Oct 3, 2018 | News
Today, the ICJ expressed concern at ongoing criminal proceedings against Mikhail Benyash, a lawyer practicing in Russia, who is charged with use of force against the police and impeding justice.
The lawyer has been detained until 23 November. The ICJ called on the responsible authorities to drop any criminal charge relating to his conduct of professional duties in the courtroom, and to ensure that the lawyer’s rights are protected and that allegations of his ill-treatment are fully investigated.
Benyash alleges that following his apprehension by the police on 9 September, the police beat him up in the car. According to the police report he inflicted the injuries on himself, contrary to demands of the police that he stop doing so.
He was charged with disobedience to the police, which according to the police report was due to “the fact that the police asked Benyash not to injure himself, but he continued self-beating”. Benyash was convicted and sentenced to 14 days of imprisonment and 40 hours of correctional works.
On 23 September, the day of his release, Benyash was arrested again. He was charged with two further offences: violence against a representative of authority (Criminal Code Article 318(1)) based on an allegation, seemingly not raised at the time of his earlier charge and conviction in relation to the same incident, that in the course of his arrest on 9 September he allegedly bit a police officer and hit another.
On 23 September he was also charged with obstruction of justice (Criminal Code Article 294(1)), reportedly on the basis of an allegation that in a court hearing on 6 May 2018, Benyash had “repeatedly interrupted, gave instructions and objections to the decisions of the judge” and after he had been removed from the courtroom “continued unlawful behaviour”.
According to the lawyer, he was taken out of the courtroom by force due to his motions to allow certain members of the public to be present at the open hearing.
The ICJ is concerned that the criminal obstruction charge against Mikhail Benyash appears to relate at least in part to statements he made in court in the course of carrying out his professional duties of representation of his clients.
The fact that this charge was only laid following his recent arrest, some five months after the alleged incident occurred, also raises questions as to the motivation for bringing the charge forward now.
“Benyash is currently charged on account of his alleged attack on a police officer and obstruction of justice. While the first charge requires an impartial and independent inquiry, the second charge should be of concern to the entire lawyers’ community”, said Karinna Moskalenko, ICJ honorary member. “We fear that this may lead to lawyers in Russia being charged with obstruction of justice simply for actively expressing their position and objections in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law”, she added.
Furthermore, the ICJ emphasises that under international human rights law, states have obligations to investigate allegations of treatment that may amount to torture or inhuman or degrading in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as other international law norms binding on the Russian Federation.
The investigative authorities have duty to investigate allegations of ill-treatment of the lawyer by police following his arrest on 9 September promptly, effectively and impartially and any persons responsible should be brought to justice.
Read the ICJ’s full statement here: Russia-Statement on Benyash-News-Web Story-2018-ENG
Oct 3, 2018 | News
Today, the South African Judicial Education Institute (SAJEI) and ICJ held a workshop for judicial officers on housing rights in terms of South African and international human rights law.
The workshop, which was held in Johannesburg, was attended 46 participants from South Africa’s 9 provinces. It formed part of a “Human Rights Week For Judicial Officers” run by SAJEI, which on other days also covered “Refugee Rights”, “LGBTI Rights”, and “Gender and HIV”.
The objective of the SAJEI-ICJ workshop was to discuss the role of judicial officers in housing rights cases.
The content of the workshop was collaboratively determined in consultation with magistrates responsible for conducting the training of other magistrates around the country.
It sought to respond to their requests information and resources to assist in their daily decision-making.
The workshop was facilitated by a range of magistrates from around the country and judicial educators at SAJEI.
A keynote address on “Constitutional Imperatives on Rights to Housing” was presented Judge Antonie Gildenhuys, a retired judge who sat both on the High Court and the Land Claims Court in South Africa.
Workshop facilitators drew on a draft manual on housing rights, which the ICJ is working with SAJEI and a working group of magistrates to develop.
The manual’s particular focus is on international human rights standards from a range of sources including the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, general comments of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
It is hoped that, when finalized, magistrates will be able to draw on this manual to assist in their adjudication of housing rights cases.
To assist judicial officers in understanding the challenges faced by communities advocating to prevent unlawful evictions and secure access adequate housing, Mr Thapelo Mohapi (General Secretary of Abahlali baseMjondolo) and Ms Susan Mkhwanazi (Slovo Park Community Forum) were asked to make presentations on their “lived experiences” in attempting to access protection on the right to housing.
Their important insights contributed immensely to the success of the workshop and were well received by the magistrates.
Opening remarks were delivered by Dr Gomolemo Moshoeu (CEO of SAJEI) and Mr Arnold Tsunga (Africa Director of the ICJ).
“We at the ICJ are very happy that the magistrates expressed a desire for more continuous legal education in the area of legal enforcement of economic and social rights given that historically very little attention has been paid to equipping magistrates with requisite information and resources to ensure consistent application of human rights standards in this area,” reflected Arnold Tsunga after the event.
Contact:
Timothy Fish Hodgson, ICJ Legal Adviser, t: +27828719905 ; e: timothy.hodgson(a)icj.org
Oct 1, 2018 | News
The Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR) held a special hearing on the role of the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) in Boulder, Colarado.
Ramón Cadena, the ICJ Director stated “We regret that the Government of Guatemala requested the IACHR to hold the hearing behind closed doors since all the points discussed were of public interest. The discussions should have been open to the press and the general public. We urge the authorities to ensure there will be no retaliations against the work carried out by human rights organizations and human rights defenders.”
The ICJ welcomed the participation of many NGOs at the event and the frank dialogue that took place on this crucial issue for human rights in that country. The Guatemalan government delegation claimed that the Inter-American System of Human Rights was not competent to consider the matter. However, the IACHR maintained it was competent, according to the American Convention of Human Rights and other regional human rights legislation. As an “external observer”, the IACHR stated it was “surprised” by the latest decisions taken by government authorities at the highest level not to extend the CICIG mandate nor allow the entry of Commissioner Iván Velásquez into the country. It considered these decisions were “excessive” and in no way strengthened the rule of law in Guatemala.
The government delegation further argued that the CICIG acted as a “parallel prosecutor” which affects the internal order of the country. The NGO delegation stated that on the contrary the CICIG acted as a “complementary prosecutor”. The delegation further noted that before the CICIG mandate was approved, the Constitutional Court, in an opinion published in the official gazette on 8 May 2007 (document no 791-2007), considered that the CICIG did not violate the constitutional order nor the rule of law in Guatemala.
The Constitutional Court referred to the CICIG as having “the function of supporting, assisting and strengthening the state institutions responsible for investigating crimes committed by illegal and clandestine security forces .. and does not exclude the possibility of receiving support from other institutions in the collection of evidence, provided that the participation has been established in a legal manner, as in the present case.”
The IACHR considered that the essential question was whether the State of Guatemala already had the judicial independence and strong institutions necessary to fight against corruption in Guatemala without the support of the CICIG. The NGO delegation considered, based on different arguments, that the presence of the CICIG in Guatemala was still necessary.
The IACHR also informed the government delegation that it was in their interest to invite an in-situ visit of the IACHR as soon as possible so as to better understand the human rights situation.
The ICJ Director for Central America Ramón Cadena participated in the hearing at the request of the Central American Institute for Social Democracy Studies (DEMOS), the Committee for Peasant Development (CODECA) and the Network of Community Defenders. The Indigenous Peoples Law Firm had been requested to attend by these organizations but was unable to do so at the last moment.
Oct 1, 2018 | News
From 29 to 30 September 2018, the ICJ convened a 2nd two-day workshop on application of international law and standards, remarkably focusing on the Minnesota protocol, with special reference to investigation of alleged unlawful killings and enforced disappearances for public prosecutors of Nepal.
The workshop was organized by the ICJ South Asia office and took place as part of the ICJ’s Global Redress and Accountability Initiative, “increasing the knowledge and capacity of lawyers, prosecutors and investigators to deal with challenges of impunity and access to redress.”
The participants of the workshop included 18 public prosecutors working in District Government Office in Kathmandu, Lalitpur, Bhaktapur and Kavrepalanchok, Nepal.
The event started with opening remarks by the Attorney General of Nepal and former minister of Law and Justice, Agni Kharel.
In the opening remarks, Agni Kharel highlighted both commitments made and efforts by the Nepal government in order to protect and promote human rights as well as justice for victims of human rights violations.
Expressing pleasure on the theme of the workshop, he also said the public prosecutors will be benefited as well as be competent to use the knowledge and learning from the workshop in their works.
Senior Legal Consultant of the ICJ Nepal – Govinda Bandi, one of the experts of the workshop and speaker of the opening ceremony, highlighted the objectives of the workshop.
Kingsley Abbott, Senior International Legal Adviser at the ICJ, presented an overview of the relevant international human rights legal framework that applies to the investigation of alleged killing and enforced disappearances.
He further presented an introduction and overview of the revised Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016) and ICJ practitioners Guide no. 9. Both instruments were core materials used at the workshop.
Other speakers included Govinda Bandi, Senior Legal Consultant at the ICJ, who presented on the relevance of the Minnesota protocol in investigating on alleged unlawful killing and enforced disappearances.
Prof. Dr. Hariwar Wasti, Medico-legal expert at the IOM Department of Forensic Medicine of Government of Nepal, presented a power point presentation on the role of forensics in the investigation of gross human rights violations with reference to the Minnesota Protocol.
The workshop focused on investigation techniques of alleged unlawful killings highlighting the significance of public prosecutors in Nepal.
It was also focused on collection and preserving the security of evidences and potential use of the evidences for victims’ right to justice and reparation.
The workshop also covered medico-legal documentation techniques of crime scene and dead wearing tie body, collection of DNA evidence, and drafting of autopsy reports and crime file management.
It was also discussed and outlined some approaches of using the Minnesota protocol in Nepal in the final session of the workshop.
This workshop followed the national workshop the ICJ hosted between 13 to 14 July 2018 in Dhulikhel, Nepal on the investigation of alleged unlawful deaths and enforced disappearances for more than 20 human rights lawyers from diverse regions of Nepal.
Oct 1, 2018 | News
The ICJ expressed disappointment regarding Friday’s ruling by Thailand’s Administrative Court dismissing a case filed against the Royal Thai Police (RTP) for unjustified restriction of the freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression, and again called on Thailand to lift its ban on political gatherings and fully reinstate fundamental freedoms in Thailand.
On 28 September 2018, the Administrative Court dismissed a case filed by the organizers of a “We Walk Friendship March” (‘We Walk march’) against the RTP and six policemen for restricting the march on the basis that it was in violation of Head of NCPO Order No. 3/2558 (2015) (‘HNCPO Order 3’).
The Administrative Court referred to the Thai Constitution, the Public Assembly Act B.E. 2558 (2015), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to which Thailand is a State party, and HNCPO Order 3, in deciding that the march was a public assembly. Its decision clarified that the case had to be dismissed as the RTP’s actions had complied with the Public Assembly Act.
“It is astonishing that more than four years after the coup, HNCPO Order 3 and other repressive laws, orders and announcements which restrict fundamental freedoms remain in place,” said Kingsley Abbott, Senior Legal Adviser at the ICJ.
“The Administrative Court missed a critical opportunity to deliver an opinion that the ban on political gatherings should be lifted and that all laws, orders and announcements that are inconsistent with Thailand’s international human rights obligations should be amended or revoked immediately to reinstate all fundamental freedoms in Thailand,” added Abbott.
The march, which went ahead peacefully, aimed to bring attention to the need in Thailand for universal healthcare services, policies guaranteeing food security, laws that would not violate human rights, and public participation in the development of the Constitution.
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, email: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
The ICJ’s full statement in English is available here: Thailand-Ban on Political Gatherings-News-Web Story-2018-ENG
The ICJ’s full statement in Thai is available here: Thailand-Ban on Political Gatherings-News-Web- Story-2018-THA
Sep 27, 2018 | News
Today’s decision by the UN Human Rights Council to create an ‘independent mechanism’ to collect evidence of crimes in Myanmar, is a significant step toward accountability for gross human rights violations, the ICJ said.
“The creation of this evidence-gathering mechanism is a welcome concrete step towards justice,” said Matt Pollard, Senior Legal Adviser for the ICJ.
“But this is a stopgap measure, effectively creating a prosecutor without a court, that only underscores the urgent need for the Security Council to refer the entire situation to the International Criminal Court, which was created for precisely such circumstances,” he added.
The Council’s decision follows on conclusions and recommendations by the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar (FFM).
The FFM’s 444-page full report described large-scale patterns of grave human rights violations against minority groups in the country, particularly in Rakhine, Kachin and Shan States.
It also highlighted the need for criminal investigations and prosecutions for crimes under international law, something the FFM concluded that national courts and commissions within Myanmar could not deliver.
“National justice institutions within Myanmar lack the independence, capacity and often also the will to hold perpetrators of human rights violations to account, particularly when members of security forces are involved. The latest government-established inquiry in Rakhine State also seems designed to deter and delay justice,” Pollard said.
The Human Rights Council resolution did not create a new international court or tribunal.
Evidence held by the independent mechanism could be made available to international or national proceedings, whether at the International Criminal Court (ICC) or another ad hoc international tribunal, or to national prosecutors asserting jurisdiction over the crimes under universal jurisdiction or other grounds.
While there is no realistic prospect of effective national prosecutions within Myanmar in the near future, evidence held by the mechanism could also be available in future should national institutions eventually become sufficiently impartial, independent, competent, and capable to do so.
A preliminary examination of the situation of Rohingyas, being conducted by the ICC, may also lead to criminal proceedings but will likely be limited to those crimes that have partially occurred within Bangladesh, such as the crime against humanity of deportation.
Bangladesh is a State Party to the Rome Statute of the ICC whilst Myanmar is not.
The Security Council also has authority to refer the entire situation to the International Criminal Court.
“The Myanmar government should stop denying the truth and should work with the international community, and particularly the United Nations, to improve the horrific conditions facing the Rohingya and other ethnic minorities whose rights have been violated so brutally by the security forces, as documented by the Fact Finding Mission,” Pollard said.
“Myanmar’s international partners, including neighbours like India, China, and members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), should exercise their influence to help ensure that Myanmar addresses this serious threat to the stability of the country and the region, by ensuring respect, protection and fulfillment of the full range of civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights of the affected minorities,” he added.
The Council resolution makes several other substantive recommendations, including a call on the Government of Myanmar to review the 1982 Citizenship Law, and a recommendation for the United Nations to conduct an inquiry into its involvement in Myanmar since 2011.
Contact:
Matt Pollard, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser (Geneva), e: matt.pollard@icj.org, +41 79 246 54 75.
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), e: frederick.rawski@icj.org
Read also:
Why an IIIM and Security Council referral are needed despite the ICC ruling relating to Bangladesh (13 September 2018)
Government’s Commission of Inquiry cannot deliver justice or accountability (7 September 2018)
ICJ releases Q & A on crime of genocide (27 August 2018)
Myanmar: reverse laws and practices that perpetuate military impunity (16 January 2018)
Summary report of the Fact Finding Mission (12 September 2018)
Full report of the Fact Finding Mission (published 18 September 2018)
Text of the Resolution (unofficial version tabled in advance of the vote)
Myanmar-IIIM statement-Advocacy-2018-BUR (Full story in Burmese)
