Feb 11, 2019 | News
The ICJ, Amnesty International and TRIAL International today called for the Government of Nepal to commit to a transparent and consultative transitional justice process that complies with international law and the judgments of the Supreme Court of Nepal.
On 6 February, the Government of Nepal extended the mandates of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the Commission on the Investigation of Enforced Disappearance of Persons (CIEDP) for an additional year and committed to the selection of new commissioners by April 2019.
Following the announcement, the ICJ, Amnesty International and TRIAL International voiced concerns about past approach to transitional justice and urged the Government to ensure that the next two months are used to get the flawed process on track.
The organizations warned that this should not become another missed opportunity to ensure that victims are provided the justice, truth and reparation that they so desperately seek.
“A further one-year extension will be meaningless if measures are not taken to secure the independence and impartiality of the commissions,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Director.
“This can only be achieved through a transparent selection process driven by a genuine will to combat impunity – not just for conflict victims, but for future generations,” he added.
The three organizations reiterated their view that the process to date has failed to deliver justice, truth or reparation for victims of crimes under international law and gross human rights violations or establish laws and institutional safeguards to ensure that such crimes are never repeated.
The organizations underscored the need for independent, competent and impartial commissions, compliance with international law, and the meaningful participation of conflict victims, civil society and National Human Rights Commission in the design and implementation of the process.
“This is a great opportunity for Nepal to learn from its past, as well as experiences from other post-conflict societies, that the credibility of transitional justice process ultimately lies on the integrity, competence, independence and expertise of the commissioners. The independence of the Commission, together with a legal framework in accordance with international law, will make or break the success of the commitment to guarantee justice, truth and reparation,” said Biraj Patnaik, South Asia Director of Amnesty International. “The process for appointing new commissioners must be transparent and open to public scrutiny. Victims and civil society must have a robust opportunity to propose and vet candidates.”
The organizations also noted with disappointment that substantive legal concerns raised repeatedly by victims, civil society and the international human rights community have gone unanswered.
The government has not given a clear indication as to whether or how these concerns will be addressed.
“In addition to its obligation to ensure that conflict victims have access to an effective remedy and reparation, the authorities have a separate and independent obligation to investigate and if there is sufficient admissible evidence, prosecute those suspected of criminal responsibility in fair trials before ordinary civilian courts – and, if found guilty, punish them with appropriate penalties which take into account the grave nature of the crimes,” said Helena Rodríguez-Bronchú, Head of TRIAL International’s program in Nepal.
“These obligations are clearly established in international law, as well affirmed in ruling after ruling by the Supreme Court. It is about time that the Government stopped proposing measures that are clearly inconsistent with the letter and spirit of those judgements,” she added.
Concerns raised about existing, and proposed, legislation include: disparities between the definitions of specific crimes under international law and human rights obligations and violations under national, and international law; inadequate provisions to ensure that serious crimes under international law are subject to criminal accountability (including punishment proportionate to the seriousness of the crimes); and a reliance on compensation at the expense of other forms of reparation and remedy for conflict survivors and their families
The ICJ, Amnesty International and TRIAL International had previously submitted a legal analysis of draft transitional justice legislation circulated in 2018, including recommendations on how to ensure compliance with international law and good practices.
Dec 19, 2018 | News
The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2018 fails to protect the human rights of transgender people as guaranteed under the Indian constitution and international law and standards and must not be passed in its present form by the Rajya Sabha.
The Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha (Lower House of Indian Parliament) on 17 December, 2018. The next step in order for the Bill to progress is for the Rajya Sabha (Upper House of Indian Parliament) to pass it.
The ICJ considers this Bill to be a missed opportunity to address the serious problem of discrimination against transgender people in India. The ICJ calls for the rejection of its problematic parts by the Rajya Sabha and for the elaboration of a revised Bill in line with rights upheld by the Indian Supreme Court and India’s obligations under international law.
The 2018 Bill, if adopted, would effectively deny to most transgender people their right to self-identification, by providing an overly complex bureaucratic procedure requiring an individual’s application for a transgender certificate to be approved by two different sets of authorities, despite earlier widespread condemnation of this process by the transgender community.
“As the ICJ reported in 2017, the transgender community is continually harassed, stigmatized, and abused by the police, judges, their family and society. This Bill, if it becomes law would further serve to facilitate and compound human rights violations against people from a marginalized community”, said Ian Seiderman, Legal and Policy Director at the ICJ.
The Bill has also introduced mandatory sex reassignment surgery for those transgender people who seek to identify their gender within the binary (male/female) framework. This requirement would be in contravention of the Supreme Court’s judgment in NALSA v. UOI, which guarantees the right to self-identification without the need for medical intervention.
Further, the Bill would collapse all offences against transgender people into one provision which includes offences ranging from “sexual abuse” and “physical abuse”, to “compel[ing] or entice[ing] a transgender person to indulge in the act of begging” among others. These crimes have not been defined in the Bill.
It also would provide for the same six-month to two-year sentence for all offences against transgender people. In some cases, this could be a significantly lighter sentence than when the same crime is committed against others, including discriminated groups such as cis-gendered women, under the general criminal law. In addition, the identification of “beggary” as an offence under the Bill is problematic since for many transgender people in the country, it remains one of the limited livelihood opportunities.
Further, the Bill does not address the question of reservations in employment and education despite specific directions by the Supreme Court in NALSA v. UOI.
Lastly, while the proposed law guarantees the right to non-discrimination to transgender people against persons, state and private sector bodies, it does not provide a definition of discrimination, nor does it provide an enforcement mechanism for ensuring transgender people’s right to non-discrimination.
The ICJ calls on the Rajya Sabha to substantially revise the problematic provisions of the Bill before resubmitting it for parliamentary consideration.
Background
The provisions identified above do not accord with protection of the rights of transgender people to equality, non-discrimination, equal protection of the law, enshrined in the Constitution and international law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which India ratified in 1979. Further, they are incompatible with international standards such as the Yogyakarta Principles on the application of international human rights law in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity.
The ICJ, as part of SAATHII Vistaara Coalition, earlier this year drafted a Briefing Paper on India: Legal and Jurisprudential Developments on Transgender Rights, SAATHII Vistaara Coalition. The paper analyses in detail the domestic judicial developments on transgender rights as well as the legislative process undertaken until the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2018 was passed on 17 December 2018.
Additional Reading Material
- ICJ Briefing Paper on The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2016, analyzes the 2016 Bill, its shortcomings, and India’s international obligations, as it is the basis of the 2018 Bill.
- ICJ Briefing Paper on Implementation of NALSA Judgment discusses the 2014 April NALSA decision that affirmed that transgender people have the right to decide their self-identified gender. The paper analyses the responsibilities placed on Indian authorities, gaps in implementation, and India’s relevant international law obligations.
Contact
Maitreyi Gupta (Delhi), ICJ International Legal Advisor for India
e: maitreyi.gupta(a)icj.org, t: +91 7756028369
Dec 18, 2018 | Multimedia items, News, Video clips
Lawyers from a diverse range of countries, including Egypt, Lebanon, Nepal, the Philippines, Tunisia and Uzbekistan have identified the many barriers that women typically face in accessing justice in their countries.
Common trends and practices identified included socio-economic marginalization, gender stereotypes and patriarchal attitudes.
The observations came during two training workshops held in Geneva in June and September to coincide with sessions of the UN Human Right Council and UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. The workshops were part of a project on enhancing women’s access to justice through UN human rights mechanisms, supported by the Permanent Mission of the Federal Republic of Germany to the UN in Geneva.
A lawyer from Uzbekistan noted that domestic violence flourishes in states where common attitudes hold that this is an internal matter to be resolved within families.
A particular concern raised in respect of Lebanon was discrimination linked to transference of nationality, where Lebanese women married to a foreigner cannot pass their nationality to their children but Lebanese men married to a foreigner can.
Meera Maharjan, lawyer from Nepal, noted the cultural, educational and economic barriers that impede women from being able to take on decision-making roles and the impact this has on the exercise of their rights.
Malaysian lawyer Yvonne Lim explained that the women who are often in need of access to justice tend to be from the lower rungs of the socio-economic strata and lack the resources, support and basic awareness about their human rights and the remedies that may be available to them.
During the September training session the ICJ organized a side event to the 39th session of the Human Rights Council on ‘applying a women-centred approach to access to justice’ to further explore these issues.
Secretary-General Saman Zia-Zarifi moderated the event and panelists included:
• ICJ Commissioner Justice Sanji Monageng, former Vice-President of the International Criminal Court
• Lisa Gormley, Research Officer for the Centre for Women, Peace and Security at the London School of Economics
• Meera Maharjan, Nepalese lawyer and legal officer for Resilience for Sustainable Women Empowerment (RISE)
You can watch a recording of the event, and interviews with two of the workshop participants below.
https://www.facebook.com/ridhglobal/videos/565112000574216/UzpfSTQ3MTQ2NzA4NjIyMTM3MzoyMjEyNTUzNjc1NDQ2MDMw/
Dec 2, 2018 | Events, News
On 1-2 December 2018, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) held its 2018 Southeast Asia Regional Judicial Dialogue on enhancing access to justice for women in the region.
Participants included judges from Cambodia, Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand.
The discussions, held in Bangkok, were focused around resources important for judges to aid in enhancing the capacity of their peers in eliminating gender discriminatory attitudes and behaviours towards women in their work. These resources include a training manual on the use of the Bangkok General Guidance for Judges in Applying a Gender Perspective, and a draft reference manual on women’s human rights and the right to a clean, healthy, safe and sustainable environment.
Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Director of the Asia and the Pacific Programme, opened the dialogue by emphasizing how important it is for judges to be gender sensitive in their delivery of justice. This could only be done by applying a framework that gives primary attention on ensuring recognition of the applicable human rights, institutional support for the promotion of these rights, and accountability mechanisms for their implementation.
Roberta Clarke, Commissioner of the ICJ and Chair of the organization’s Executive Committee, noted that this judicial dialogue demonstrates the ICJ’s commitment to have a sustainable contribution to the implementation of international human rights standards at the domestic level. She hoped that the judges could contextualize the resources presented and bring these back to their countries for trainings of their peers.
This judicial dialogue is part of a joint project on access to justice for women that ICJ is implementing with UN Women.
Anna Karin Jatfors, UN Women-Asia Pacific’s Interim Regional Director shared that gender stereotypes and social norms which discriminate women are not unique in each country. She pointed out the importance of the ICJ and UN Women collaborating in this project to deconstruct this image to bring better access to justice to women in the region.
Overall, the dialogue was rich and substantive, with the full and active participation from all participating judges who shared their views and experiences on countering gender discrimination in cases before them. At the end of the judicial dialogue, the participating judges expressed strong interest to use the resources for capacity building initiatives of their peers in their own countries.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser, t: +662 619 8477 (ext. 206), email: Emelynne.gil(a)icj.org
Nov 20, 2018 | News
On the Transgender Day of Remembrance, the ICJ calls on all South Asian States to fulfill their international obligations to respect, protect and ensure the right to life of all transgender persons, including by investigating alleged violations of their right to life promptly, thoroughly and effectively.
While there has been some progress in protecting the human rights of transgender individuals through legislation and judicial decisions, in South Asia rampant violence from both state and non-state actors continues to place their lives at risk.
Most governments do not collect data on violence against transgender persons.
Trans Murder Monitoring, which records cases of murder of transgender persons based on accounts from individuals and civil society organizations, reports 2609 unnatural deaths of trans and gender-diverse persons across 71 countries between January 2008 and September 2018.
In South Asia, between 2008 and 2016, 58 transgender persons were reported murdered in India, 37 in Pakistan, 2 in Nepal, and 2 in Bangladesh.
“It is laudable that Pakistan, India and Nepal have taken measures to end discrimination against transgender persons, and have recognized their right to self-identify,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director.
“However, violence, harassment, extortion, rape and murder of transgender persons continue to be committed. Police frequently refuse to file complaints, and are often themselves complicit in violence against transgender persons,” he added.
The judiciary has played an important role in protecting transgender rights in India, Nepal and Pakistan.
The Supreme Courts in all three countries have issued decisions recognizing transgender persons’ rights, including the right to self-identity one’s gender.
These decisions have acknowledged that transgender persons are particularly targeted with violence by state and non-state actors, and that police have largely failed to protect them from violence.
In some cases, the courts have ordered that new remedies be created under the law, and sought the enforcement of existing laws protecting transgender rights.
However, many of these decisions remain unimplemented, and violence against transgender people remains rampant in South Asia.
“The ICJ calls on all governments in the region to ensure that laws, policies and practices affecting transgender persons comply with international human rights law and standards,” Rawski said.
“All human rights abuses against transgender persons must be investigated, and the perpetrators brought to justice, including law enforcement officials who harass or abuse persons based on their gender identity,” he added.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Director, t: +66 644781121 ; e: Frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Background
In India, in 2014, the Supreme Court in NALSA v. UOI recognized the right of transgender persons to self-identify their gender.
The Court has further acknowledged the existence of human rights violations against transgender persons at the hands of the police and private individuals and recommended that state and central government take steps to create public awareness about transgender persons’ rights.
Per a 2015 survey by the Kerala Government, “52% of the TGs [transgender people] are facing harassment from the police and “96% do not raise complaints against violence because of their gender identity”.
In Nepal, in 2007, the Supreme Court in Sunil Babu Pant v. Government of Nepal recognized the right of individuals to identify as male, female or “third gender”.
However, transgender persons continue to face arbitrary harassment and detention by security forces under laws like Public Offences Act, 1970, which allow for arrests without due process for up to 25 days.
This resulted in the Supreme Court of Nepal ordering law enforcement officials to desist from arresting persons based on their “personal interest or appearance,” though the decision remains largely unimplemented.
In Pakistan, in 2009, the Supreme Court directed the Government to recognize the human rights of transgender persons and subsequently, in 2018, the Parliament passed a law prohibiting discrimination against transgender persons.
The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2018 of Pakistan prohibits harassment of transgender persons, including sexual, physical, mental and psychological harassment, and creates new remedies for complainants in addition to those available under the criminal justice system.
The effectiveness of the law remains to be seen, as police are often complicit in violence against transgender persons, particularly in extorting money from transgender women sex workers.
Read also
ICJ Practitioners’ Guide No. 4: Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and International Human Rights Law, which provides legal practitioners, activists and policy-makers with detailed and practical references on international standards on sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual characteristics.
ICJ Comparative Law Casebook: Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and Justice, which provides legal practitioners, activists and policy-makers with a compilation of legal cases on sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics.
ICJ India 2017 Report: “Unnatural Offences” Obstacles to Justice in India Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, which provides a legal analysis of the discrimination and abuse faced by the LGBTI community in India based on over 100 interviews with LGBTI persons.
Oct 31, 2018 | News
The ICJ today welcomed the Pakistani Supreme Court’s decision to acquit Asia Noreen (Asia Bibi) of blasphemy charges under section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code.
Asia bibi had been on death row since 2010, when a trial court convicted her of “defaming the Prophet Muhammad” and sentenced her to death. The Lahore High Court had upheld her conviction and confirmed her death sentence in 2014.
“All eyes were on the Supreme Court to respond to Asia bibi’s final plea for justice and undo the blatant wrongs done to her and her family for eight long years,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Director.
“It is heartening to see that despite threats and external pressures, the SC fulfilled its role to protect human rights in this case.”
Certain Islamist groups have frequently held demonstrations calling for Asia bibi and other blasphemy accused to be hanged. After the Supreme Court announced its decision to acquit Asia bibi, the Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan took to the streets condemning the decision.
“The Government should take notice of this pattern of threats and reprisals in blasphemy cases and ensure that judges and lawyers are given adequate security to perform their duties independently, impartially and without any external influence,” said Rawski.
Reasons for Asia bibi’s acquittal include an unexplained delay in the registration of the criminal complaint; material inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses; wrongful reliance on Asia bibi’s extra-judicial “confession”; and failure to take into account the circumstances of the blasphemy allegations, including a “quarrel”, possibly about Asia bibi’s faith.
The Supreme Court also noted that the context indicates the charges could have arisen from a “false allegation” of blasphemy, echoing concerns also raised by the ICJ that the blasphemy laws in Pakistan have typcially become an instrument of personal vendettas and malicious motivations.
Asia bibi’s appeal was the first blasphemy case being heard by the Supreme Court since 2002. The Court has so far not upheld any convictions for blasphemy under section 295-C of the Penal Code (defamation of the Prophet Muhammad), though dozens of people have been convicted by trial courts and a number of appeals are pending before various appellate forums.
The ICJ has documented in detail systematic and widespread fair trial violations in proceedings related to blasphemy offences in Pakistan.
Courts in Pakistan have noted on multiple occasions that people accused of blasphemy suffer ‘beyond proportion or repair’ in the absence of adequate safeguards against misapplication or misuse of such blasphemy laws.
The ICJ underscores that laws that criminalize the exercise of freedom of expression are non-compliant with international law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Pakistan is a party. This includes the criminalization of expression in relation to religion.
The ICJ opposed the death penalty in all circumstances and considers that it constitutes a violation of the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
Contact:
Frederick Rawski (Bangkok), ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director, e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Advisor (South Asia) t: +447889565691; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Additional information
In November 2015, the ICJ published a report documenting in detail systematic and widespread violations of the right to a fair trial in proceedings related to blasphemy offences in Pakistan, particularly in trial courts. The report confirmed concerns raised by the Supreme Court of Pakistan that individuals accused of blasphemy ‘suffer beyond proportion or repair’ in the absence of adequate safeguards.
The ICJ also made a number of recommendations to the Pakistani executive, legislative and judicial branches to address violations caused by application of the blasphemy laws, whether due to the legislative provisions themselves or at the investigative, prosecutorial, procedural, administrative and judicial levels highlighted in the report, including to ensure that those accused of blasphemy have a fair chance at defending themselves.
In a briefing paper published in October 2016, the ICJ assessed the fair trial violations in Asia bibi’s trial and appellate hearing. The ICJ found glaring omissions both in the appraisal of evidence as well as the application of laws that brought her conviction into question.
