Jul 1, 2016 | Feature articles, News
A feature article by U Hayman Oo, ICJ Legal Researcher in Yangon, Myanmar.
In a recent meeting with Chinese ambassador to Myanmar and villagers, organized in Kyauk Phyu, a villager from Gone Shein Village asked the ambassador to help address the damages caused to their farmland by the Shwe Gas Pipeline Project that began five years ago.
She also expressed doubts that the Kyauk Phyu Special Economic Zone (Kyauk Phyu SEZ) would benefit villagers amid all the unresolved disputes.
Given such disputes, local people are not optimistic about the upcoming development of the Kyauk Phyu SEZ.
They perceive that the project will be a ‘loss’ rather than a ‘gain’ for them.
Most of the local population of farmers fear that the project will be a disaster to their livelihood along with massive land losses.
On a recent trip to Kyauk Phyu by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), community members, including local MPs and lawyers, reported their concerns that a second round of such abuses will be experienced, this time even worse, during development of the Special Economic Zone planned for the area, despite promises from the Government that the development will be environmentally sustainable and bring socio-economic benefits to the region.
In fact, Special Economic Zone can contribute to the country’s economy and help benefit the welfare of its people – but only if sound policies of sustainable development in compliance with human rights are in place.
Otherwise, massive economic projects of this kind risk large-scale adverse environmental, social and human rights impacts.
Kyauk Phyu residents know very well how foreign investments can be harmful for the community when investors fail to comply with local laws as well as international standards, because of their experience with the Shwe Gas Project, a Myanmar-China pipeline.
The Gas Pipeline project was notorious for reported labour abuses, and claims of inadequate compensation for land confiscation, arrest and detention of community leaders and loss of community livelihoods and environmental degradation.
Villagers still frequently take to the street demanding for the damages caused to their farmland to be addressed, in the absence of a proper grievance mechanism.
With these prevailing experiences in mind, local residents were alarmed when authorities reportedly measured about 250 acres for the SEZ around Kathapray, Krat Tein, and Thaing Chaung village tracts in Kyauk Phyu, raising more concerns of land acquisition and compensation.
Locals complain that there was no transparent discussion over compensation for this potential land acquisition.
Villagers from Pyai Sate Kay village reportedly lost about 40 acres of farmland to the construction of a reservoir.
Although, the compensation were made for 5.1 acre of farmland, the rest of grazing land was not compensated according to a report from a villager.
There were also complaints that the compensation was neither a current market price nor a sufficient amount of money for them to be able to buy a similar size of land for cultivation.
He also complained that the Government promised to provide replacement land, but that this has not yet happened.
A total of over 70 acres of land was also apparently acquired for another reservoir under construction near Thai Chaung village.
Compensation was only paid for the farmland acreas occupied for the construction excluding land affected by the access to the reservoir.
“We were compensated but the land we lost were not measured properly. The amount paid was only on the basis of approximation. The land we lost should have been measured carefully to pay for the compensation,” said Ko Tun Nu from Thaing Chaung village.
It is reported that these reservoirs were constructed with the purpose of water supply for the SEZ project.
Furthermore, villagers from Ohn Taw and Pyai Sate Kay also reportedly lost a total of 220 acres of land when it was allocated for construction of a police station between the villages.
Although generally the purpose of the security force stationed there is for the security of the township, local people suspect that this increased security presence is instead in preparation to meet the security demands for the planned SEZ project.
There has apparently been no discussion over compensation. It is also questionable whether this volume of land is necessary for the construction of a police station.
According to the Special Economic Zone Law 2014, the Ministry of Home Affairs is responsible for land acquisition in the area of a SEZ in accordance with existing laws and regulations.
It also imposes duties on the investors and developers to bear the expenses of compensation and relocation and to ensure that the standard of living of affected persons does not fall below their original living standard.
The new NLD-led Government has inherited ample land-related problems and has prioritized dealing with these issues.
On May 5th, the Government formed the ‘Central Committee for the Review of the Acquisition of Farmland and Other Land’ in order to combat nation-wide land disputes.
The Committee’s responsibilities include investigation of compliance with existing laws by relevant authorities.
The President has also instructed that all land acquisition cease until all existing land disputes are resolved.
In addressing those issues, it is important that international standards such as Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development Based Eviction and Displacement are integrated into national policies and regulations.
Only then will such projects ensure the protection of the rights and livelihood of communities and the promotion of responsible business in the country.
Myanmar-Kyauk Phyu SEZ-News-Op-eds-2016-BUR (Full text in Burmese, PDF)
Jun 30, 2016 | News
The United Nations Human Rights Council, in a defining vote, adopted a resolution on 30 June 2016, on “Protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation, and gender identity,” to mandate the appointment of an independent expert on the subject.
It is a historic victory for the human rights of anyone at risk of discrimination and violence because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, a coalition of human rights groups said today. This resolution builds upon two previous resolutions, adopted by the Council in 2011 and 2014.
The Core Group of seven Latin American countries – Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Uruguay – and 41 additional countries jointly presented the text.
The resolution was adopted by a vote of 23 in favor, 18 against and six abstentions.
“This is truly momentous,” said Micah Grzywnowicz, of the Swedish Federation for LGBTQ Rights (RFSL). “This is our opportunity to bring international attention to specific violations and challenges faced by transgender and gender non-conforming persons in all regions. It’s time for the international community to take responsibility to ensure that persons at risk of violence and discrimination because of gender identity are not left behind.”
“It’s a historic resolution,” said Josefina Valencia, of the International LGBTI Association for Latin America and the Caribbean, ILGA LAC. “Latin America has played a very important role to build a common course for the advancement of our human rights. We are proud of the international solidarity and the commitment shown by States for equality.”
The positive vote responds to a joint campaign of a record 628 nongovernmental organizations from 151 countries calling on the Human Rights Council to adopt the resolution and create the independent expert.
“It is important to note that around 70 percent of the organizations are from the global south,” said Yahia Zaidi of MantiQitna Network. “This is a powerful cross-regional message of strength to the UN to protect the rights of LGBTI persons. The independent expert will be a focal point for all violations based on SOGI and hence help grassroots organizations to better utilize the otherwise complex labyrinth of the UN system.”
The expert will be tasked with assessing implementation of existing international human rights law, identifying best practices and gaps, raising awareness of violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, engaging in dialogue and consultation with states and other stakeholders, and facilitating provision of advisory services, technical assistance, capacity-building, and cooperation to help address violence and discrimination on these grounds.
“To have an independent expert can be a ‘game-changer’ in counteracting violence which fuels the HIV epidemic in key populations and more specifically in LGBT communities,” said Alain Kra of Espace Confiance.
“It will ease the work of all human rights defenders and it is essential for our governments and people to have the knowledge on how to protect LGBT communities from any violence and discrimination they face,” added Joleen Mataele of the Tonga Leiti’s Association.
Although a number of hostile amendments seeking to introduce notions of cultural relativism were adopted into the text by vote, the core of the resolution affirming the universal nature of international human rights law stood firm.
The International Commission of Jurists believes that the UN Human Rights Council made history by creating a mandate empowering a UN Independent Expert specifically to address human rights violations perpetrated against people in all regions of the world because of discrimination against their real or imputed sexual orientation or gender identity.
Results of the vote
Voting in favor of the resolution
Albania, Belgium, Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Georgia, Germany, Latvia, Macedonia, Mexico, Mongolia, Netherlands, Panama, Paraguay, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Slovenia, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Venezuela, Vietnam
Voting against the resolution
Algeria, Bangladesh, Burundi, China, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Maldives, Morocco, Nigeria, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Togo, United Arab Emirates
Abstaining on the resolution
Botswana, Ghana, India, Namibia, Philippines, South Africa
Organizations supporting this statement:
- Access Chapter
- AIDES France
- Amnesty International
- ARC International
- Clóset de Sor Juana AC
- Egale Canada Human Rights Trust
- Espacio de Mujeres Lesbianas Salvadoreñas por la Diversidad (ESMULES)
- Federatie van Nederlandse Verenigingen tot Integratie van Homoseksualiteit – COC Nederland (Netherlands)
- Foundation for SOGI Rights and Justice (FORSOGI), Thailand
- FRI, the Norwegian Organisation for Sexual and Gender Diversity
- GALANG Philippines
- GATE – Global Action for Trans* Equality
- Human Rights Law Centre
- Human Rights Watch
- Iranti-org (South Africa)
- International Commission of Jurists
- ILGA LAC, Asociación Internacional de Lesbianas, Gays, Bisexuales, Trans e Intersexuales para América Latina y el Caribe
- International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA)
- Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals of Botswana (LEGABIBO)
- LGBT Denmark – the National Organization for Gay Men, Lesbians, Bisexuals and Transgendered People
- MantiQitna Network
- OutRight Action International
- Pacific Sexual Diversity Network
- Pan Africa ILGA
- Proyecto Arcoiris, colectivo anticapitalista e independiente
- Samoa Faafafine Association
- Swedish Federation for LGBTQ Rights (RFSL)
- TLF Share Collective – Philippines
- Tonga Leitis Association
Jun 30, 2016 | News
The Pakistani Government should not extend the oppressive and ineffective Protection of Pakistan Act (POPA), which is set to expire on 15 July 2016, said the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) today.
POPA was enacted in July 2014 for a period of two years to combat “waging of war or insurrection against Pakistan” and to provide “speedy trial” for offences “threatening the security of Pakistan”.
Earlier this week, the Ministry of Interior confirmed that it planned to renew POPA for another two years.
“In these two years, not one suspect has been convicted under POPA, so we can conclude that the law doesn’t really protect people in Pakistan from terrorism and other violent acts, but instead it undermines their basic human rights protections,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia director.
“The Government’s plan to renew this hastily drafted law is a classic case of supposedly ‘temporary’ departures from normal legal processes and human rights protections on the basis of ‘exceptional” circumstances’ becoming a permanent part of the legal system.”
In a statement issued shortly after the Protection of Pakistan Act was enacted, the ICJ warned that POPA gives military and law enforcement authorities sweeping powers to detain individuals in contravention of Pakistan’s international human rights law obligations.
The law allows prolonged preventive administrative detention without adequate safeguards; retrospectively authorizes otherwise arbitrary or unlawful arrests or detentions; authorizes secret and unacknowledged detention; and gives law enforcement agencies broad powers to “shoot at sight”.
In addition, the law creates “special courts” to try scheduled offences under the Act. Procedures for the operation of these “special courts” allow for secret hearings and do not meet international standards for fair and public criminal proceedings before a competent, independent and impartial tribunal.
According to Government officials, the Ministry of Interior has cleared “hundreds of cases of peace disrupting elements” for trial before the “special courts” constituted under POPA.
The five “special courts” remained non-functional for many months because of lack of staff and other facilities. The courts are now functional, but have so far not concluded a single trial.
“POPA is not only an oppressive law, it has also proven to be completely ineffective,” added Zarifi. “Instead of renewing the law, the Government should focus on strengthening the existing criminal justice system, which is suffering because of years of neglect.”
Political groups, including the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) and the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), have alleged that the unfettered powers given to civilian and military law enforcement agencies under POPA are being used to target their workers for political activity and association. They say the law has been used to arbitrarily detain dozens of their activists.
“Pakistan faces a genuine threat from militant groups engaging in acts of terrorism, and the Pakistani Government has an obligation to protect all people from such attacks,” said Zarifi. “International law gives governments reasonable flexibility to combat terrorism, without contravening human rights obligations, and claims of ‘threats to national security’ can never be used as a justification for the practice of extrajudicial killings, secret detention, and enforced disappearance.”
The ICJ urges the Pakistani authorities not to extend POPA.
It further calls on the authorities to review all national security legislation to ensure it is fully compatible with international human rights law and standards.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Pakistan (London), t: +44 7889565691; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Jun 24, 2016 | News
The ICJ conducted a research mission to Azerbaijan on 20-23 June, to assess the situation of lawyers in the country, in light of concerns about recent criminal and disciplinary proceedings against lawyers.
During the mission the ICJ met with lawyers and legal experts to discuss the governance of the legal profession, including questions of access to the profession, the need for sufficient numbers of qualified lawyers to provide effective access to justice, and the role of the bar association in protecting lawyers against harassment or interference in their work.
In the course of the mission the ICJ met with several lawyers against whom disciplinary proceedings had been initiated, or who had faced criminal or other sanctions. Many of these lawyers have been prominent in bringing human rights cases before the national and international courts.
On 23 June, ICJ representatives observed a hearing in the case of lawyer Alaif Ghasanov before the Baku Administrative Economic Court no.1, in which he is challenging his disbarment.
The ICJ will publish a report of the mission with recommendations to address harassment of lawyers and for reform of the governance of the legal profession.
Jun 23, 2016 | News
The ICJ welcomes today’s judgment of the European Court of Human Rights that the removal from office of Hungarian Supreme Court President András Baka violated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The Court found that the pre-mature termination of his appointment deprived him of a fair process and was based on public statements he made that were critical of certain justice system reforms.
The ICJ intervened as third party in this case. The judgment is expected to be influential around the world in cases involving judicial independence and expression.
“Today’s judgment is a vindication for the security of tenure and freedom of expression of judges not only in Hungary, but around the world,” said Massimo Frigo, ICJ Europe Programme Legal Adviser.
“Judges should never be precluded from exercising their right and duty to speak out in protection of judicial independence,” he added.
In its ruling, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights ruled that, by ending his prescribed term in office pre-maturely through a targeted legislative reform because of his public criticism, Hungary had violated his right to freedom of expression, under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Court held that expressing statements on the reform of the judiciary and other legislation was not only Judge Baka’s right, but also his duty.
The Court further ruled that former Supreme Court President András Baka had enjoyed a right to access courts to challenge his dismissal, and that his removal from office by a law that precluded such challenges violated article 6 of the ECHR on the right to a fair hearing.
In its judgment, the European Court cited a wide range of United Nations, European, Inter-American, and other international instruments and standards on judicial independence and freedom of expression.
The International Commission of Jurists anticipates that the Court’s ruling and reasons will have an important influence on cases concerning judicial independence and expression around the world.
Background:
Judge András Baka, former judge of the European Court of Human Rights from 1991 to 2008, had been appointed as President of the Supreme Court of Hungary on 22 June 2009.
His term in office, which was on his appointment guaranteed by law to continue until 22 June 2015, was prematurely terminated on 1 January 2012 following the entry into force of the Transitional Provisions of the new Hungarian Constitution.
This rule modified the eligibility requirements for the position of President of the Supreme Court, effectively excluding judge András Baka from the position.
Judge András Baka was also President of the National Council of Justice, and had publicly expressed criticism concerning various legal reforms brought on by the Hungarian Government that he considered to undermine the independence of the judiciary.
The judgment can be downloaded in PDF format.
Read also:
ICJ third party intervention
The ICJ also recently published a comprehensive analysis of relevant global standards in its Practitioners Guide No. 13 on judicial accountability.
An online compilation of global and regional standards on independence and accountability of judges, lawyers and prosecutors is also available here.
Contact
Massimo Frigo, Legal Adviser, ICJ Europe Programme, t: +41 22 979 38 05 ; e: massimo.frigo(a)icj.org
Jun 23, 2016 | Events
Side-event to the 32nd regular session of the Human Rights Council
24 June 2016, from 13:30 to 15:00 hrs
Room IX, Palais des Nations, Geneva
Accountability and remedy for business-related human rights abuse have been key advocacy objectives for many human rights organizations over the years.
Accountability and remedy have been identified as being some of the most salient normative and governance gaps in business and human rights. States and international organizations are now taking some action in response to those gaps and are considering initiatives and ways to tackle accountability and remedy deficits.
The Human Rights Council is currently engaged in a treaty-making process through an Intergovernmental Working Group, and it is considering a report by OHCHR on Accountability and Remedy during its 32nd session. Just one week prior, the International Labour Conference carried out crucial deliberations about ways to address those governance gaps and promote decent work in the global supply chain and to deter abuse.
This panel will look at these issues from the perspective of civil society and practitioners’ work, drawing from concrete experiences, recent achievements in the field and ongoing concerns.
Introduction:
- Surya Deva, UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights
Panel:
- Gabriela Kletzel – CELS
- Richard Meeran – Leigh Day
- Anna Biondi – ILO
- Gaëlle Dusepulchre- FIDH
- Moderator : Carlos López – ICJ
From the groundbreaking work to investigate and prosecute serious abuse against workers during the Argentinian military regime to the forward looking work of litigators of cases concerning parent and subsidiary companies’ responsibilities, exploring the new paths being broken in the recent International Labour Conference’s decisions on decent work on supply chains and the UN IGWG on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights, this panel will discuss ways in which these initiatives may address the crucial issues of accountability and remedy looking at past and present achievements and plans for the future.
The event flyer may be downloaded (PDF) here: Past abuses and remaining challenges_flyer_side event_HRC32
The event is organized by ICJ, Franciscans International, FIDH and CELS.
