Jul 30, 2017 | News
Indian authorities must ensure full compliance with the Supreme Court’s historic judgment directing independent investigations into alleged extrajudicial killings by the police and security forces in Manipur from 1979 to 2012, the ICJ said today.
The ICJ is calling for independent, impartial and thorough investigations into all cases, in line with international standards.
It is further calling on Indian authorities to ensure all accused are brought to justice in fair trials in ordinary civilian courts, and that the families of victims are accorded access to an effective remedy and reparation for any human rights violations.
“Through this judgment, the Indian Supreme Court has given fresh hopes to the victims of human rights violations in India who seek justice,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Pacific Programme Director.
“This bold and principled decision should finally end the cynical attempts by Indian security forces and law enforcement agencies to shield themselves from criminal accountability,” he added.
On 14 July 2017, the Supreme Court ordered the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigations (CBI) to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) within two weeks to go through the records of at least 85 cases of alleged extrajudicial killings that took place in Manipur between 1979 and 2012, lodge First Information Reports (FIRs), and complete investigations where required.
The Court also directed that the investigations must be completed by 31 December 2017.
The Court noted that the Manipur Police had not registered any FIR at the instance of the family members of the deceased.
It also held that the Manipur Police could not be expected to carry out impartial investigations as some of its own personnel were said to be involved in the “fake encounters”.
India has a legal obligation under Articles 2(3) and 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which it is party, to investigate allegations of violations of the right to life promptly, thoroughly and effectively through independent and impartial bodies and to ensure that those responsible are brought to justice.
On 27 July 2017, the CBI constituted a five-member Special Investigating Team in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directions.
“The CBI’s compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions through the prompt constitution of an investigation team is a welcome step,” added Rawski. “It must now ensure that investigations are thorough, independent, impartial and in line with international standards, including the ICCPR.”
The ICJ urged the State of Manipur and the Union of India to extend full cooperation and assistance to the Special Investigating Team to complete the investigations without any hurdles or delays.
Other allegations of human rights violations in the petition must also be investigated in line with international standards, the ICJ said.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Background
Extrajudicial Execution Victim Families Association, Manipur (EEVFAM) and Human Rights Alert filed a petition in the Supreme Court of India in 2012, alleging that from 1979 to 2012 over 1,528 cases of fake “encounter killings” had taken place in Manipur.
They further alleged that the State government had not conducted proper investigations into the allegations of excessive use of force by the security forces and the police and requested the Court to constitute a special investigation team, comprising police officers from outside the state of Manipur, to conduct a probe into the alleged unlawful killings.
In July 2016, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for accountability for human rights violations by security forces, including under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), and directed the petitioners to present detailed documentation in support of their allegations.
In April 2017, the Supreme Court dismissed the Central Government’s curative petition requesting the Court to reconsider its July 2016 judgment on the ground that it hampered the security force’s ability to respond to insurgent and terrorist situations.
The killings mentioned in the petition all took place in areas considered “disturbed” under AFSPA. Once an area is declared “disturbed”, armed forces are given a range of “special powers”, which include the power to arrest without warrant, to enter and search any premises, and in certain circumstances, use lethal force.
AFSPA has facilitated gross human rights violations by the armed forces in the areas in which it is operational.
Human rights organizations, including the ICJ, and several UN human rights bodies have recommended that the AFSPA be repealed or significantly amended.
Jul 28, 2017 | Multimedia items, News, Video clips
The ICJ continues its series of profiles of its women Commissioners with an interview with Prof. Jenny E. Goldschmidt, who is currently serving her third term as an ICJ Commissioner.
She was first elected to the Commission in 2003 and re-elected in 2008 and 2013.
She is a Member of the Advisory Board of Nederlands Juristen Comité voor de Mensenrechten (NJCM), and NJCM Public Interest Litigation Group. The NJCM is the ICJ’s National Section in the Netherlands.
In this wide-ranging interview, Jenny describes how she started out her career as a lawyer by studying Constitutional law; how her interests began to focus on the haves and the have nots and from there her interest in human rights developed.
She explains how she has always combined academic research and teaching with practical work, particularly during her years as the President of the Equal Treatment Commission in the Netherlands. She also stresses the importance of working in an inter-disciplinarian manner.
For example, she explained that after academics had developed concepts of direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, and systemic discrimination, these concepts were taken on board by lawyers and have been incorporated into case law.
She gave the example of how the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice are now incorporating this type of stereotyping into their equality concept.
She emphasized human rights law must protect women and that this protection must be embodied in law.
She considered that it is vital to take cases to the Treaty Bodies and courts everywhere to establish severe measures against discrimination and domestic violence.
But human rights lawyers also need sociologists to help find the arguments that convince people and how we can influence their behavior.
“Sometimes soft law and mediation can be effective and you need other disciplines to show in which cases which instruments are most effective,” she said.
She explained that because women are not a homogenous group and because of migration and all the divisions in society, inter-sectionality has become one of the crucial challenges for women’s rights.
She believes in combining a focus on the general problems which all women face as well as taking into account that some women are even less equal than others – that women who belong to minorities, that women who are disabled, that girls are more vulnerable than the majority of women.
“I think one of the things that the disability convention tries to do by giving a specific provision for women and girls rights is that it forces the authorities, the Treaty Bodies, the national and international institutions to be aware of the fact that we are talking about women and disabled people and that we have to take two perspectives at the same time into account,” she added.
When asked what advice she would give a woman who wants to pursue a career in human rights she said: “Don’t give up! And don’t think it will be easy. Human rights world still is a man’s world.”
Jenny Goldsmith is currently Emeritus Professor of Human Rights Law, and was from 2007-2014 Director of the Netherland Institute of Human Rights at the University of Utrecht.
From 1994-2003 she was President of the Equal Treatment Commission of the Netherlands.
She is on the board of Disability Studies in the Netherlands and involved in several NGOs of disability rights, democracy, and human rights.
Watch the interview:
The series of profiles introducing the work of ICJ Commissioners and Honorary Members on women’s rights was launched on 25 November 2016 to coincide with the International Day to Eliminate Violence against Women and the first day of the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence Campaign.
Jul 27, 2017 | News
Pakistani authorities must implement the United Nations Human Rights Committee recommendations to ensure compliance with Pakistan’s human rights obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the ICJ said today.
The Human Rights Committee, the treaty-monitoring body that oversees countries’ implementation of and compliance with the ICCPR, reviewed for the first time Pakistan’s human rights record under the Covenant on 11 and 12 July.
It issued its “Concluding Observations”, along with its recommendations, today, on 27 July.
“While it is encouraging to see Pakistan’s increased engagement with United Nations human rights mechanisms in recent years, it is deeply worrying that since ratifying the ICCPR, Pakistan’s human rights situation has worsened in a number of aspects, including with the restoration of the death penalty and the introduction of military trials for civilians,” said Livio Zilli, ICJ’s Senior Legal Adviser and UN Representative.
“It is of the utmost importance for Pakistan to reverse this trend, and make sincere efforts to implement the recommendations made by the Committee,” added Zilli.
The Committee’s recommendations include:
- Ensure the National Commission for Human Rights is able to carry out its mandate independently and effectively;
- Reinstate the moratorium on the death penalty;
- Abolish mandatory death penalty and ensure the death penalty is provided only for the “most serious crimes” involving intentional killing;
- Criminalize enforced disappearance and put an end to the practice of enforced disappearance and secret detention;
- Ensure that all allegations of enforced disappearance and extrajudicial killings are promptly and thoroughly investigated; all perpetrators are prosecuted and punished with penalties commensurate with the gravity of crimes;
- Review legislation relating to the military courts with a view to abrogating their jurisdiction over civilians as well as their authority to impose the death penalty;
- Reform the proceedings of military courts and bring them into full conformity with Articles 14 and 15 of the Covenant to ensure a fair trial;
- Ensure that all elements of the crime of torture are prohibited in accordance with article 7 of the Covenant;
- Repeal all blasphemy laws or amend them in compliance with the strict requirements of the Covenant; and
- Review policies and legislation on registration of international NGOs, including the vague grounds on which registrations can be cancelled.
This is the first time Pakistan’s human rights record is being reviewed by the Human Rights Committee since Pakistan ratified the Covenant in 2010.
Contact:
Livio Zilli, ICJ Senior Legal Advisor and UN Representative (Geneva), e: livio.zilli(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Pakistan (Lahore), t: +923214968434; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Background:
Pakistan ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in June 2010.
Following ratification/accession, every state party to the ICCPR is required to submit an initial “state report” containing information on the implementation of each provision of the treaty.
Pakistan submitted its initial state report to the Human Rights Committee in October 2015.
In light of the information provided in the State report, as well as information received from civil society, the Human Rights Committee then prepared a List of Issues containing particular issues of concern to the Committee, and asking whatever questions it sees fit in light of those concerns.
The answers provided by the State party to these questions, as well as other information submitted by civil society and others formed the basis of the “review” of the State’s compliance with the treaty, which was carried out on 11 and 12 July by the Human Rights Committee.
During the review, the Committee met with Pakistan’s delegation, headed by Federal Minister for Human Rights, Senator Kamran Michael, who presented answers to the List of Issues and responded to the Committee’s questions.
The Committee’s Concluding Observations issued today are highly authoritative, and highlight the Committee’s concerns and make recommendations to the State on improving the implementation of the ICCPR.
The ICJ made submissions to the Human Rights Committee in relation to the formulation of List of Issues in 2016 and the Review in 2017.
In its submissions, the ICJ raised concern about the inadequate legal framework on torture and other ill-treatment; the continuing practice and impunity for enforced disappearances; the incompatibility of military trials of civilians with the right to a fair trial; the incompatibility of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws with the rights to freedom of religion and belief, expression and fair trial; and the vaguely defined INGO policy.
The Human Rights Committee picked up ICJ’s concerns as its principle matters of concern and recommendations in its Concluding Observations.
Jul 25, 2017 | News
Today the ICJ expressed concern about the real threat of criminal prosecution against lawyers Yerlan Gazimzhanov, Amanzhol Mukhamedyarov and Assel Tokayeva (photo) in Kazakhstan.
The ICJ said the action against lawyers was aimed at their discharging of their professional functions on behalf of clients, and not for any genuine criminal misconduct.
The ICJ called on the responsible authorities of Kazakhstan to discontinue the proceedings against the lawyers, which are contrary to international law and standards on the role of lawyers and the rule of law in the administration of justice.
On 22 June, in a court hearing in the criminal case, judge Ubasheva issued interim rulings against the lawyers seeking their prosecution for a number of acts, which on their face do not consist of criminal misconduct. The conduct for which prosecution is sought includes lodging a complaint alleging unethical conduct by the judge with the Commission on Judicial Ethics and Judicial Jury of the Supreme Court of the Republic; filing a motion for recusal of the judge; stating that the crime for which their clients had been accused had in fact been committed by another defendant; and participating in an international conference, rather than attending a court hearing to defend clients.
The various legal procedures used by the lawyers, including their complaint against the judge and the request for the judge’s recusal, are not prohibited by law. On the contrary, acts such as filing motions for recusal, lodging ethics complaints through officially prescribed channels, and performing standard criminal defence functions they constitute regular procedures prescribed in legislation Kazakhstan. They are also fundamental pursuant to the proper administration of justice under the rule of law.
The interim rulings of the court did not provide an analysis of the legal provisions allegedly violated by the lawyers. Certain of the lawyers were said by the court to have “demonstrated superiority over other actors in criminal proceedings.” It was also alleged that the information posted on a Facebook page about the proceedings in which one of the lawyers took part was false. However, the ruling failed to cite any specific details or conduct of the lawyers which would support these conclusions.
Regarding the charge that two of the lawyers had chosen to participate in an international conference rather than appear at the court hearing, this at most would fall under disciplinary procedures governing the conduct of members of the bar, and not the criminal law. The ICJ notes these charges should normally be made to competent disciplinary body, the Collegium of Lawyers, and not the Ministry of Justice through the request of the judge.
In addition to the criminal prosecution, judge Ubasheva asked the Ministry of Justice to take measures against the lawyers for a breach of professional ethics, causing unjustified delays in criminal trial, and contempt of court, and asked the Ministry of Interior to undertake an inquiry to determine whether the conduct of the lawyers constituted an offence punishable under Article 407 of the Criminal Code of Kazakhstan (obstruction of justice).
On 20-21 July 2017, the Criminal Chamber of Appeals examined the lawyers’ appeals against the conviction and interim appeals against the interim rulings.
The appeal proceedings before the Astana City Court were attended by Gulnora Ishankhanova, ICJ Commissioner acting as an ICJ observer.
Kazhakstan-Trial observation 3 lawyers-News-web story-2017-RUS (story in Russian, PDF)
Jul 25, 2017 | News
The ICJ is concerned with the passing of Constitutional Amendment no. 1 of 2017 by the House of Assembly of Zimbabwe on 25 July 2017.
The House of Assembly voted with over two-thirds majority for the amendment of the Zimbabwean Constitution.
The amendment grants the President the right to appoint to office, the Judge President of the High Court, the Deputy Chief Justice and the Chief Justice of Zimbabwe.
Before this amendment the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) spearheaded the process of selection and appointment of judges with the President merely appointing from candidates recommended to him by the JSC.
The enactment of this Bill to law is likely to have a negative effect on the public’s perception of the judiciary. It also has the potential to affect the impartiality and the independence of the judiciary.
“The amendment to the 2013 Constitution will negatively affect public confidence in the judiciary. Not only is this a departure from a position that was in line with international standards and best practices; the amendment is likely to have a ripple effect on the judiciary,” said Arnold Tsunga, the ICJ Africa Director.
“In the short term the executive now has a carrot, which it can dangle in front of judicial officers. If a judge wants to be promoted to Judge President, Deputy Chief Justice or Chief they may have to align themselves with the thinking of the executive. Over time, given the central roles that these three office bearers play in the appointment process and thought leadership, Zimbabwe is likely to have a very executive minded bench,” he added.
To this end the ICJ calls upon the government of Zimbabwe to reconsider its decision to amend the Constitution in the manner proposed in the bill.
The procedure in section 180 of the constitution had distinguished Zimbabwe’s appointment procedures as exemplary in the region.
It is unfortunate that through this amendment the country has failed to consolidate this leadership position.
The amendment would be regressive and poses a real risk of undermining the essential role of the judiciary in securing the rule of law in Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe-Constitutional Amendment-News-web stories-2017-ENG (full statement, in PDF)
Jul 20, 2017 | News
An interview of ICJ Secretary General Sam Zarifi with Reuters journalist Stephanie Nebehay.
GENEVA (Reuters) – Donald Trump is one of a new breed of leaders around the world who seek to use their democratic mandate to undermine the rule of law, the head of a legal and human rights watchdog said on Wednesday.
Branding the U.S. president an “authoritarian populist”, Saman Zia-Zarifi, secretary-general of the Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), compared him to the leaders of Turkey, the Philippines, Hungary and Venezuela.
Zarifi cited as an example Trump’s travel ban on nationals from six Muslim-majority countries, a policy that he called “highly problematic” under the U.S. constitution and international law.
“What is different now is that a certain kind of populism is being used to actually counter the notion of the rule of law,” Zarifi said in an interview at the headquarters of the ICJ, which is composed of 60 eminent judges and lawyers from all regions who seek to protect human rights and the rule of law.
“The new populism has a certain shamelessness about it that is new. It’s not that people are denying that they are violating rights, what they are saying is they can violate rights because somehow they are empowered by the people,” he said.
Zarifi, who took over at the ICJ in April, said the new breed of populists included Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdogan, Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro, the Philippines’ Rodrigo Duterte, Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban and Jaroslaw Kaczynski, head of Poland’s ruling party.
“I would say that in the U.S., Trump is an authoritarian populist. He has authoritarian tendencies but he still is facing checks and balances,” Zarifi said. “So he is not a full-blown authoritarian figure.”
The U.S. Supreme Court revised parts of Trump’s executive order banning travellers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, a policy Trump says is aimed at tackling terrorism.
“Looking at it again from the point of view of U.S. law – I’m an American lawyer – it seems highly problematic,” said the Iranian-born Zarifi, who moved to the United States as a teenager and holds a law degree from Cornell University.
Supreme Court rulings would be, he said, “a test for the health of the system of checks and balances in the U.S.”
Turkish Judiciary “Politically Compromised”
A crackdown by Erdogan’s government has led to the arrest of 50,000 people and the suspension of 150,000 in the year since a failed military coup in Turkey where the judiciary is “now politically compromised”, Zarifi said.
The Turkish government has said the action is justified by the gravity of the threat to the state from the coup attempt.
On Monday, the state prosecutor asked a court to remand the local Amnesty International director and nine other activists in custody pending trial for membership of a terrorist organisation.
Erdogan was quoted by Turkish media this month as saying they were detained on the basis of intelligence and that the judiciary would make its own decision.
But Zarifi said the judiciary should have thrown the case out.
“The handling of the case highlights the very serious concerns – and alarm in fact at this point – that we have raised about the independence of the judiciary and the legal system in Turkey over the last few years.”
Photo Credit: Reuters / Pierre Albouy
