Jun 13, 2019 | News
The ICJ today applauded the 11 June judgment of the Botswana High Court striking down criminal law provisions criminalizing same-sex relations.
Rightly, the Court considered that, notwithstanding the fact that the provisions at issues on their face criminalized consensual anal penetration, irrespective of the gender of those involved, the law did in fact target and disproportionately affect same-sex relations.
The judgment follows shortly after the Kenyan High Court refused to invalidate an almost identical criminal provision in judgment handed down on 24 May.
“The Botswana High Court’s judgment reaffirms the universality of the rights to be free from discrimination, dignity, privacy and equality, and directly rebuts the often-made false claim that homosexuality is ‘un-African’,” said ICJ Africa Director Arnold Tsunga.
“The ICJ commends the Court, and encourages all African states to repeal archaic criminal provisions criminalizing same-sex sexual intercourse often introduced into their legal systems by colonial powers,” he added.
In a decision referencing international human rights law and standards, and citing a growing wave of global jurisprudence on the unconstitutionality of the criminalization of consensual same-sex relations, identity and expression, the Court concluded that sections 164(a); 164(c), 165 and 167 of the Botswana Penal Code violated the rights to dignity, liberty and equality of homosexual men.
Letsweletse Motshidiemang, a 24 year-old university student who identifies as homosexual, and is currently in a relationship with a man, brought the case before the Court. Advocacy organization “Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals Of Botswana” (LEGABIBO) was admitted as amicus curiae, and supported Motshidiemang’s case.
Despite partial legislative recognition of the need to protect people’s rights, regardless of sexual orientation, and comments made by Botswana President Mokgweetsi Masisi late last year that, “there are also many people of same sex relationships in this country, who have been violated and have also suffered in silence for fear of being discriminated. Just like other citizens, they deserve to have their rights protected”, the Attorney General (AG) had opposed Motshidiemang’s challenge, describing the case as “cry babies”.
In a fitting rebuke of this position, the Court indicated that the AG had not produced a “scintilla or iota of justification” for its defense of the offending provisions and, instead relied on “bare assertion and/or speculations” about public morality.
Given the substantial evidence presented to the Court by the applicant and amicus curiae about the harmful effects of continued criminalization of same-sex relations, the Court observed that it “perpetuates stigma and shame against homosexuals and renders them recluse and outcasts”, finding that “there is no victim in consensual same sex intercourse inter se adults”.
Concluding that such discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons violates sexual autonomy and their “right to choose a sexual partner” the Court found that the provisions go “to the core of [homosexual persons’] worth as a human being[s] and “pollutes compassion” in Botswanan society.
“The judgment is a victory for LGBT persons in Botswana whose consistent advocacy ground firmly in human rights should be applauded. This judgment should catalyze further action from the Botswana authorities to ensure the full enjoyment of all human rights by LGBT persons in Botswana,” said Tsunga.
Contact:
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Africa Director, t: +63 77 728 3249 ; e: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
Timothy Fish Hodgson, ICJ Legal Adviser, t: +27828719905 ; e: timothy.hodgson(a)icj.org
Jun 13, 2019 | News
Today, the ICJ called on the authorities in Tajikistan to immediately release a prominent lawyer who is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 28 years on dubious charges.
The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) published a decision in Mr Yorov’s case on (date), finding that “the trials of Mr. Yorov were carried out in total disregard for the guarantees encapsulated in article 14 of the Covenant, being of such gravity as to give the deprivation of liberty of Mr Yorov an arbitrary character […].”
The Working Group recommended that the government remedy the situation of Yorov without delay and to this end “release Mr. Yorov immediately and accord him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law”.
The ICJ has previously expressed concern that Buzurgmehr Yorov’s conviction may constitute a reprisal for his defense work in high-profile political trials in connection with his representation of thirteen leaders of the Islamic Renaissance Party of Tajikistan (IRPT).
The ICJ earlier expressed concerns at the conviction of the lawyer to a 28 year sentence in prison, which is based on clearly improper charges related to the defense of his clients.
The ICJ welcomes the decision of the WGAD and calls on the Tajikistan authorities to fully implement the decision and to take all necessary measures to protect lawyer Yorov, his family and his lawyers against any threats to their security, or any intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference with their performance of their professional functions as lawyers.
In this regard, the ICJ notes recent protests by dozens of individuals who took part in a rally against Yorov in front of the representative offices of the United Nations and the European Union in Tajikistan, soon after the decision of the WGAD.
Posters of the demonstrators called on the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights to “take her hands off Tajikistan” and named organisations that had defended Mr Yorov or brought the petition on behalf of Yorov to the UN WGAD.
In this context, it is imperative that the Tajikistan government immediately publicly affirm the legitimacy of the decision of the WGAD and make clear its commitment to complying with it, the ICJ underlined.
Background
Buzurgmekhr Yorov was arrested two years ago on 28 September 2015, on charges of “fraud” and “forgery of documents.” Later, he was accused of violating three more articles of the Criminal Code, including in relation to alleged “public calls for extremist activity.”
On 6 October 2016, The Dushanbe City Court sentenced Yorov to 23 years imprisonment in a strict regime prison.
In March 2017, Yorov was sentenced to an additional two years’ deprivation of liberty for “contempt of court and insulting the representative of power.” In August 2017, he received a further three years sentence on charges of “insulting the president.”
The ICJ has, on a number of occasions, expressed its serious concerns over the arrest and conviction of Buzurgmehr Yorov and other lawyers in Tajikistan.
On 24 May 2019, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, a group of independent experts established in 1991 whose members are appointed by the UN Human Rights Council, published an Opinion finding a number of violations of human rights of Yorov protected under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and recommended as a remedy his immediate release, payment of compensation or other reparation and conducting an investigation into the violation of Yorov’s rights.
The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers require that the Governments ensure that lawyers “are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference ”. Under these Principles “where the security of lawyers is threatened as a result of discharging their functions, they shall be adequately safeguarded by the authorities.” The right to “offer and provide professionally qualified legal assistance or other relevant advice and assistance in defending human rights and fundamental freedoms” is guaranteed by the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Article 9.3(c)).
Jun 12, 2019 | News
The ICJ today expressed concern at recent developments in Moldova, which are effectively paralyzing governance in the country.
During the past week, the Constitutional Court has ordered the dissolution of Parliament, suspended its functioning and invalidated its subsequent acts, including the appointment of a government and speaker, and has triggered the removal of the President.
The ICJ is particularly concerned at the excessively swift procedure through which the Constitutional Court reached its decisions to dissolve Parliament, remove a sitting President of the Republic and replace him with the Prime Minister. The ICJ calls attention to the unhelpful timing of the Constitutional Court ruling that was issued on the very day it identified as the end of the Parliamentary term, depriving Parliament of the clarity needed to exercise its powers.
These developments occur against the background of the manifest deficiencies in the institutional independence of the Moldova judiciary which were documented in a recent ICJ report.
In the report issued in March 2019, the ICJ highlighted the problematic appointment in 2018 of three judges of the Constitutional Court in circumstances that did not ensure a sufficient level of transparency, during an electoral campaign and without an open competition process. The report noted that the three appointed judges have previously been Prosecutor General, director of the intelligence service and chair of the legal committee of Parliament, part of the then ruling political majority.
The ICJ welcomes the announcement by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe that the Venice Commission has been asked to issue an urgent opinion on the constitutional crisis.
“The rule of law is the common ground on which constitutional conflicts must be solved”, said Massimo Frigo, Senior Legal Adviser of the Europe Programme of the ICJ. “We call on all institutions and parties in Moldova to seek a solution that squarely complies with the rule of law and the international law and standards to which Moldova has subscribed. In this regard, we urge all parties concerned to wait for the opinion by the Council of Europe Venice Commission in this matter and to reconsider the situation in light of its findings.”
Background
The Constitutional Court, in decisions issued on 7, 8 and 9 June 2019, held that Parliament should be dissolved for having been unable to establish a government within three months of the end of the previous Government’s term of office.
The decisions triggered the removal from office of the President of the Republic, Igor Dodon, for having refused to dissolve Parliament. This led to the interim appointment of Pavel Filip, as acting President of the Republic.
The Court also declared unconstitutional and void any act issued by Parliament after 7 June.
Neither Parliament nor President Dodon have accepted the decisions of the Constitutional Court on their removal or on the validity of their acts, nor do they consider as legitimate the appointment of Pavel Filip as acting President.
Parliamentary factions constituting the current majority in Parliament had reached a deal to form a coalition government and appointed a speaker and Prime Minister.
According to the Constitutional Court’s interpretation of article 85 of the Constitution, these agreements failed to respect the three-month deadline.
Others have put forward different interpretations of when the deadline of the three months period to appoint a Government would elapse, and of the obligation of the President of the Republic to dissolve Parliament.
Article 85 of the Constitution states:
(1) In the event of impossibility to form the Government or in case of blocking up the procedure of adopting the laws for a period of three months, the President of the Republic of Moldova, following consultations with parliamentary fractions, may dissolve the Parliament.
(2) The Parliament may be dissolved, if it has not accepted the vote of confidence for setting up of the new Government within 45 days following the first request and only upon declining at least two requests of investiture.
(3) The Parliament may be dissolved only once in the course of one year.
(4) The Parliament may not be dissolved within the last six months of the term of office of the President of the Republic of Moldova nor during a state of emergency, martial law or war.
Contact:
Massimo Frigo, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser: t: +41 22 979 3805; e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
Jun 8, 2019 | Multimedia items, News, Publications, Reports, Thematic reports, Video clips
The Indian Government must give effect to recent rulings of the Supreme Court and end discrimination and other human rights violations and abuses based on real or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, the ICJ said today at the Delhi launch of its new report on the conditions of LGBTQ people in India.
The ICJ’s 152-page report Living with Dignity: Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity-Based Human Rights Violations in Housing, Work, and Public Spaces in India details human rights violations suffered by LGBTQ persons in their family homes, workplaces, and public spaces including streets, public toilets, public transport and shopping centres.
Following on the Supreme Court’s decisions in NALSA and Navtej, which strongly affirmed the human rights of LGBTQ persons, the report identifies legal and policy challenges, as well as structural barriers that prevent them from enjoying the full range of human rights.
”Despite the promise of recent jurisprudence, the Indian government has not consistently met its constitutional and international obligations to guarantee the rights of LGBTQ persons,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Director.
“The ICJ encourages the Indian State to build on existing efforts to protect these rights to ensure full compliance with the right to live with dignity in terms of the Indian Constitution and international human rights law,” he added.
The Living with Dignity report identifies a wide range of violations and abuses of rights in the context of housing, work and public spaces.
Human rights violations associated with housing included discrimination in accessing rental accommodation, harassment and violence by landlords and by families, and arbitrary evictions.
The report sets out instances of discrimination in the workplace, at all stages of employment, and throughout the formal and informal sectors.
It also documents obstacles faced by LGBTQ persons seeking access to public spaces, including discriminatory policing, gendered toilets and transport, harassment and abuse by State officials, and discriminatory targeting through the application of public nuisance, sex work and anti-beggary laws.
The report offers a set of recommendations meant to make existing law and policy more protective of LGBTQ persons’ rights and calls for the amendment or repeal of certain existing laws.
“There is no single law or policy solution to ending long-standing and systemic discrimination. But legal and policy reforms are essential to addressing the abuses suffered by LGBTQ persons and these must include the effective, inclusive and meaningful participation of a diverse range of LGBTQ individuals and advocacy groups,” Rawski said.
The report also recommends the convening of a nationwide consultation geared towards the enactment of a comprehensive anti-discrimination law prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity as is required by international human rights law.
In a preface to the report, ICJ Commissioner and former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, Justice Ajit Prakash Shah, indicates his hope that the report will “be used as a tool by lawyers, human rights defenders and policymakers” and “contribute to enhancing public discourse on LGBTQ rights, as well as broader issues of discrimination and the rule of law in India”.
Download
Report: Living with Dignity: Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity-Based Human Rights Violations in Housing, Work, and Public Spaces in India (English)
Executive Summary (English)
Infographics
SOGIE-based Human Rights violations in Housing
SOGIE-based Human Rights violations at Work
Barriers experiences by LGBTQ people in accessing Public Spaces
Contact
Maitreyi Gupta (Delhi), ICJ International Legal Adviser for India, e: maitreyi.gupta(a)icj.org, t: +91 7756028369
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Region Director, e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org, t: +66 644781121
Read also
Briefing Paper on Navtej Singh Johar et al. v. Union of India and Others, July 2018.
Unnatural Offences”: Obstacles to Justice in India Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, February 2017.
ICJ Briefing Paper on Implementation of NALSA Judgment, 2016.
Watch the video
Jun 7, 2019 | News
The ICJ today condemned the impending moves to subject three prominent Saudi clerics to an inevitably unfair trial on dubious charges that might result in sentences of death and arbitrary execution.
According to credible media reports citing Saudi government sources, Salman al-Odah, Ali Al-Omari and Awad al-Qarni, three prominent Saudi clerics, will almost certainly be convicted, sentenced to death and executed soon after Ramadan.
The media reports follow last April’s mass executions of 37 people, and the crucifixion of one them, following their conviction and sentencing to death for similar “terrorism” related charges.
The ICJ calls for the clerics’ release unless they can be charged with a recognizable criminal offence consistent with the rule of law, and tried before a competent, independent, and impartial court that ensures fair trial rights.
“Saudi Arabia is abusively resorting to terrorism related charges, unfair trials, and sentences of death followed by arbitrary execution to permanently silence perceived critical voices,” said Said Benarbia, the ICJ’s MENA Programme Director.
“Instead of perpetuating egregious violations of the right to life, Saudi authorities must administer justice fairly and in accordance with international law and standards,” he added.
One of the defendants, Salman al-Odah, was charged by prosecutors in September 2018 with 37 offences, including “belonging to a terrorist group: the Muslim Brotherhood,” “stirring public discord and inciting people against the ruler,” “calling for change in government,” “supporting Arab revolutions,” “possessing banned books” and “describing the Saudi government as a tyranny.”
The ICJ fears that Salman al-Odah may be subject to these charges simply for exercising his protected right to freedom of expression.
Together with the other two clerics, Salman al-Odah faces trial before the specialized criminal court, an exceptional court that fails to ensure respect of fair trial rights and that has been used to try those suspected of committing terrorism related offences, political activists, and human rights defenders.
The ICJ is concerned that since their arrest in September 2017, the clerics have allegedly been subject to incommunicado detention and prolonged solitary confinement for months. Such treatment amounts to torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, prohibited under international law.
Carrying out executions following proceedings that fail to scrupulously observe international fair trial standards always amounts to an arbitrary deprivation of life.
The ICJ opposes the use of the death penalty in all circumstances as a violation of the right to life and a form of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.
The ICJ underscores that the United Nations General Assembly, by an overwhelming majority, has repeated called on States that retain the death penalty to impose an immediate moratorium on executions with a view to abolition.
The ICJ calls on the Saudi authorities to immediately move toward abolishing the death penalty and impose an immediate moratorium on executions.
Background
The clerics’ detention and ongoing trial are part of a broader crackdown on activists and dissidents since September 2017, including through politicized judicial proceedings and trumped up charges under the 2014 Royal Decree.
The Decree criminalizes as terrorism offences acts that do not involve serious violence, including acts that aim to suspend the enforcement of the Constitution or some of its articles, as well as any acts that undermine the State’s prestige and standing.
Such broad definitions have effectively been used to criminalize the legitimate and peaceful exercise of human rights, including the rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly, and the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs.
The 2014 Royal Decree also allows the Minister of Interior to order the arrest of any person suspected of committing terrorism related offences, and for those arrested to remain in pre-trial detention for up to six months and to be prohibited from communicating with their family members for up to three months. Those arrested cannot be released pending trial without the authorization of the Minister of Interior or someone authorized by him.
Such conditions contravene international standards on the rights to liberty and to a fair trial.
Saudi Arabia-Death penalty-News-2019-ARA (Arabic version, in PDF)
Jun 6, 2019 | News
The ICJ today called on the Zimbabwe government to stop using the highly criticized offence of “subverting a constitutional government” to punish human rights defenders for the exercise of fundamental freedoms protected under international and Zimbabwe Law.
George Makoni, Tatenda Mombeyarara, Gamuchirai Mukura Nyasha Mpahlo, Farirai Gumbonzvanda, Rita Nyamupinga, and Stabile Dewa, referred to by the media as the “Zimbabwe 7”, have been charged under section 22 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] and will face a bail hearing, due to be heard at the High Court in Harare on 6 and 7 June 2019.
“The Zimbabwean authorities need to desist from the growing practice of abusing the offence of subverting a constitutional government as an instrument to persecute human rights defenders through abuse of the legal system,” said Arnold Tsunga, ICJ’s Africa Director.
“The oppressive and retaliatory use of law by government violates the rule of law and human rights as guaranteed in the Zimbabwean Constitution as well as in regional and global human rights treaties to which Zimbabwe is a State party,” he added.
The ICJ has previously shown that the law of subversion in Zimbabwe has been used often against HRDs who peacefully exercise their fundamental freedoms, with no single conviction to date.
The law violates the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (both of which Zimbabwe is a party to), including the rights of persons to freedom of opinion and expression (Article 9 African Charter on Human and People’s Rights; article 19 ICCPR), freedom of assembly (article 11 ACHPR; 21 ICCPR) article, freedom of association (article 10 ACHPR; article 22 ICCPR), and the right to political participation (article 25 ICCPR).
The UN Declaration on Human Rights defenders, adopted by the UN General Assembly, requires that States afford particular protection to human rights defenders (HRDs) who exercise these rights.
HRDs charged with this offence can face a sentence of up to 20 years in prison and have often been denied bail for some periods, in contravention of international law, which provides that charged persons should generally not be held in pre-trial detention. Such prolonged pretrial detention effectively serves as pre-trial punishment of suspects.
“Criminal law must never be used as a means to silence opposition or persecute human rights defenders, which also necessarily has a chilling on others who perform critical human rights work. It is important that the police do not arrest to investigate but they must investigate before they arrest,” said Tsunga.
Contact
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ’s Africa Director, t: +27716405926 ; e: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
Background
Four human rights defenders, George Makoni, Tatenda Mombeyarara, Gamuchirai Mukura and Nyasha Mpahlo were arrested on 20th May 2019 upon arrival at Robert Mugabe International Airport, Harare from the Maldives where they had attended a workshop on human rights work. Law enforcement officials alleged in the charge sheet that,” during the workshop, the four had received training on the use of small weapons, how to mobilize citizens to turn against the government and to engage in acts of civil disobedience and or resistance to law during anticipated national protests. Law enforcement agents confiscated the HRDs’ laptops and cell phones. In similar fashion, Social Justice and Girls’ Rights advocate Farirai Gumbonzvanda was arrested upon arrival at the Harare airport on 21 May. Charged with the offence of subverting constitutional government as defined in section 22(2)(a)(iii) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, all five persons remain in custody as their application for bail in the High Court of Zimbabwe has been postponed to 7th June 2019.
In related circumstances, Director of Female Prisoners Support Trust, Rita Nyamupinga and Stabile Dewa, Director of Women’s Academy for Leadership and Political Excellence were arrested on 28 May 2019 soon after they arrived at the Harare airport. They were taken to Harare Central Police Station without having an opportunity to consult their lawyers. Both women have also been charged with subverting constitutional government and have been remanded in custody since 29th May 2019 pending their bail hearing today.
