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.
Oct 30, 2018 | News
The ICJ today called upon the Government of Sri Lanka to abide by the Constitution and its international obligations in peacefully resolving the current political crisis, and for all political leaders to commit to respect for human rights and the rule of law.
To this end, President Maithripala Sirisena (photo) should reconvene Parliament to end the constitutional crisis in line with the rule of law and democratic norms.
The ICJ urged the Government to deliver on its commitment to the transitional justice process, including by holding those responsible for human rights violations and abuses accountable, and complying with the obligations set out in United Nations Human Rights Council Resolutions 30/1 and 34/1.
It is with grave concern that the ICJ has observed the unfolding of events in Sri Lanka since the evening of October 26, 2018.
Following the withdrawal of the United People’s Freedom Alliance from the National Unity Government, President Maithripala Sirisena, in an unexpected move, appointed Former President and Member of Parliament Mahinda Rajapaksa as the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka.
These actions have transpired in disregard of safeguards set out in the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, which limit the power of the President to remove the Prime Minister at will.
The Amendment spells out specific instances during which the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka ceases to hold office under the law.
The ICJ is concerned at the President’s move to prorogue Parliament until 16 November in what appears to be an effort to avoid parliamentary scrutiny of his actions. The move has exacerbated political tensions.
“The ICJ is alarmed that Mahinda Rajapaksa, who has yet to be held accountable for the well-documented human rights violations committed during his previous tenure, has been appointed Prime Minister – in apparent violation of the Constitution,” said Frederick Rawski, Asia Pacific Director for the ICJ.
Incidents of violence and the takeover of government-controlled media by supporters of Mahinda Rajapaksa raise fears of an imminent return to the human rights violations and abusive practices which were widespread during his term.
ICJ also noted with concern ongoing crackdowns on the media and other attacks on human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The ICJ stressed that the removal of the Prime Minister in violation of the law or constitutional provisions would constitute a violation of Sri Lanka’s commitments to the international community, set out in UN Human Rights Council resolutions in 2015 and 2017, to strengthen good governance and protect democratic institutions.
The ICJ also expressed concern that political instability, or the return of an unrepentant and unaccountable Mahinda Rajakpaksa to political power, would endanger progress made on fulfilling Sri Lanka’s commitments to press forward with transitional justice processes, and its legal obligations to ensure accountability for past human rights violations and abuses, as set out in both resolutions.
“The failure to address past abuses, and to fully implement UN Human Rights Council Resolutions 30/1 and 34/1, has helped set the stage for the current political turmoil, and the possible return of an authoritarian figure who has proven his disrespect for human rights and the rule of law over and over,” said Frederick Rawski.
“The Human Rights Council will be watching closely to assess whether Sri Lanka is in breach of its commitments. Any serious threat to progress on human rights accountability will compel the establishment of an independent accountability mechanism,” he added.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Pacific Regional Director, t: +66 2 619 84 77 ; e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Oct 1, 2018 | News
From 29 to 30 September 2018, the ICJ convened a 2nd two-day workshop on application of international law and standards, remarkably focusing on the Minnesota protocol, with special reference to investigation of alleged unlawful killings and enforced disappearances for public prosecutors of Nepal.
The workshop was organized by the ICJ South Asia office and took place as part of the ICJ’s Global Redress and Accountability Initiative, “increasing the knowledge and capacity of lawyers, prosecutors and investigators to deal with challenges of impunity and access to redress.”
The participants of the workshop included 18 public prosecutors working in District Government Office in Kathmandu, Lalitpur, Bhaktapur and Kavrepalanchok, Nepal.
The event started with opening remarks by the Attorney General of Nepal and former minister of Law and Justice, Agni Kharel.
In the opening remarks, Agni Kharel highlighted both commitments made and efforts by the Nepal government in order to protect and promote human rights as well as justice for victims of human rights violations.
Expressing pleasure on the theme of the workshop, he also said the public prosecutors will be benefited as well as be competent to use the knowledge and learning from the workshop in their works.
Senior Legal Consultant of the ICJ Nepal – Govinda Bandi, one of the experts of the workshop and speaker of the opening ceremony, highlighted the objectives of the workshop.
Kingsley Abbott, Senior International Legal Adviser at the ICJ, presented an overview of the relevant international human rights legal framework that applies to the investigation of alleged killing and enforced disappearances.
He further presented an introduction and overview of the revised Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016) and ICJ practitioners Guide no. 9. Both instruments were core materials used at the workshop.
Other speakers included Govinda Bandi, Senior Legal Consultant at the ICJ, who presented on the relevance of the Minnesota protocol in investigating on alleged unlawful killing and enforced disappearances.
Prof. Dr. Hariwar Wasti, Medico-legal expert at the IOM Department of Forensic Medicine of Government of Nepal, presented a power point presentation on the role of forensics in the investigation of gross human rights violations with reference to the Minnesota Protocol.
The workshop focused on investigation techniques of alleged unlawful killings highlighting the significance of public prosecutors in Nepal.
It was also focused on collection and preserving the security of evidences and potential use of the evidences for victims’ right to justice and reparation.
The workshop also covered medico-legal documentation techniques of crime scene and dead wearing tie body, collection of DNA evidence, and drafting of autopsy reports and crime file management.
It was also discussed and outlined some approaches of using the Minnesota protocol in Nepal in the final session of the workshop.
This workshop followed the national workshop the ICJ hosted between 13 to 14 July 2018 in Dhulikhel, Nepal on the investigation of alleged unlawful deaths and enforced disappearances for more than 20 human rights lawyers from diverse regions of Nepal.
Sep 6, 2018 | News
The ICJ welcomed the Supreme Court’s judgment in Navtej Singh Johar et al v. Union of India and others, which effectively ends the threat to a large segment of the Indian population that they will be held criminally liable for exercising their human rights.
The Court has issued a long-overdue ruling that the criminalization of consensual same-sex relationships under Section 377 violates the Indian Constitution, and is in breach of India’s obligations under international law. This long-awaited judgment testifies to the work of activists and lawyers in India, who have shown the potential of the law to affirm human rights and equality.
“This judgment will not only have an impact in India. Its influence should extend across the world. The ICJ hopes that it will provide an impetus for other countries, especially those of the Commonwealth of Nations, to revoke similar provisions that criminalize consensual sexual relations,” ICJ Asia Pacific Director Frederick Rawski stated.
The Court underscored that provisions of Section 377 contravened international law and standards on equality, privacy, non-discrimination and dignity guaranteed in international human rights treaties to which India is a party. These include the International Covenant Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights.
The Court also noted that the Yogyakarta Principles, which address sexual orientation and gender identity in international law, reinforce these protections. This is a vital jurisprudential recognition that LGBTI persons are entitled to full equality, and protection of their rights under India’s Constitutional and international human rights law.
In the judgement, which reverses the December 2013 Koushal decision, the Court held that discrimination based on sexual orientation is a violation of fundamental rights to autonomy, privacy, equality, dignity, and non-discrimination. It underscored that decriminalization of homosexuality is only the first step and that LGBTI persons are entitled to equal citizenship in all its manifestations. The Court also recommended that wide publicity be given to judgment to ensure de-stigmatization of identity through sensitization training on barriers to access to justice faced by LGBTI persons.
“Even a landmark decision by the Indian Supreme Court cannot alone end the discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. It is time for the Indian Parliament to conduct wide-ranging review of existing legal framework, repeal discriminatory laws, and address other gaps in the law that prevent LGBT persons from fully exercising their rights,” Rawski added.
Background
For background, see the ICJ’s July 2018 Briefing Paper on Navtej Singh Johar et al. v. Union of India and Others, and its February 2017 report, “Unnatural Offences”: Obstacles to Justice in India Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.
Contact
Maitreyi Gupta (Delhi), ICJ International Legal Advisor for India
e: maitreyi.gupta(a)icj.org, t: +91 7756028369
Sep 3, 2018 | News
The ICJ held a workshop on reforming Myanmar’s 1982 citizenship law in Yangon from 1 to 2 September 2018.
The workshop convened a group of international and national legal experts, human rights defenders, political scientist, academics and researchers to jointly consider the way forward to identify creative legal and non-legal advocacy approaches for reforming Myanmar’s 1982 Citizenship Law.
The ICJ, UN organs and civil society organizations, through research and legal analysis, have consistently found this law to be discriminatory both in its content and application.
Unlike many other laws promulgated during the military junta era of General Ne Win, this law remains in force. Its tiered hierarchy of citizenship has effectively rendered many individuals as second- or third-class citizens, or in some instances stateless.
In August 2017, the government’s own Advisory Commission on Rakhine State, chaired by the late Kofi Annan, recommended a review of the Citizenship Law. The recommendation was accepted by the Government of Myanmar in principle, but in practice this commitment has not been followed up by any implementing measures.
The workshop’s participants included academics, researchers, human rights defenders, political scientist, legal and non-legal experts of different ethnic and religious backgrounds from a range of organizations from the U.K, Spain, Australia, Kachin, Chin, Mandalay, Rakhine, and Yangon.
The ICJ’s legal adviser, Sean Bain, introduced the workshop by noting that legal recognition of nationality is central to the enjoyment of many human rights.
Noting that protecting the right to nationality is an essential part of the rule of law in any democratic society, he highlighted that too often it is members of minority groups who experience a violation of their human rights due to discriminatory laws and their application with regards to citizenship.
The ICJ’s legal researcher Dr. Ja Seng Ing presented the overview and assessment of the Citizenship Law, including problematic provisions and key institutional actors with authority in Myanmar.
Amal de Chickera, a Sri Lankan Human Rights lawyer and Co-Director of Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion, delivered an introduction on the International law and comparative studies and the approaches and strategies for law reform from international perspectives.
José María Arraiza, Information, Counselling and Legal Assistance Specialist, Norwegian Refugee Council, spoke about a number of approaches and strategies for legal reform, including imperative role of collective identities, inclusive dialogue and evidence based advocacy strategies with comparative international experiences.
Michelle Yesudas, a Malaysian Human Rights lawyer, shared good practices and lesson learned from application of strategic litigation in citizenship related cases in Malaysian context to raise the awareness of the public and also discussed potential strategies for pushing the legislative reform and enforcement of the law in Myanmar.
The ICJ’s legal adviser Daw Hnin Win Aung, facilitated a panel discussion where the Senior legal scholars and researchers from Myanmar also provided their perspectives, based on their own independent research and writing on the legal and non-legal opportunities and challenges for law reform in Myanmar.
Advocate lawyer, Daw Zar Li Aye highlighted the legal consequences of mixed-nationality marriage in Myanmar, for instance, the authorities used physical appearance of the children as a determining factor when considering provision of citizenship / documentation in practice.
The participants considered a wide range of issues relating to statelessness and citizenship in Myanmar with comparative case studies, including the varying approaches for law reform across the region to improve understanding of the advocacy target groups on the issue and potentially inform public policy.
The participants also recognized the importance of multidisciplinary approaches, including strategic litigation in citizenship related cases, for developing advocacy strategies for law reform and to increase knowledge and understanding of the general public on the issue.
This event is part of the ICJ’s ongoing efforts to convene civil society actors including lawyers to discuss critical human rights issues in Myanmar with a view to advancing the protection of human rights in the country.
