Aug 24, 2017 | News
Today, the Indian Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment declaring the right to privacy an intrinsic part of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of India’s Constitution.
The ICJ welcomed a momentous and courageous judgment, where the Supreme Court took an expansive view of the right to privacy, and held that, at its core, privacy includes “the preservation of personal intimacies, the sanctity of family life, marriage, procreation, the home and sexual orientation…”
As such, this judgment is an important step towards scrapping laws criminalizing same-sex activity in the country, the ICJ said.
“The judgment is a testament to the inspiring work of human rights activists and lawyers in India, who have shown the potential of the law to affirm human rights and equality,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Director.
“The ruling could have far-reaching implications for a number of cases -including with respect to the criminalization of consensual same-sex relations – where laws, policy and practices have been challenged on the basis that they violate the right to privacy,” he added.
The judgment clarified that the right to privacy is not spatially bound and exists beyond four walls as it “attaches to the person” and is not “lost or surrendered merely because the individual is in a public place.”
Significantly, in explaining the ambit of the right to privacy, the Supreme Court held that sexual orientation is “an essential component of identity” and “equal protection demands protection of the identity of every individual without discrimination.”
The Court also highlighted that laws criminalizing same-sex activity have a “chilling effect on the exercise of the right”, posing “a grave danger to the unhindered fulfillment of one’s sexual orientation, as an element of privacy and dignity.”
Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code criminalizes voluntary “carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal” and prescribes a range of penalties including life imprisonment.
In Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, the Delhi High Court in 2009 read down the application of section 377, holding, among other things, that insofar as it criminalizes consensual sexual acts, it violates Articles 21 (right to life and liberty), 14 (equal protection of the law) and 15 of the Constitution (freedom from discrimination) of the Indian Constitution.
However, in Suresh Kumar Koushal in December 2013, the Supreme Court reversed the 2009 Delhi High Court ruling, effectively recriminalizing homosexuality.
The petitioners challenged the ruling in Koushal, and in February 2016, the Indian Supreme Court referred a “curative petition” to a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court for consideration.
In today’s judgment, the Supreme Court questioned the rationale in Koushal, and expressed disagreement with the manner in which Koushal dealt with the “privacy–dignity based claims of LGBT persons.”
It also found the reasoning in Koushal flawed and unsustainable for being discriminatory towards LGBT persons by calling them “a miniscule fraction of the country’s population” and making that the basis for denying their right to privacy.
However, the Court held that since a challenge to section 377 is pending before a larger bench, its constitutional validity would be decided in the appropriate proceedings.
“The Supreme Court’s judgment is indeed historic, but the real test of its impact will be whether the right to privacy it affirms is given effect in its true spirit in individual cases, so as to ensure that laws, policies and practices meet India’s obligations under the Constitution as well as international standards,” added Rawski.
Contact:
Frederick Rawski (Bangkok), ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director, e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Ajita Banerjie, ICJ Consultant in Delhi, t: +918447784157; e: ajita.banerjie(a)icj.org
India-Privacy & section 377-News-web stories-2017-ENG (full story in PDF)
Aug 24, 2017 | News
On the one-year anniversary of the enactment of a law establishing the Office on Missing Persons (OMP), the ICJ called on the Sri Lankan Government to swiftly operationalize the Office.
The ICJ also urged the Government to set up other transitional justice mechanisms it committed to in the context of a key 2015 UN Human Rights Council resolution, without further delay.
On 23 August 2016, the OMP Act received the Speaker’s assent and became law. Even after one year, however, the Office has not been operationalized.
Organizations have reportedly made the claim that the President has unconstitutionally allocated the subject of the OMP to himself.
The Government’s failure to follow Constitutional provisions when setting up an important office such as the OMP, which has a permanent mandate to search and trace the whereabouts of “missing persons”, leaves the office exposed to future uncertainty- a move that affected communities can ill afford after a long and unjustifiable delay in setting up the OMP, the ICJ notes.
“The delay has already resulted in affected communities losing hope and faith in the Government’s transitional justice agenda, as is evident by continuous protests in the North,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia and Pacific Director.
The ICJ noted that in September 2015, the Government of Sri Lanka made a promise to the people of Sri Lanka and the international community, to initiate a process of reconciliation which “involves addressing the broad areas of truth seeking, justice, reparations and non-recurrence and for non-recurrence to become truly meaningful, the necessity of reaching a political settlement that addresses the grievances of the Tamil people”.
In the context of UN Human Rights Council resolution 30/1, adopted 1 October 2015, the Government of Sri Lanka made a commitment to establish four main transitional justice mechanisms, a Commission for Truth, Justice, Reconciliation and Non-recurrence, an Office on Missing Persons, an Office for Reparations and a Judicial Mechanism with a Special Counsel, amongst numerous other reforms.
Almost two years since these promises were made, only one mechanism, the OMP, has been established by law.
In March 2017, the need for implementation of these commitments related to reconciliation, accountability and human rights were reaffirmed, and a comprehensive report, followed by a discussion on the implementation of Council resolution 30/1, is due at the Human Rights Council’s 40th session in March 2019.
The Consultation Task Force on Reconciliation Mechanisms (CTF), a panel of 11 independent eminent persons appointed by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, publicly released its final report on 3 January 2017.
The report already outlines structures and recommendations for the promised mechanisms based on country-wide consultations.
The ICJ called on the government of Sri Lanka to implement Task Force recommendations to deliver justice for victims of human rights abuse.
“The Government of Sri Lanka should make public its plans and drafts for the proposed mechanisms based on consultations, as well as a timeline for when it hopes to establish them, in order to stop further erosion of faith by the affected communities,” Rawski added.
In February, President Sirisena affirmed that he will prioritize Constitutional Reform over Transitional Justice-related reforms adding that there is a need to foster support for Transitional Justice amongst all communities.
The linkages between the two reform processes are many and one process cannot be seen independent of the other.
There is, however, very little progress on either front or a broad-based campaign to garner support for transitional justice, the ICJ said.
Two years into its tenure, the Government of Sri Lanka must take stock of its commitments and forge ahead with its reform agenda before the increasingly negative perception of the Government compromises the change it pledged and incumbency fatigue sets in, the ICJ added.
“The Government must act, and act now, to stop the disconnect between the hopes of affected communities and the lack of substantive progress of the transitional justice agenda from growing further, and deliver on its commitments before the opportunity for progressive reform is lost for good,” Rawski added.
Contact:
Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Thyagi Ruwanpathirana, ICJ’s National Legal Advisor (Sri Lanka), e: thyagi.ruwanpathirana(a)icj.org
Aug 22, 2017 | News, Publications, Reports, Thematic reports, Video clips
The institutional political crisis in Venezuela has brought the rule of law to near collapse and severely obstructed accountability for those responsible for gross human rights violations, the ICJ concluded in a report released today.
The ICJ’s report Achieving Justice for Gross Human Rights Violations in Venezuela found that the authorities led by President Nicolás Maduro have undertaken a sustained campaign to take control of the Supreme Court of Justice and, with the Supreme Court’s support, suspend the constitutional powers of the former National Assembly and subvert efforts to hold the executive to account within a rule of law framework.
“Rule of law in Venezuela has been replaced by rule of arbitrary executive power,” said Alex Conte, ICJ’s Global Accountability coordinator.
“The Constitution is disregarded, the judiciary cannot exercise its independent function, and the separation of powers is non-existent,” he added.
The ICJ’s report concludes that the human rights situation in Venezuela has deteriorated rapidly in recent years, particularly since 2014.
Extrajudicial and arbitrary executions, the practices of torture and ill-treatment, arbitrary detention, the trial of civilians by military courts and the criminalization and prosecution of political and social dissent have only increased.
“The political context of extreme polarization and the breakdown of the rule of law, along with the judiciary’s lack of independence, have severely obstructed accountability for those responsible for gross human rights violations,” said Conte.
“Victims and their families are left without justice.”
This situation has been further exacerbated by the recent dismissal of Venezuela’s Attorney General, described by the ICJ as a politically motivated act that violates international standards and removes one of the last institutional checks on executive authority and destroys one of the few glimmers of hope for an end to impunity for human rights violations.
Also troubling is the establishment by the new Consituent National Assembly of a ‘Truth Commission’, which the ICJ fears will be a politically manipulated instrument aimed at entrenching impunity for the executive and, when combined with President Maduro’s declaration that legal immunity will be stripped from National Assembly members that have opposed him, a tool to silence Government opposition, rather than to help discharge Venezuela’s duty to promptly, independently and effectively investigate allegations of gross human rights violations.
“Venezuela’s situation of entrenched impunity cannot be resolved without the establishment of an independent judicial authority that can address human rights violations, deter further violations and help bring back the rule of law,” Conte added.
Contact:
Alex Conte, ICJ Global Redress and Accountability Initiative, t: +41 79 957 27 33; e: alex.conte(a)icj.org
Federico Andreu Guzman, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, Americas, e: Federico.andreu(a)icj.org
Venezuela-GRA Baseline Study-Publications-Reports-Thematic reports-2017-ENG (full report, PDF)
Read also:
ICJ Position Paper on the Dismissal of the Attorney General of Venezuela (August 2017)
ICJ Report, Venezuela: The Sunset of the Rule of Law (October 2015)
ICJ Report, Strengthening the Rule of Law in Venezuela (November 2014)
Aug 3, 2017 | News
The ICJ is deeply concerned by the Constituent Assembly elections held in Venezuela on 31 July and the violence that accompanied the process and left a number of people killed, injured or arbitrarily detained.
The ICJ considers that the election of a National Constituent Assembly (NCA) failed to comply with the Article 347 of the current Constitution, which provides the legal basis for convening of an NCA. In particular, a significant portion of the members of the NCA should be chosen in open and universal elections, but instead are to be selected from restricted social sectors.
Such arrangements undermine the right to direct, free, equal and secret elections recognized under international human rights standards, the Geneva-based organization adds.
“A Constitution which does not guarantee the basic principles of the rule of law and the validity of fundamental human rights and freedoms not only violates the international obligations of the Venezuelan State, but can also be used as a means of undermining the human rights of Venezuelans,” said Sam Zarifi, Secretary General of the ICJ.
The ICJ also calls for a prompt and independent investigation into alleged electoral fraud on the day of the poll.
The ICJ says that irrespective of its legitimacy, the new NCA must respect human rights and rule of law principles.
In particular, until the approval of a new Constitution, the NCA must respect the current Constitution of 1999, especially in terms of judicial independence, and protection of human rights.
Similarly, the new Constitution, which the NCA will draft, must also fully guarantee the basic principles of the rule of law, including the separation of powers, legislative autonomy, the independence of the judiciary, the subordination of military forces to the civil authority and the principle of legality and judicial control of executive actions.
The new Constitution also must fully guarantee the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
It must enshrine the prohibition of trials of civilians by military courts, and ensure that states of emergency respect the requirements and guarantees of the Covenant International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and other international law and standards, the ICJ adds.
The ICJ also considers that the new Constitution, in addition to incorporating the human rights and fundamental freedoms already contained in the current Constitution, should add the express prohibition of extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances, torture and ill-treatment, arbitrary detention, and other serious human rights violations.
Jul 31, 2017 | News
On 29-31 July 2017, the ICJ, in collaboration with Chiang Mai University’s Faculty of Law, held a workshop on “Introduction to Business and Human Rights & Basic Principles on Documenting Human Rights Violations” for 25 academics, NGO representatives and lawyers in Chiang Mai.
The objective of the workshop, held at the Chiang Mai University campus, was to provide an overview of the field of business and human rights, including the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and its “Protect, Respect and Remedy” framework, which Thailand affirmed its commitment to on 31 May 2017, and the need for a binding treaty on business and human rights.
Day 1 focused on the UN framework as it applies to business and human rights, investment law, and strategic litigation.
Day 2 focused on criminal and civil litigation, women’s rights and business, children’s rights and business, and land rights.
Day 3 focused on the basic principles that apply to documenting and reporting on human rights violations.
The speakers at the workshop were:
- Daniel Aguirre, ICJ International Legal Adviser, Myanmar
- Irene Pietropaoli, Expert consultant on business and human rights
- Sanhawan Srisod, ICJ Associate National Legal Adviser, Thailand
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.
