Feb 3, 2016 | News
Yesterday’s decision of the Indian Supreme Court to refer to a larger bench of the same Court the petition challenging Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), offers the opportunity to undo the appalling 2013 judgment of a two-judge bench of the SC in the Suresh Koushal case, says the ICJ.
“This order of the Supreme Court is a crucial opportunity to undo the injustice of the Suresh Koushal decision,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director. “It is an important test of the Supreme Court’s commitment to equality and ending discrimination against people on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.”
After the December 2013 Suresh Koushal decision – when the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of section 377 and reversed the Delhi High Court’s courageous and much celebrated decision – the petitioners filed a review petition, which was dismissed.
The petitioners then filed “curative petitions” in 2014, stating that the Supreme Court’s judgment of December 2013 violated principles of natural justice for several reasons. A “curative petition” allows the Supreme Court to re-assess its previous decisions on limited grounds, even after appeals and reviews have concluded.
Yesterday the Supreme Court referred the curative petition, and the major constitutional questions it raised, to a five-judge bench of the same Court, thus acknowledging doubts about the correctness of its 2013 ruling. A five-judge bench will now be set up to hear this challenge.
“The referral highlights the Supreme Court’s recognition of the need for a judicial response to the ongoing discrimination against people on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity,” Zarifi said.
“After 16 years within the court process, this issue clearly could not be resolved with the highly problematic Suresh Koushal decision, which ignored the reality of consensual same sex behavior in India and the fact that Section 377 criminalizes people for who they are and leads directly to serious human rights violations.”
By criminalizing consensual same-sex adult sexual conduct, Section 377 is inconsistent with India’s obligations under international human rights law, including in respect of the rights to sexual autonomy, equality, non-discrimination, privacy, dignity, free expression, and life.
Many of these rights are guaranteed in India’s Constitution.
India is also a party to several international instruments, which require that these rights be respected, protected and fulfilled.
The Yogyakarta Principles – which apply international human rights law to issues of sexual orientation and gender identity – clarify that the rights to equality, non-discrimination and privacy require states to “repeal all laws that criminalize consensual sexual activity among persons of the same sex who are over the age of consent.”
The Supreme Court referred to these principles in the 2014 National Legal Services Authority v Union of India (NALSA) case where it also acknowledged that Section 377 was “used as an instrument of harassment and physical abuse against Hijras and transgender persons”.
“Yesterday’s decision offers hope that the Supreme Court intends to reaffirm the principle that people in India cannot be subjected to discrimination, harassment and violence, simply on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity,” Zarifi said.
Background
Section 377 makes it an offence to “voluntarily ha[ve] carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal” and has been used to persecute people for their real or purported engagement in consensual same-sex sexual conduct. The penalty can extend to life imprisonment.
Several reports document how Section 377 has been a tool for discrimination, blackmail, extortion, and violence by state and non-state actors against the LGBTI community.
It has adversely affected HIV/AIDS prevention efforts, and has also reinforced harmful social stereotypes and taboos against sexual minorities.
The petitioners in the original challenge against section 377 have waged this legal battle for over a decade. The constitutional challenge against Section 377 was filed in 2001.
In 2009, in Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Others, the Delhi High Court held that Section 377 denied “a person’s dignity and criminalises his or her core identity solely on account of his or her sexuality”.
It went on to find that this criminalization of identity denied “a gay person a right to full personhood which is implicit” in the notion of life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, and also violated the constitutional right to equality and non-discrimination. The High Court held that Section 377 was unconstitutional insofar as it criminalized consensual same-sex sexual conduct.
However, its judgment was appealed to the Supreme Court.
On appeal, in 2013 the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Delhi High Court, holding the section to be constitutional.
The Supreme Court also affirmed that legislature would “be free to consider the desirability and propriety of deleting Section 377 IPC from the statute book or amend the same as per the suggestion made by the Attorney General”.
Jan 29, 2016 | News
La CIJ expresa su preocupación frente a una nueva denuncia abusiva de la Fundación contra el Terrorismo, esta vez contra el Director de la CIJ para Centroamérica y un consultor que contribuye con el Bufete de Derechos Humanos, y contra el Director de Centro de Acción Legal, Ambiental y Social.
Esta denuncia se suma a otras en contra de abogados y abogadas de Guatemala. A través de querellas y acusaciones falsas, esta Fundación pretende afectar la función que estos profesionales cumplen como defensores de los derechos humanos.
Estas denuncias falsas son parte de una campaña iniciada hace más de un año y que ha querido afectar a más de cien personas, a quienes la Fundación contra el Terrorismo ha calificado como terroristas y guerrilleros (as), sin aportar pruebas.
Efectivamente se han presentado denuncias contra funcionarios y ex funcionarios del Ministerio Público, como la ex Fiscal General Claudia Paz y Paz y la actual Fiscal General Thelma Aldana, el Fiscal de Derechos Humanos o en contra de jueces y juezas del Organismo Judicial que ejercen su función en forma independiente, promoviendo un discurso de odio en contra de estas personas que actúan como defensores y defensoras de derechos humanos.
Ante esto hechos, la CIJ demanda:
- Que el Estado de Guatemala, por medio de las autoridades correspondientes, inicie una investigación exhaustiva e imparcial acerca de las actividades que realiza la Fundación contra el Terrorismo sobre todo, que investigue el origen de aquellas actividades que dirige en contra de defensores y defensoras de Derechos Humanos;
- Que el Estado de Guatemala, por medio de las autoridades correspondientes, brinde la protección debida a defensores y defensoras de derechos humanos;
- Que una vez finalizada la investigación el Estado de Guatemala, a través de las autoridades y mecanismos correspondientes, adopte las medidas necesarias de acuerdo a derecho con respecto a la Fundación contra el Terrorismo y su Director, por llevar a cabo campañas de odio en contra de defensores y defensoras de derechos humanos.
Jan 29, 2016 | News
The Myanmar authorities must immediately release and drop all charges or quash convictions against all people detained for allegedly having the “deliberate and malicious intention to insult religion,” said the ICJ today.
While President Thein Sein had declared an amnesty on 22 January for 102 prisoners, including 52 political prisoners, it is unclear exactly how many prisoners continue to be detained in prison under section 295A of the Penal Code and awaiting trials for blasphemy.
“Charging and imprisoning people on charges under Myanmar’s blasphemy laws is inconsistent with human rights including freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, the right to liberty, and the right to equality before the law without discrimination,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director.
“The problem is compounded in Myanmar when courts have been convicting individuals in unfair trials and in the absence of evidence of any deliberate and malicious intent to insult religion,” he added.
Last week, President Thein Sein pardoned Philip Blackwood, a New Zealand citizen sentenced to two and a half years with hard labour for posting on Facebook a psychedelic image of the Buddha wearing headphones to promote a bar.
His colleagues Tun Thurein and Htut Ko Ko Lwin, Myanmar citizens, do not seem to have been released (although it is possible that they may have been granted amnesty as well).
Another detainee, Htin Linn Oo, a writer and National League for Democracy information officer who was sentenced to two years imprisonment with hard labour, has not been released.
U Nyar Na (aka) Moe Pyar Sayar Taw, a monk arrested in Kachin state in 2010 and charged under various provisions of the Penal Code, including section 295A, was sentenced to imprisonment for 20 years. His reported release during the amnesty last week remains unconfirmed.
These charges and convictions are in violation of international law, including a range of human rights guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and by international treaties, the ICJ says.
“The laws must be repealed or fundamentally changed, ongoing prosecutions ended, and those imprisoned for their beliefs or protected speech and other expression immediately and unconditionally released,” Zarifi said.
“These prosecutions seem to be a result of intense political pressure from extremist Buddhist political groups. As the Myanmar judiciary and legal system try to emerge from decades of political interference on with independence, it’s crucial that they act in the interests of justice and human rights,” he added.
The ICJ urges the Myanmar authorities to drop all charges against the accused persons who have not yet been tried; take immediate measures to secure the quashing of convictions under the law; and take effective measures to ensure the immediate and unconditional release of all detainees held pursuant Section 295A.
The ICJ also calls on the government to act to repeal or amend section 295A to bring it in line with international law and standards.
Contact:
In Bangkok: Sam Zarifi, ICJ Regional Director, Asia-Pacific Programme, t: +66807819002 ; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
In Myanmar: Vani Sathisan, ICJ International Legal Adviser, t: +95 9250800301 ; e: vani.sathisan(a)icj.org
Additional information:
Myanmar’s Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of expression, conscience, and to freely profess and practice religion.
The UN Human Rights Committee established by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) emphasizes that “Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant”. The only limited exception under the Covenant would be for proportionate and non-discriminatory measures to prohibit “advocacy of…religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”. Section 295A falls far short of this threshold.
Jan 20, 2016 | News
The Indonesian government’s efforts to counter and punish attacks such as the deadly assault in central Jakarta last week can only succeed if they strengthen respect for rights and rule of law, said the ICJ today.
Indonesia’s National Counterterrorism Agency (BNPT) and the State Intelligence Agency (BIN) claimed that they lacked sufficient authority under the country’s existing Anti-Terrorism Law to stop the attacks.
Eight people were killed in an attack by armed men in central Jakarta on 14 January.
“Plans discussed by Indonesian authorities to amend the 2003 Anti-Terrorism Law to make it ‘more effective’ in addressing terrorist threats mostly focus on weakening hard-won protections for suspects and the rule of law,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia.
“In order to help the Indonesian government meet its obligation to protect its people from acts of terrorism, experience from around the world and Indonesia’s Suharto era shows that security can only be achieved through justice,” she added.
The head of the National Police, Gen. Badrodin Haiti, said that the Anti-Terrorism Law prevents police from prosecuting Indonesians returning home after allegedly serving as combatants in Syria.
One of the proposals is to give intelligence officers the authority to make arrests under the Anti-Terrorism Law.
“Giving intelligence officers the authority to make arrests will likely lead to an increase in violations of human rights,” said Gil.
“The roles of intelligence and of law enforcement are fundamentally different and need to remain separate,” she added.
The ICJ pointed out that there were not enough safeguards under Indonesia’s laws, specifically the State Intelligence Law, to ensure the accountability of the intelligence agency or its officers.
Another proposal is that authorities be given the power to arrest anyone they see as having a “strong indication” to be planning acts of terrorism.
The ICJ, however, observes that this proposal appears to allow Indonesian authorities to avoid judicial oversight so that it would be easier for them to arrest any person, irrespective of whether there is sufficient evidence of criminal activity or an intent to prosecute.
This proposal also appears to allow authorities to detain and interrogate persons suspected of involvement in terrorist acts with a view to gaining intelligence information without necessarily contemplating the filing of criminal charges.
As ICJ’s Eminent Jurists Panel on Terrorism, Counter-terrorism, and Human Rights has underscored, the practice of arrest and detention for the sole purpose of intelligence gathering may mean the arrest and detention of those “who are not necessarily criminal suspects, but who are also believed to have information that will ‘substantially’ assist the collection of intelligence relating to terrorism.” Detaining people for the sole purpose of intelligence gathering in the absence of evidence of criminal activities is a form of arbitrary detention.
Such a practice can also lead to secret or unacknowledged detention, which under international law constitutes enforced disappearance and is absolutely prohibited, the Geneva-based organization adds.
“The obligation to protect human rights and keep people safe from acts of terrorism are not at opposing poles,” said Gil. “They are complimentary and mutually reinforcing duties of protection incumbent on the State.”
“In fact, protecting human rights can be an effective shield in defending societies from acts of terrorism,” she added.
All measures to counter terrorism must strictly comply with obligations Indonesia has under international law.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser of ICJ for Southeast Asia, t: +66 840923575 ; e: emerlynne.gil@icj.org
Background:
Indonesia’s Anti-Terrorism Law requires judicial approval to arrest a suspect in a terrorism case. Under the law, authorities may arrest any person “strongly suspected of committing a crime of terrorism on the basis of sufficient initial evidence.”
The Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson of a District Court determines whether sufficient initial evidence exists or has been obtained by authorities.
Under article 42 of Indonesia’s State Intelligence Law, the accountability of intelligence operations of the State Intelligence Agency is in principle ensured through a written report on these operations submitted to the President of Indonesia.
This provision has been criticized for failing to provide sufficient accountability, as the presidency is firmly within the Executive branch and lacks capacity to investigate and prosecute in the ordinary criminal justice system.
Furthermore, article 24 of the State Intelligence Law provides that the State has the obligation to give “protection” to all intelligence personnel when carrying out their intelligence duties and functions. Such protection is extended to their family members.
The law does not define “protection” and hence may be construed as the State being obliged to grant immunity to intelligence personnel and their family members from criminal prosecution or civil liability.
Jan 20, 2016 | News
The ICJ supported the convening of a three-day meeting of the Faculty of Law of the University of Zimbabwe. The meeting reviewed the content of the courses offered at the University with the view of aligning the subject matter to the new constitution.
The Dean of Law Mr Magade noted in his introduction that “this Curriculum Review gives us a fabulous opportunity to take a long and hard look at ourselves and self introspect and come up with suggestions on how to improve our curriculum. At the end of the day we need to produce a product or graduate that is fit for purpose.”
The meeting took place at the Troutbeck Inn in Nyanga from 18 to 20 January 2016 and congregated 30 academic staff members from the University including a curriculum expert, Dr Nziramasanga, from the Faculty of Education. Dr Mosito and Dr Dingake from the Lesotho and Botswana respectively also contributed to the review process.
Jan 14, 2016 | News
As today marks the fifth anniversary of the toppling of Ben Ali’s regime, the ICJ calls on Tunisian authorities to adopt key legal and policy reforms to combat impunity and to deliver justice to victims of past human rights violations.
Under Ben Ali’s regime, thousands of human rights violations, including torture and other ill-treatment, unlawful killings, enforced disappearances, and arbitrary arrests and detentions, were committed by law enforcement and other security officers.
Numerous similar violations were also committed during the December 2010 to January 2011 uprising and some of them continue today.
“The political and institutional reforms introduced in Tunisia over the past 5 years should not be the sole yardstick to measure the success of the transition,” said Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme.
“Victims of human rights violations, in particular under Ben Ali’s rule, and during the uprising still await justice,” he added.
Despite several cases being brought before Tunisian courts, in particular military courts, these proceedings have yet to establish the truth about violations, ensure that all those who are responsible are held to account, and fulfill the rights of victims to effective remedies and reparation.
“Until their rights to effective remedies and reparation are realized, including by holding the perpetrators to account, the transition will remain incomplete,” Benarbia said.
Indeed, despite numerous legal and policy reforms, including the adoption of the “Transitional Justice Law”, and the establishment of the Truth and Dignity Commission (Instance Vérité et Dignité), the ICJ is concerned that justice for victims remains mostly elusive.
Obstacles that impede victims’ access to justice and effective remedies include current weaknesses in the Tunisian criminal procedures, such as the broad discretion of the public prosecutor to dismiss cases without providing specific reasons (and the lack of ability of victims effectively to challenge such decisions), the lack of effective measures for the protection of victims and witness, inadequate laws on the definition of crimes and superior responsibility, and the use of military courts to address human rights violations.
“Key reforms both in law and practice are needed for Tunisia to properly address past abuses in Tunisia, end pervasive impunity and provide victims with justice,” Benarbia said.
Contact:
Theo Boutruche, Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, tel: +96 170 888 961, e-mail: theo.boutruche(a)icj.org
Tunisia-Anniversary-News Press Release-2016-ARA (Arabic version, in PDF)
