2018 Geneva Forum of Judges & Lawyers – indigenous & other traditional or customary justice systems in Asia

2018 Geneva Forum of Judges & Lawyers – indigenous & other traditional or customary justice systems in Asia

The ICJ convened the 9th annual “Geneva Forum” of Judges and Lawyers in Bangkok, Thailand, 13-14 December 2018, on the topic of indigenous and other traditional or customary justice systems in Asia.

Indigenous and other traditional or customary justice systems play a significant role in many societies around the world, in terms of access to justice for rural communities, indigenous peoples, minorities, and other marginalized populations. At the same time, such systems raise a series of questions in terms of their relationship to international fair trial and rule of law standards, and impacts on human rights including particularly those of women and children.

9th annual Geneva Forum of Judges & Lawyers, 13-14 December 2018, Bangkok, Thailand

Following discussions on these topics at the 2017 ICJ Geneva Forum (an annual global meeting of senior judges, lawyers, prosecutors and other legal and United Nations experts, convened by the ICJ with the support of the Canton and Republic of Geneva (Switzerland) and other partners), the ICJ decided that in order to better engage with customary justice systems, the Geneva Forum would be “on the road” in 2018 and 2019, convening for a regional consultation in the Asia-Pacific in 2018, and in Africa in 2019.

Additional consultations will take place in the Americas. The Forum will return to Geneva for an enlarged session in 2020 to adopt final conclusions and global guidance.

The ninth annual Geneva Forum in Bangkok brought together judges, lawyers, and others engaged with traditional justice systems in the Asia-Pacific region, and practitioners from ordinary justice systems in the region, together with UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples Ms. Victoria Tauli Corpuz, as well as ICJ and UN representatives from Geneva, to discuss and develop practical recommendations, in a private small-group setting.

Participants came from a number of countries across the region, including: Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Pakistan, Philippines, Thailand and Timor Leste.

The potential and the risks for equal and effective access to justice and human rights

Many participants re-affirmed that traditional and customary justice systems can make an important contribution to improving access to justice for indigenous, and other rural or otherwise marginalized populations, as a result of such factors as geographic proximity, lower cost, lesser cultural or linguistic barriers, and greater trust by local communities, relative to the official justice system.

Indeed, for these and other reasons, for some marginalized and disadvantaged rural populations, traditional and customary courts may in practical terms be the only form of access they have to any kind of justice.

Furthermore, article 34 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples affirms the right of indigenous peoples “have the right to promote, develop and maintain their institutional structures and their distinctive customs, spirituality, traditions, procedures, practices and, in the cases where they exist, juridical systems or customs, in accordance with international human rights standards”.

Furthermore, official recognition of traditional or customary courts in a country can more generally be a positive reflection of the cultural and other human rights of other ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities.

At the same time, the Forum discussions confirmed that, as with formal justice systems, certain characteristics and processes of some traditional and customary justice systems can conflict with international standards on fair trial and the administration of justice, and human rights, particularly of women and children.

Participants in the 2018 Forum discussed a variety of ways in which the relevant communities, their leaders, and decision-makers in indigenous or other traditional systems, together with government authorities, international actors, development agencies, and civil society, can cooperate and coordinate with a view to seeing both formal and traditional systems operate more consistently with international standards on human rights and the rule of law.

There was a range of views on which forms of engagement or intervention were most appropriate or effective. It was also emphasized that work should continue to build the accessibility and capacity of official justice systems to ensure that individuals seeking justice have a real choice.

The above conclusions were subject to the acknowledgement that traditional and customary justice systems take many different forms across the region, and that they exist in many different contexts.

A full report of the Forum discussions will be published by the ICJ in the first part of 2019.

Development of Guidance by the International Commission of Jurists

The ICJ’s global experience and expertise, together with research and global consultations with judges, lawyers and other relevant experts, including the 2017 Geneva Forum, the 2018 session in Bangkok, and subsequent regional consultations in Africa and the Americas, will provide a foundation for the publication by ICJ in 2020 of legal, policy and practical guidance on the role of traditional and customary justice systems in relation to access to justice, human rights and the rule of law.

The ICJ guidance will focus on the mechanisms and procedures of traditional and customary justice systems, as opposed to tackling all aspects of the substantive law.

The guidance will seek to assist all actors involved in implementation and assessment of relevant targets of Sustainable Development Goal 16 on access to justice for all and effective, accountable and inclusive institutions, as well as Goal 5 on gender equality, including: decision-makers and other participants in traditional and customary justice systems; judges, lawyers and prosecutors operating in official justice systems; other government officials; development agencies; United Nations and other inter-governmental organizations; and civil society.

The guidance will be published and disseminated through activities with ICJ’s regional programmes, and its national sections and affiliates, through a series of regional launch events and workshops, as well as at the global level at the United Nations and in other settings.

The guidance will provide the basis for ICJ strategic advocacy at the national level in the years following the conclusion of this initial phase of this work.

Background Materials

Available for download in PDF format:

A Compilation of selected international sources on traditional and customary courts, is available here.

The Final report of the 2018 Geneva Forum, on traditional and customary justice systems, is available here: Universal-Trad-Custom-Justice-GF-2018-Publications-Thematic-reports-2019-ENG

The Final report of the previous, 2017 Geneva Forum, on traditional and customary justice systems, is available here: Universal-Trad Custom Justice Gva Forum-Publications-Thematic reports-2018-ENG

For more information, please contact matt.pollard(a)icj.org.

Turkey: workshop on the use of the UN Universal Periodic Review

Turkey: workshop on the use of the UN Universal Periodic Review

Today begins in Ankara (Turkey) a one-day workshop for lawyers and CSO practitioners on the use and strategies of UPR mechanisms.

This event is organized by ICJ, in cooperation with its partners Kapasite Geliştirme Derneği and Human Rights Joint Platform, as part a/the EU co-financed project Rebuilding and Ensuring Access to justice with civil society in Turkey.

20 lawyers and civil society practitioners are taking part in the workshop on 15 December in Ankara.

The workshop aims at discussing the functioning of the Universal Periodic Review of the UN Human Rights Council in which all States undergo periodically a peer-review of their human rights situation by other States. Turkey is set for its third cycle of examination in 2019

The main thematic areas to be discussed will be access to justice in Turkey, the situation of the judiciary and the rule of law, and the protection of womens’ rights.

The project is funded by the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) of the European Union.

Turkey-Training-Agenda-UPR-Ankara-2018-tur (download the agenda in Turkish)

Turkey-Training-Agenda-UPR-Ankara-2018-eng (download the agenda in English)

Laos: Six years on, civil society worldwide demands answers to the enforced disappearance of Sombath Somphone

Laos: Six years on, civil society worldwide demands answers to the enforced disappearance of Sombath Somphone

Today, on the sixth anniversary of the disappearance of Lao civil society leader Sombath Somphone, the ICJ joined 106 organizations and 37 individuals in a joint statement calling for an independent, impartial and effective investigation to reveal his fate and whereabouts.

The statement read as follows:

14 December 2018: On the eve of the sixth anniversary of the enforced disappearance of Lao civil society leader Sombath Somphone, we, the undersigned organizations, reiterate our calls for the Lao government to conduct an independent, impartial and effective investigation to reveal his fate and whereabouts.

Sombath was last seen at a police checkpoint on a busy street of the Lao capital, Vientiane, on the evening of 15 December 2012.

Footage from a CCTV camera showed that Sombath’s vehicle was stopped at the police checkpoint and, within minutes, individuals forced him into another vehicle and drove him away in the presence of police officers. CCTV footage also showed an unknown individual driving Sombath’s vehicle away from the city center.

The fact that police officers were present at and witnessed Sombath’s abduction and failed to intervene strongly indicates state agents’ involvement in, or acquiescence to, human rights violations committed against Sombath, which include the crime of enforced disappearance.

Later that evening, witnesses reportedly saw Sombath at a police holding facility in Vientiane yet to date officials have provided no information about what he was doing there and subsequently what happened to him.

For the last six years, the Lao government has failed to provide any credible answers with regard to the disappearance of Sombath Somphone.

In its most recent pronouncements, made during the review of Laos’ initial report by the Human Rights Committee (CCPR) in July 2018, the Lao government said it had been “trying very hard” to investigate Sombath’s fate and whereabouts.

However, this statement has been contradicted by the government’s refusal to accept international assistance in conducting the investigation and to provide any details about the progress of its investigation.

Lao authorities have failed to disclose any new findings from their investigation of Sombath’s case to the public since 8 June 2013 and have met with his wife, Shui Meng Ng, only twice since January 2013.

Despite the government’s recent claim that police had the “capacity and techniques” to reveal Sombath’s fate and whereabouts, we remain extremely concerned by the lack of progress in the investigation by Lao authorities into his case and reiterate our call for Vientiane to allow international assistance towards conducting an independent, impartial and thorough investigation according to international law and standards.

The Lao authorities have international legal obligations to conduct such investigations and to bring persons responsible for serious violations to justice under treaties to which they are party, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture.

We also urge the Lao government to ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, which Laos signed in September 2008, to incorporate the Convention’s provisions into the country’s domestic legislation, and implement it in practice.

Until Sombath Somphone’s fate and whereabouts are revealed, we will not stop demanding that Sombath be safely returned to his family and we will continue to ask the Lao government: “Where is Sombath?”

Laos-SombathSomphoneDisappearance-Advocacy-JointStatement-ENG-2018 (full statement, including list of signatories, PDF in English)

Translate »