules to allow faster, wider, and better distribution of COVID-19 vaccines,” Hodgson said.
“It is encouraging to see the United States end their opposition to the TRIPS waiver, and we hope that other States, in the European Union, Switzerland, Norway, and Brazil, will end their opposition and recognize that until everyone is safe, no one is truly safe.”
The ICJ emphasized that efforts by SADC and Southern African States is essential alongside ramped up global action.
“The pandemic is raging around the world even though a few countries, mostly the wealthiest, are now able to look beyond the worst of it. Most countries in Southern Africa remain unvaccinated, and in fact we are looking at new devastating waves of the illness. SADC should immediately improve efforts at collaboration and coordination to ensure compliance with their human rights obligation to provide everyone in the region with vaccine access as soon as possible,” Hodgson added.
The ICJ makes recommendations to specific States including Malawi, Tanzania, Madagascar, Zimbabwe and South Africa as well as a range of general recommendations to the SADC, including:
- The SADC Secretariat should urgently and actively facilitate and advance sub-regional COVID-19 vaccine procurement and distribution between the Member States.
- The SADC Secretariat should provide clear guidance to Member States on their human rights obligations pertaining to vaccine access. They should take effective action to address the failure of Member States to act according to their obligations under international law, including under regional agreements.
- All SADC member States should, as a matter of priority, develop, publish and publicize national vaccine acquisition and rollout plans and procurement strategies, detailing concrete measures to ensure non-discriminatory access to vaccines to all people.
Contact
Timothy Fish Hodgson, Legal Adviser on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, timothy.hodgson(a)icj.org
Tanveer Jeewa, Legal and Communications Officer, tanveer.jeewa(a)icj.org
Download
Africa-The Unvaccinated-Publications-Reports-2021-ENG (full report, in PDF)
Apr 26, 2021 | News
Homophobia is against African notions of ubuntu.
Over the past month, the killings of four gay men have made headlines in South Africa. Lonwabo Jack, a 22-year-old gay man, was killed on his birthday, 18 April. Earlier in April, two more gay men, were killed – Nathaniel Mbele in Vanderbijlpark and Sphamandla Khoza in Durban.
Lonwabo Jack’s killing occurred just two days after advocates for the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people (LGBTI) led protests in front of Parliament in Cape Town demanding that the South African government address the countrywide homophobic violence that continues unabated.
The group Justice for Lulu, founded after Andile “Lulu” Ntuthela, a 40-year-old gay man, was killed in the Eastern Cape on 10 April. The group handed a memorandum to Parliament calling, among other things, for an urgent debate on hate crimes. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance of South Africa (GLASA), in turn, called for the government to speed up the adoption and enactment of the Prevention and Combating Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Bill B9 of 2018.
These hate crimes and attacks on the LGBTI community have been ongoing for many years. Homophobia is endemic in South Africa, despite the comprehensive and progressive legal framework, including legal protection for the human rights of LGBTI persons.
As attested to by the ICJ’s recent report, “Invisible, Isolated, and Ignored: A report on Human Rights abuses on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity/Expression in Colombia, South Africa and Malaysia”, and illustrated by these ongoing attacks, these legal protections do not translate into real protection of human rights in practice.
“South Africa is a heteronormative society where patriarchy is deeply rooted; this contributes to violence and discrimination against LGBTI persons. The view that homosexuality is un-African is held by many. Political and cultural leaders have in the past publicly espoused anti-gay sentiments and this encourages discriminatory attitudes and violence against people based on their real or imputed sexual orientation, gender identity or expression”, said Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh, Director of ICJ Africa.
Section 9(3) of the South African Constitution provides that the State may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on the ground of sexual orientation, and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Charter) grants protection against prohibited discrimination, and entitles every person to equal protection of the law.
Additionally, the African Charter entitles every individual to respect of their life and the integrity of their person, and prohibits torture, cruel, inhumane or degrading punishment and treatment.
In its Resolution on ‘Protection against Violence and Other Human Rights Violations against Persons on the basis of their real or imputed Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity’, the African Commission strongly urged “States to end all acts of violence and abuse, whether committed by State or non-state actors, including by enacting and effectively applying appropriate laws prohibiting and punishing all forms of violence including those targeting persons on the basis of their imputed or real sexual orientation or gender identities, ensuring proper investigation and diligent prosecution of perpetrators, and establishing judicial procedures responsive to the needs of victims.”
Notwithstanding South Africa’s legal obligations, LGBTI persons face significant barriers in accessing justice and effective remedies for human rights violations; particular challenges affect the criminal justice system, resulting in many cases concerning the protection of human rights of LGBTI persons not reaching the courts.
These barriers to access to justice and effective remedies for human rights violations include experiences of discrimination within the criminal justice system, as well as societal homophobia and transphobia. This is in contravention of South Africa’s duties under international, regional and national law to afford every person equal protection of the law.
The Prevention and Combatting of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Bill needs to be adopted as a matter of urgency. It is important as measure of deterrence and to ensure that perpetrators of hate crimes be brought to justice.
The ICJ condemns the killings of members of the LGBTI community and calls on the South African government to acknowledge the discrimination, hatred and violence that LGBTI persons face every day in South Africa and to act decisively to address these harms.
Progressive legislation is not enough, the criminal justice system needs to be sensitized and educated to eliminate experiences of societal homophobia and transphobia. We echo the demands in this joint statement by multiple human rights organizations in South Africa.
Whatever one’s real or imputed sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, nobody should have to live in fear, everyone should be able to have trust in the police and judicial system. The homophobic acts and sentiments in South Africa are against African notions of ubuntu. Society cannot be free, until all its people are free, and treated with dignity.
Contact:
Nokukhanya (Khanyo) Farisè, Legal Adviser (Africa Regional Programme), e: nokukhanya.farise(a)icj.org
Tanveer Rashid Jeewa, Communications and Legal Officer, e: tanveer.jeewa(a)icj.org
Feb 17, 2021 | News
On 17 February 2021, the International Commission of Jurists condemned former South African President Jacob Zuma’s refusal to abide by an order of the Constitutional Court to appear before a commission investigating allegations of corruption during his tenure.
As a former President, Mr Zuma must be regarded as a private citizen and is subject to the same laws as all other private citizens. If found to have committed an offence he must face the required penalties.
ICJ’s Africa Director, Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh said,
“Zuma’s failure to follow the decision of the Constitutional Court and to refuse the summons of a proper judicial commission disrespects the rule of law and erodes public confidence in the administration of justice.”
She added that,
“Zuma is facing credible allegations of engaging in corruption and misconduct that demand to be investigated properly. His conduct in rejecting to appear before the investigative commission is an afront to the rule of law and the administration of justice and is unbecoming of a former President who took an oath to uphold the Constitution.”
Zuma has refused to appear before the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector including Organs of State, despite being called to testify, since November 2020. He appeared before the Commission in July 2019 but refused to answer certain questions and effectively withdrew his participation.
On 28th January 2021, the South African Constitutional Court held that Zuma was obliged to attend and participate in the Judicial Commission’s proceedings and could not claim a right to remain silent in order to avoid doing so, though he retained a privilege against self-incrimination. Rejecting this ruling, Zuma refused a summons to appear before the Commission as a witness and instead issued a statement on 15th February accusing the Commission Chair of “propagating political propaganda” against him. He further accuses the Commission Chair of “misleading the nation” and of “not following due process to the prejudice of himself and his family”. The statement also accuses the Commission of “being unable to conduct an independent, fair, and impartial investigation into state capture”. Zuma’s statement also lambasts the South African judiciary, alleging without evidence that many judges, including specific named judges are “captured” and have over years been conspiring against him.
Ramjathan-Keogh added,
“Zuma’s groundless attacks on the South African judiciary are an affront to the court’s standing and weaken the principle of the judiciary as an independent and equal branch of government with the responsibility to investigate the actions of a president, or in this case, ex-president.”
The ICJ pointed out that a witness’s failure to appear before the Judicial Commission could constitute an offence under section 6 of the Commissions Act. A witnesses’ failure to attend an inquiry or to remain in attendance until its conclusion could mean that they would be guilty of an offence, the penalty for which is imprisonment or a fine or both.
Contact:
Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh, Africa Director, Kaajal.Keogh@icj.org, +27845148039
Tanveer Jeewa, Legal and Communications Consultant, Tanveer.Jeewa@icj.org
Feb 12, 2021 | Cases, News
Today, the ICJ and The Corporate Responsibility (CORE) Coalition UK, welcomed the judgment of the UK Supreme Court in the case Okpabi et al. v Royal Dutch Shell plc et al as a major step forward for those seeking access to justice for corporate abuses in the Niger Delta and around the world.
The Supreme Court judgment allows the case to proceed in the UK courts, reversing earlier decisions by the Court of Appeal and the High Court, and reaffirming the precedent established in its own previous decision in Lungowe et al v Vedanta resources (2019).
Carlos Lopez, Senior Legal Advisor at the ICJ, said:
“The emphasis of the Supreme Court on the relevance of evidence from internal company documents is of utmost importance for the proper assessment of whether the parent company intervened, advised or controlled the relevant activities of its subsidiary that caused harm, including notably human rights abuses and environmental destruction.
“This should have an impact on future similar proceedings before courts in the UK and elsewhere.”
Mark Dearn, Director of CORE, said:
“This landmark ruling is a vital step towards justice for some 50,000 claimants from the Ogale and Bille communities. It sends a clear message to multinational corporations like Shell – you have a duty of care and you will be held to account for human rights abuses and environmental damage caused by subsidiaries you control.
“Shell brazenly claimed in court that the oil spills were due to ‘uniquely Nigerian problems’. But the unique problem long faced by communities in this region is Shell’s impunity, as it has repeatedly tried to dodge accountability for its catastrophic destruction of the environment and people’s livelihoods.”
“It’s now crucial that governments step up to the plate to create new corporate accountability laws so that businesses know exactly what is expected of them.”
In Vedanta, the Court affirmed that a parent company that sufficiently intervenes, controls or advises the relevant operations of its subsidiary may bear liability for the breach of its duty of care towards the people affected by those operations.
Okpabi and other nearly 50,000 claimants in total – sued Royal Dutch Shell (RDS -the UK based parent company) and its Nigerian subsidiary Shell Petroleum Development Corporation (SPDC) for their alleged involvement in the leakage of oil pipelines which destroyed their farming land, wiped out fish stocks and poisoned drinking water in the Niger Delta, Nigeria.
In 2018 the Court of Appeal dismissed the claimants’ case, but the claimants appealed to the Supreme Court. The ICJ and the CORE Coalition intervened before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has allowed the claim to proceed, focusing on whether the claim had a real prospect of success and the high relevance of the internal company documents for a proper assessment.
Find the judgment here.
Notes to Editors:
- This case was first launched in 2015 in the UK High Court. For a timeline of the case’s passage through the UK court system, see here.
- The ICJ and CORE Coalition submitted a legal brief to the Supreme Court setting out the applicability of comparative law and standards regarding companies’ responsibilities in relation to human rights and environmental protection. These standards showed that Royal Dutch Shell PLC (Shell) could have duty of care in relation to the communities affected by its Nigerian subsidiary’s activities.
- In 2018 the Court of Appeal dismissed the claimants’ case, ruling that Shell did not exercise sufficient control over its subsidiary SPDC for Shell possibly to hold a duty of care towards those affected by the oil spills.
- The Supreme Court judgment reverses that judgment, cautioning against dismissing such claims in “mini-trials” without proper access to all relevant facts and evidence that are in great part in the power of the company. The judgment clarifies the evidential threshold needed for the courts to hear such cases in the UK: “The resolution of the jurisdictional challenge depended upon whether the appellants’ claim satisfied the summary judgment test of real prospect of success.” (para 127 ref. Vedanta at para 45)
- In another section the Court also corrected the Court of Appeal’s view that the promulgation by a parent company of group wide policies or standards can never in itself give rise to a duty of care, saying: “that is inconsistent with Vedanta. Group guidelines … may be shown to contain systemic errors which, when implemented as of course by a particular subsidiary, then cause harm to third parties.” (para 143)
- In Lungowe v Vedanta Resources plc, which CORE and the ICJ similarly filed a joint intervention, the Supreme Court ruled that a duty of care was owed by the UK parent company, Vedanta. A settlement was subsequently reached. As the Supreme Court notes, this ruling was “very relevant to both the procedural and the substantive issues raised on this [Okpabi v Shell] appeal”.
