Zimbabwe must restore rule of law and end military interference in governance

Zimbabwe must restore rule of law and end military interference in governance

As Zimbabwe prepares to swear in Emmerson Mnangagwa following the resignation of long time Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe, the ICJ today called on the incoming authorities to immediately act to restore the rule of law and ensure the full observance of human rights in the country.

“As the events of the past few days propel Zimbabwe away from decades of authoritarian rule replete with human rights violations, the incoming administration must side with the people of Zimbabwe and seize this unique opportunity to ground its governance in the rule of law,” said Arnold Tsunga, Director of ICJ’s African Regional Programme.

The ICJ indicated that it is particularly concerned at the intrusion of armed forces in the political process and governance, which is prohibited by the Zimbabwean Constitution and contravenes core rule of law principles concerning the respective functions of the military and civilian authorities.

Emphasizing that the rule of law and respect for the national Constitution remain paramount even as Zimbabweans decide on their future, the ICJ called on the Zimbabwean National Army (ZNA) to refrain from any further activity that intrudes into functions of governances that are within the proper purview of civilian authorities.

“It amounts to setting a dangerous precedent for Zimbabwe and the region to allow or excuse such incursions at the whim of armed forces,” Tsunga added.

Under the African Charter on Democracy, Elections, and Governance adopted by African Union Member States, Zimbabwe is required to “institutionalize constitutional civilian control over the armed and security forces to ensure the consolidation of democracy and constitutional order”.

The ICJ further expressed concern at emerging reports of usurpation of police duties by the ZNA, which has allegedly carried out a series of arbitrary arrests and detention of civilians.

“Due process guarantees and fair trial rights are particularly vulnerable when armed forces decide to assume police functions,” Tsunga said.

Recalling that international law does not allow or encourage impunity for serious human rights violations that constitute crimes, such as torture and extra-judicial killings, the ICJ stressed the importance of ensuring accountability for human rights violations as Zimbabwe transits to into a new era of governance.

Contact:

Arnold Tsunga, ICJ-Director Africa Regional Programme,  t: +27716405926, or +254 746 608 859 ; e: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org

 Solomon Ebobrah, Senior Legal Advisor, ICJ Africa Regional Programme, t: +234 8034927549 ; e: Solomon.ebobrah(a)icj.org

2017 Geneva Forum of Judges & Lawyers: traditional and customary justice systems

2017 Geneva Forum of Judges & Lawyers: traditional and customary justice systems

The 8th Geneva Forum brought together judges, lawyers, and other legal experts from around the world, and relevant UN representatives, to discuss the relationship between traditional and customary justice systems and international human rights, access to justice, and the rule of law.

The potential for improving access to justice

In many countries the majority of legal disputes, especially in rural areas, are resolved by traditional and customary justice systems that are not necessarily recognised by national law as a part of the official court system. The role of traditional and customary justice systems is therefore a key question for realization of “access to justice for all” and “effective, accountable and inclusive institutions” under Sustainable Development Goal 16.

Traditional and customary justice systems are often more practically and culturally accessible to local populations than is the official court system, and may be seen by local people as having greater legitimacy as well. Indeed, official recognition of the existence of traditional and customary courts in a country can be a positive reflection of the international human rights of ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities, or the particular rights of indigenous peoples, or cultural rights more generally.

For marginalized and disadvantaged rural populations in developing countries, traditional and customary courts may in practical terms be the only form of access they have to any kind of justice. Development agencies have increased their engagement with informal justice systems, and are considering much greater investment in capacity-building of such systems, noting their potential to reach large portions of the population who face significant obstacles to realizing access to justice in the official justice system.

The risks for human rights, particularly of women and children

At the same time, the composition, procedures, and outcomes of traditional and customary justice system mechanisms and processes can conflict with the human rights protections contained in international law and standards on human rights and the rule of law.

One key concern is in relation to the rights of women and children. Traditional and customary justice systems may be rooted in patriarchal systems and, as such, can reinforce harmful gender stereotypes and cultural assumptions that are inherently likely to discriminate against women and children and therefore negatively impact upon their rights.

Other concerns include consistency with the right to a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law; respect for fundamental guarantees of fairness comprising the right to fair trial; accountability of judicial decision-makers in relation to corruption and other misconduct; and non-discrimination and equality before the law more generally.

Aims of the 2017 Geneva Forum

The discussions at the 2017 Geneva Forum (22-23 November 2017), together with ICJ’s broader global experience and expertise, will provide a foundation for the development by ICJ of legal, policy and practical guidance, including conclusions and recommendations on the role of traditional and customary courts in relation to access to justice, human rights and the rule of law.

The ICJ guidance will take into account the many variations and differences between different traditional and customary courts that exist around the world, while seeking to articulate conclusions and recommendations sufficiently universal to be applicable across the widest possible range of contexts. The focus of the Geneva Forum and the ICJ guidance is intended to be on traditional and customary courts of an informal character and, as such, the ICJ does not intend directly to address formal religious courts or the application of customary law by ordinary formal courts.

Available for download in PDF format:

Compilation of selected international sources on indigenous and other traditional or customary justice sytems, available here.

Final report of the 2017 Geneva Forum on traditional and customary justice systems, available here:

Universal-Trad Custom Justice Gva Forum-Publications-Thematic reports-2018-ENG

Several video interviews with participants are available to view by clicking here.

Information about the subsequent 2018 Geneva Forum on indigenous and other traditional or customary justice systems in Asia, is available here.

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

The 2017 Geneva Forum of Judges & Lawyers was made possible with the support of the Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland.

  • Photo: “Traditional leaders preside over a case in B-Court, Nyang Payam, Torit County, South Sudan”
  • Photo Credit: UNDP South Sudan2016Angelique Reid   ©2016 United Nations
Thailand: ICJ, Amnesty advise changes to proposed legislation on torture and enforced disappearances

Thailand: ICJ, Amnesty advise changes to proposed legislation on torture and enforced disappearances

Today, the ICJ and Amnesty International submitted recommendations to the Ministry of Justice that changes be made to a new law under consideration by the Cabinet, in order to bring it in line with Thailand’s international legal obligations.

The submission came in response to a request by the Ministry for feedback on the Draft Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearances Act (‘Draft Act’).

The ICJ and Amnesty International welcome the Thai government’s commitment to criminalize torture and enforced disappearances.

The Draft Act currently addresses many existing gaps in Thailand’s current legal framework.

However, the organizations consider that further amendments are needed to address significant shortcomings in the Draft Act and ensure Thailand’s compliance with international treaties on torture and enforced disappearance and international standards.

Recommendations by the ICJ and Amnesty International addressed the following concerns:

  • The absence within the Draft Act of key elements of the crimes of torture and enforced disappearance, as defined by international law;
  • The absence of provisions concerning cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment (CIDT/P);
  • The inadequacy of provisions establishing the inadmissibility of statements and other information obtained by torture, CIDT/P and enforced disappearance as evidence in legal proceedings;
  • The inadequacy of provisions relating to modes of liability for crimes described in the Draft Act; and
  • The shortcoming of provisions concerning safeguards against torture, CIDT/P and enforced disappearances.

The ICJ and Amnesty International urge Thailand to make it a top priority to address these and other concerns, and once they are addressed, to enact the law as soon as possible.

The urgent need to amend and enact the Draft Act is underscored by several NGO reports documenting the persistent use of torture and other ill-treatment by state security forces and the continued failure of the Thai authorities to hold accountable perpetrators of torture, other ill-treatment and enforced disappearances.

The ICJ and Amnesty International remain committed to providing any necessary assistance to the Thai government in amending the Draft Act or otherwise acting to prevent torture and enforced disappearances in Thailand.

In a letter accompanying the submission, the ICJ and Amnesty International also emphasized the crucial importance of maintaining sections within the current Draft Act providing that the prohibitions on torture and enforced disappearances apply in all circumstances, including states of emergency, and prohibiting the forcible transfer of persons to territories where they would face a real risk of torture or enforced disappearances (refoulement).

Background

Thailand is a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and has signed, but not yet ratified, the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.

The UN expert bodies overseeing the implementation of these treaties have consistently called upon states parties to criminalize torture and enforced disappearance as specific crimes.

On 15 November 2016, Thailand replied to a List of Issues, identified by the UN Human Rights Committee’s noting that it was in the process of passing the Draft Act which would “provide clear definition and set up specific offence on torture to be in line with the terms set forth under CAT” and “serve as an implementing legislation for ICPPED.”

It also asserted that the Draft Act “aims to strengthen the prevention, suppression, and prosecution mechanism and to ensure remedy for victims as well as address the problem of misuse, and abuses of power by government authorities with regard to torture and enforced disappearances.”

In February 2017, the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) announced it would not enact the Draft Act, which was produced by the Ministry of Justice in consultation with non-governmental organizations and other civil society actors.

In March 2017, at the UN Human Rights Committee’s review of Thailand’s compliance with the ICCPR, Thailand confirmed that the Draft Act “had been submitted to the National Legislative Assembly, which had requested the Cabinet to further review the bill, with a view to introducing amendments and launching a public consultation process.”

Contact:

Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, t: +66 94 470 1345 e: kingsley.abbott@icj.org

Read also

Joint Letter to the Thai Government

Download

Thailand-Torture and ED-Advocacy-nonlegal submission-ENG (Submission in English, pdf)

Thailand-Torture ED Bill-News-THA (statement in Thai, pdf)

Thailand-Torture and ED-Advocacy-nonlegal submission-THA (Submission in Thai, pdf)

Serbia: Training for judges on migration and human rights

Serbia: Training for judges on migration and human rights

The ICJ delivers today and tomorrow a training for judges on asylum, migration and international human rights law, including non-discrimination, organised by OSCE and the Judicial Academy. 

The training, that takes place in the capital Belgrade, will be delivered to judges of all level of jurisdiction of Serbian courts.

It will focus on human rights law related to the entry of migrants, including refugees, to the territory of a State, to the State’s obligations on international protection, the rules applicable to detention of foreign national and their rights, and the prohibition of non-discrimination.

Serbia-Training-MIgrationAsylum-OSCEJA-2017-eng (download the agenda in English)

ICJ and Chiang Mai University discuss Special Economic Zones in Myanmar and Thailand  

ICJ and Chiang Mai University discuss Special Economic Zones in Myanmar and Thailand  

On 22 November, the ICJ, in collaboration with the Legal Research and Development Center under Chiang Mai University’s Faculty of Law, held a roundtable discussion on “Human Rights Litigation concerning the Special Economic Zones in Myanmar and Thailand”.

The objective of the discussion, held on campus at Chiang Mai University, was to identify legal issues and to share experiences regarding strategic litigation and advocacy strategies concerning human rights violations associated with the development of Special Economic Zones (SEZs) in Thailand and Myanmar.

In recent years, both the Thai and Myanmar governments have been trying to attract foreign direct investment into their countries by demarcating specific areas where special regulations concerning, inter alia, public administration, the environment, land or labour rights might be applied.

Proponents of SEZs tend to link their development with jobs and economic growth, however, there is generally limited publicly available information about their economic or public purpose rationale.

The development of SEZs, which requires a lot of land, can undermine the protection of human rights and the rule of law by creating governance structures and permitting processes less stringent than that required under national and international law.

Participants at the discussion included postgraduate students and lecturers from Chiang Mai University’s Faculty of Law, lawyers and representatives from Thai civil society organisations.

The ICJ shared with participants its report analysing the legal framework of SEZs in Myanmar and human rights concerns arising from a case study of Kyauk Phyu SEZ,  ‘Special Economic Zones in Myanmar and the State Duty to Protect Human Rights, during the discussion.

 

The speakers at the discussion were:

·      Sean Bain, ICJ International Legal Advisor, Myanmar

·      Sumitchai Hattasan, Director, Center for Protection and Revival of Local Community Rights

·      Supaporn Malailoy, EEC Watch, Human Rights and Environmental Lawyer

OSCE: IBAHRI and ICJ hold a joint event on the independence of lawyers in Kazakhstan

OSCE: IBAHRI and ICJ hold a joint event on the independence of lawyers in Kazakhstan

Today, the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) and the ICJ held a side event in the framework of the OSCE’s Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting (SHDM) on Access to Justice in Vienna.

The event aimed to give an overview of current challenges and key organizational and procedural barriers faced by lawyers in Kazakhstan, in the light of international standards on the independence and role of lawyers.

At the event, lawyers from Kazakhstan as well as international experts discussed what guarantees should be ensured in the planned reform of the legal profession to guarantee professional autonomy and to strengthen the independence of lawyers.

Any undue interference with the independence of the current Bar Association in Kazakhstan would be contrary to international law and standards and would have a significant negative effect not only for Kazakhstan’s justice system but also for the wider Central Asia region.

 

Translate »