Dec 9, 2014 | News
On the eve of the 64th annual world Human Rights Day, the ICJ urges the Pakistani Government to promptly constitute a strong and effective National Human Rights Commission that is compliant with the UN Principles relating to the Status of National Institutions (Paris Principles).
“Independent and credible national human rights institutions can be helpful for protecting and promoting human rights,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Director for Asia and the Pacific. “The Pakistan Government has been inexplicably dragging its feet despite repeated promises to constitute the Commission.”
In South Asia, India, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bangladesh have established National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs), making Pakistan a regional exception.
“A properly constituted national human rights commission will not by itself fix any country’s human rights problems, but it can be part of the solution,” said Zarifi. “Pakistan can and should learn from the lessons of failed NHRIs in the region and constitute an institution that can address the real needs of all people in the country.”
Pakistan passed the National Commission for Human Rights Act in 2012. The law provides for an independent commission with broad powers to promote human rights and to investigate human rights violations.
However, the law significantly limits the Commission’s mandate where the armed forces are accused of committing human rights violations.
In such cases, the Commission is only authorized to seek a report from the Government, and make recommendations if it sees fit.
The law further emphasizes that the functions of the Commission “do not include inquiring into the act or practices of the intelligence agencies”.
“The proposed Commission’s restricted mandate over the armed forces, and especially the intelligence agencies, is of grave concern given that Pakistan’s military and intelligence services are accused of perpetrating gross human rights violations, including enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and torture and ill-treatment,” Zarifi added.
“A human rights commission that does not have jurisdiction over abuses by these actors risks being toothless and ineffective—and worst, a cover for continuing government inaction in response to these violations.”
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser (London), t: +44 7889565691; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Background:
Section 3 (a) (ii) of the Paris Principles, which provide the minimum standards required by national human rights institutions to be considered credible and effective, states that a NHRI should have the power to hear a matter without higher referral over “any situation of violation of human rights which it decides to take up”.
Because of the proposed Commission’s limited mandate over the military, it is questionable whether the proposed National Human Rights Commission is compliant with the Paris Principles.
During its 2012 Universal Periodic Review, Pakistan accepted multiple recommendations to speedily operationalize the National Commission for Human Rights.
Over two years since the Review, there has been little progress in constituting the Commission, let alone amending the law establishing the Commission to ensure that it complies with the Paris Principles.
Dec 5, 2014 | Multimedia items, News, Video clips
Jacqueline Dugard, Hina Jilani, Rodrigo Uprimny Yepes, Gilles Badet, Alejandra Ancheita and Harsh Mander talk about their experience and the situation of economic, social and cultural rights in their respective countries.
These prominent participants in ICJ’s Geneva Forum 2014 give their views on judicial protection of economic, social and cultural rights (ESCR) as well as on what needs to be changed to address obstacles to guarantee an effective remedy for victims of violations of their socio-economic rights.
They also tell about the main opportunities and key challenges for the realization of ESCR in their respective countries.
The 2014 Geneva Forum of Judges and Lawyers is a joint initiative of the ICJ Center for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers (CIJL) and the ICJ Programme on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
It has been made possible with the support of the République et Canton de Genève, the Permanent Mission of Germany to the United Nations in Geneva, and the Taipei Bar Association.
Dec 4, 2014 | Events, News
Today and tomorrow, the ICJ welcomes judges and lawyers from all regions of the world to discuss the “Judicial Enforcement of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”.
The 2014 Geneva Forum of Judges and Lawyers is a joint initiative of the ICJ Center for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers (CIJL) and the ICJ Programme on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Participants are exchanging views on the progress made over the past two decades, including the entry into force of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in May 2013.
The Protocol allows individuals to bring complaints of violations of such rights to an independent international body of experts for adjudication.
Discussions are held also in relation to challenges to the justiciability of these rights, including as regards the principle of separation of powers between the judicial, executive and legislative branches of government.
Managing potential implications for public human and financial resources of judicial orders for enforcement of ESCR, and the conflicts that may arise between state development plans, public interest and the interests and rights of the individuals, will also be topics of discussion.
Participants are invited to ground the discussion of conceptual issues in examples from their own actual experience and practice in their national jurisdictions.
Alejandra Ancheita, recent winner of the Martin Ennals Award 2014 – The Nobel Prize of Human Rights – is among the guest speakers.
A report of the discussions will be published in 2015.
The draft agenda for the 2014 Geneva Forum is available here:
Universal-Programme GVA Forum 2014-Events-2014-ENG (English)
Universal-Programme GVA Forum 2014-Events-2014-ESP (Español)
The 2014 Geneva Forum has been made possible with the support of the République et Canton de Genève, the Permanent Mission of Germany to the United Nations in Geneva, and the Taipei Bar Association.
The Geneva Forum has been convened annually by the CIJL since 2010.
Information on, and reports of, the previous Geneva Forums can be found here:
Geneva Forum 2013 (photo)
Geneva Forum Series no. 1: Women and the Judiciary
Geneva Forum 2012
Third Geneva Forum for Judges and Lawyers: the report is published
Geneva Forum 2011
2nd ICJ Geneva Forum of Judges and Lawyers: final report
Geneva Forum 2010
1st ICJ Geneva Forum of Judges and Lawyers: accountable national security policies – the role of judges and legal practitioners
Dec 3, 2014 | News
The December 2 conviction of journalist David Bergman on contempt charges by the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) further shrinks the narrowing space for observers to comment on the war crimes proceedings, the ICJ, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch said.
Bergman (photo) was sentenced to a symbolic “simple imprisonment till the rising of the court” and a fine of Taka 5,000 (about US$56) for comments he made in three separate blog postings regarding legal proceedings before the ICT.
The ICT is a specially constituted court set up to bring to account those responsible for grave violations of international law during the country’s 1971 war of independence.
Concerns over its statute, rules of procedure, and practices have been raised since its inception, including by international monitors and legal experts.
“The ICT is dealing with incredibly complex factual and emotional issues of tremendous interest to people in Bangladesh and across the world, and part of this process is establishing public confidence in the legal system,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Director for Asia. “Holding a credible and highly regarded journalist in contempt for raising important questions doesn’t end the debate surrounding the ICT’s performance, in fact it undermines confidence in the court’s commitment to justice.”
Download the full story in PDF here:
Bangladesh-Conviction of Journalist-News-Press release-2014-ENG
Dec 3, 2014 | News
Vani Sathisan, ICJ’s International Legal Adviser in Myanmar, and Carlos Lopez, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser on Business and Human Rights made presentations at the annual Business and Human Rights Forum.
Vani Sathisan’s statement highlighted the State duty to protect human rights and provide access to remedies; the need for greater cooperation between businesses and local communities; and possibilities for home governments to cooperate on business and human rights issues.
She underscored that the State duty to protect, respect and fulfil human rights is one that is already grounded in international human rights law and accordingly, Myanmar must adopt and enforce laws – including policies, legislation, and regulations – that are preventative and remedial, and to regulate business conduct and protect the economic, social and cultural rights of its people.
Without proper investment, land and environmental laws, as well as an effective judiciary to enforce these laws and provide appropriate judicial remedies, development projects risk being counterproductive for sustainable development and the protection of human rights in Myanmar.
This panel discussion can be viewed on the UN’s Web TV.
Carlos Lopez Carlos Lopez focused on the work of the Committee on the rights of the child on business and human rights through the adoption of General Comment 16 on States obligations regarding the impact of business on the rights of the child.
The Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights do not establish legal obligations, but elaborate on the practical implications of those obligations. The legal obligations for States to protect, respect and fulfil human rights are contained in international human rights treaties. One of them is the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Besides examining State reports and providing conclusions and recommendations, the Committee elaborates General Comments to assist States in their implementation of their legal obligations under the Convention. In February 2013 the Committee adopted General Comment 16 on States obligations regarding the business impacts on the rights of the child. This General Comment was necessary:
· First, because in the Committee’s examination of State reports the issue of impacts of economic actors had arisen repeatedly. The General Comment is a more organized response to these practical and recurrent issues.
· Second, the Committee considered that the existing instruments and guidance did not sufficiently address the particular situation and needs of children. GC16 aims at fulfilling that gap in relation with States while the UNICEF Child Rights and Business Principles does so in relation to business enterprises.
The Committee, with the support of a core group comprising UNICEF, ICJ, Save the Children and OHCHR started a process of reflection, research and global and regional consultations (these took place in Kenya, India and Argentina and an international seminar was held in Sion, Switzerland.
This panel discussion can be viewed on the UN’s Web TV.
Carlos Lopez also moderated a Panel on the rights of the child and business enterprises, under the title Measures for implementing the Convention on the Rights of the Child in the context of business operations.
Dec 2, 2014 | News
Today, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its judgment in the joint cases of A, B and C v. Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie.
It affirms the need for national authorities to undertake individualized credibility assessments in asylum cases involving claims of persecution based on sexual orientation.
The ruling concerned a request for a preliminary ruling from the Netherlands, through its Council of State, to the CJEU.
The cases arose from three applications for asylum in the Netherlands by three men claiming a well-founded fear of persecution in their countries of origin based on their alleged same-sex sexual orientation.
The Dutch authorities rejected each asylum claim on the basis that each applicant had failed to prove his same-sex sexual orientation.
The Council of State asked the CJEU what limits the EU Qualification Directive and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and in particular article 3 (right to the integrity of the person) and article 7 (respect for private and family life), impose on the method of assessing the credibility of a declared sexual orientation, and whether these limits are different from those applying to the assessment of credibility in asylum claims based on other grounds.
Interpreting the Qualification Directive in light of articles 3 and 7 of the Charter, as well as article 1, i.e. human dignity, the Court held that EU law does impose certain requirements on refugee status determination authorities.
The ICJ welcomes the Court’s determination that the competent domestic authorities must ensure that any credibility assessment method must allow for an individualized consideration of each applicant’s claim, having regard to its specific features, and that it is the duty of the State to cooperate with the applicant in the context of the assessment of all the relevant elements of her or his claim.
The ICJ welcomes a number of other aspects of the ruling, including:
- The emphasis on the Netherland’s need to comply with the Charter of Fundamental Rights;
- The fact that the Court firmly came down against seemingly intrusive and lewd questioning of an applicant’s sexual practices and proclivities, which it held to be contrary to respect for private and family life; and,
- The Court’s awareness of the particular challenges relating to the disclosure of one’s sexuality. The court noted that an applicant may be understandably reticent in revealing intimate aspects of his or her life and that therefore late disclosure of same-sex sexual orientation should not necessarily undermine the applicant’s credibility.
See also the ICJ’s commentary on the CJEU judgment in X, Y and Z v. Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel.
