Mar 27, 2013 | Agendas, Events
Lawyers from all five Central Asian countries participate in the seminar (28-29 March 2013) to discuss the independence of bar associations and problems faced by lawyers in working independently and effectively.
This ICJ roundtable seminar, organized in cooperation with the Central Asian League of Lawyers and to be held in Almaty, Kazakhstan, will address issues including the self-governance and organization of bar associations, their relationships with state bodies, lawyers and the public, entrance to the legal profession, lawyers’ codes of ethics, and disciplinary proceedings against lawyers.
It will also discuss problems faced by lawyers in criminal cases, in both the pre-trial and trial stages, and incidents of harassment or intimidation of lawyers.
Europe-CIS-ICJ Seminar Central Asia-event-agenda-2013 (full text in pdf)
Mar 25, 2013 | News
Beatrice Mtetwa was eventually released today after mounting pressure from human rights groups and legal bodies, including the ICJ.
High Court Judge Joseph Musakwa finally decided to grant bail to Beatrice Mtetwa, under three conditions: that she deposits $500, that she resides at the given address and that she does not interfere with the ongoing investigations.
The ICJ believes that the politically-motivated harassment against Mtetwa is a threat to the legal profession in Zimbabwe – intended to alarm lawyers and intimidate them from providing independent representation.
Beatrice Mtetwa was arrested after attempting to come to the aid of her clients, Thabani Mpofu, Felix Matsinde, Anna Muzvidziwa and Worship Dumba, all MDC-T members, the opposition party.
The government has cracked down hard on dissidents as Zimbabwe approaches presidential elections.
Mar 22, 2013 | News
The ICJ and other legal groups have expressed their outrage at the continued detention of Zimbabwean lawyer and human rights activist, Beatrice Mtetwa, after she was denied bail.
This was despite the fact that Mtetwa was improperly held before the court after the police had refused to comply with a High Court order to release her, the Pan African Lawyers Union (PALU), SADC Lawyers Association (SADC LA) and Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC) and the ICJ said.
It is perturbing that the Police would use a lower Court, to undermine a standing decision of a higher Court, and that the lower Court would allow itself to be so used, they also said.
Moreover, it is absurd that Mtetwa, a lawyer of 30 years’ standing in Zimbabwe, could be denied bail on the basis that she would interfere with police investigations, they added.
While the ICJ, PALU, SADC LA and SALC have learnt with disappointment of the postponement of Mtetwa’s bail appeal hearing from the 22nd of March 2013 to the 25th of March 2013, they have faith that Mtetwa will be vindicated and released by the High Court.
The concerted efforts to keep Mtetwa behind bars represent a calculated attempt by sections of the Zimbabwean Government to break her spirit and deter her from representing the many Zimbabweans who daily face harassment and intimidation from the state’s security services.
Over the years, Mtetwa has stood by these victims of government and police repression and is regarded as a hindrance by the police and security sector to their illegal activities.
The action against Mtetwa is a threat to the legal profession in Zimbabwe – intended to alarm lawyers and intimidate them from providing independent representation.
As the country edges towards elections, the persecution of lawyers and other actors can only be expected to escalate, judging from the number of civil society representatives and human rights defenders who have fallen victim to police harassment in the past few weeks.
The police’s actions stand in marked contrast to calls by the most senior political authorities in Zimbabwe for peace and tolerance as the country moves towards elections.
That no heed is paid to these calls by the police force is indicative of the widespread and endemic impunity enjoyed by the security sector. It is the clearest indication that, as matters stand, there exists little prospect for free and fair elections.
The ICJ, PALU, SADC LA and SALC urge the Southern African Development Community (SADC) as the Guarantor of Zimbabwe’s Global Political Agreement and President Jacob Zuma as the mediator in Zimbabwe’s political crisis to take action and urge the Government of Zimbabwe to release Mtetwa from prison and end the politically-motivated persecution of her.
The legal groups also urge the African Union and the international community to prevail upon the Zimbabwean Government to release Mtetwa.
They also call on the police and the judiciary in Zimbabwe to discharge their duties in an independent and impartial manner if the people of Zimbabwe are to have confidence in the judicial system as the country moves towards elections.
Contact:
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Africa Director, +27 73 131 8411; e-mail: arnold.tsunga(at)icj.org
Mar 22, 2013 | News
Indonesia’s resumption of the death penalty after a four-year moratorium is a major setback for the country’s human rights record, the ICJ said today.
Indonesia executed Adami Wilson Bin Adam on 15 March 2013. After the execution, Indonesia’s Attorney General Basrief Arief announced that the government was set to execute nine more convicts this year.
“The Indonesian government should immediately reverse its decision to proceed with more executions in defiance of global trends toward the abolition of the death penalty,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s International Legal Advisor for Southeast Asia in Bangkok. “At least 150 countries have now either abolished the death penalty or instituted an official or unofficial moratorium. There is a growing understanding around the world that the death penalty is an unacceptable assault on rights and dignity.”
Adami Wilson Bin Adam was convicted in 2004 for smuggling one kilogram of heroin into the country. In Indonesia, the law prescribes the penalty of death for trafficking narcotics.
During its Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in 2012 at the UN Human Rights Council, Indonesia rejected recommendations to abolish the death penalty or establish a moratorium on executions.
In its reply, the Government of Indonesia said that death penalty is imposed “selectively only for serious crimes.” However, the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, in his report, emphasized that “the death penalty should be eliminated for crimes such as economic crimes and drug-related offences.”
Indonesia last carried out executions four years ago. In 2008 it executed three men convicted of the 2002 Bali bombings.
“This execution undermines Indonesia’s repeated efforts to position itself as a regional human rights leader,” Gil added. “Its resumption of executions is indeed a very grave setback not only for Indonesia, but also for the region and ASEAN, the Association of South East Asia Nations.”
The ICJ says that use of the death penalty violates the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
Last November 2012, the UN General Assembly issued a resolution calling on all Member States to establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty.
The resolution was adopted by an overwhelming number of votes from Member States. Indonesia abstained from the vote.
The ICJ calls Indonesia to immediately ratify the 2nd Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which obligates State Parties to take all necessary measures to abolish the death penalty.
In the immediate term, the country should implement a moratorium on the practice, the ICJ adds.
Mar 22, 2013 | Feature articles, News
The inclusion of an amnesty provision, which could cover the worst possible crimes, in Nepal’s new Truth, Reconciliation and Disappearance Ordinance, will make it impossible for thousands of victims of gross human rights violations to obtain justice, ICJ and other right groups said today.
The Asian Centre for Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists and TRIAL pointed to fundamental flaws in Nepal’s new law, passed by President Ram Baran Yadav on March 14, 2013.
“The new ordinance leaves open the door to amnesties for persons implicated in gross human rights violations and crimes under international law,” said Ben Schonveld, ICJ’s South Asia director in Kathmandu. “Amnesties for serious rights violations are prohibited under international law and betray the victims, who would be denied justice in the name of political expediency.”
At least 13,000 people were killed and over 1,300 subjected to enforced disappearance in Nepal’s decade-long conflict between government forces and Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) combatants.
The fighting ended with the signing of the 2006 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, consolidating a series of commitments to human rights.
However, the government has yet to take steps to ensure that those responsible for crimes under international law during the fighting are identified and prosecuted.
International and local human rights groups have consistently decried the government’s efforts to side-step promises of justice and accountability, represented most recently by this new ordinance.
The revised ordinance calls for the formation of a high-level commission to investigate serious human rights violations committed during Nepal’s armed conflict from 1996 to 2006.
It grants the commission discretion to recommend amnesty for a perpetrator if the grounds for that determination are deemed reasonable.
The government then decides whether to grant an amnesty. There is no definition of what is reasonable.
Confusion over scope of amnesty provision
The ordinance states that “serious crimes,” including rape, cannot be recommended for an amnesty, but it does not define what other “serious crimes” are not subject to an amnesty.
Gross violations of human rights, such as extrajudicial killing, torture and enforced disappearance, are not mentioned.
Torture and enforced disappearance are not specific crimes under Nepali domestic criminal law.
The organizations expressed concern that the commission’s powers to recommend prosecution may mean little without crimes being adequately defined in law.
The final decision on whether to prosecute can only be made by the attorney general, a political appointee of the government, instead of an independent entity.
Human Rights Watch, ICJ and TRIAL have previously documented the systematic failures of the Nepali criminal law system to address serious human rights violations.
“Nepal has had years to investigate some 1,300 suspected enforced disappearances during the conflict and thousands of other human rights violations, but it has failed to deliver any credible or effective investigations,” said TRIAL Director Philip Grant in Geneva. “The provisions on prosecution contained in this ordinance don’t appear to be strong enough to overcome Nepal’s entrenched practices of safeguarding impunity by withdrawing cases or failing to pursue credible allegations. It does not leave victims with much faith that the commission will fulfill its mandate to end impunity.”
Call for review and consultation
The organizations called upon the government to establish a mechanism to review and amend the legislation in consultation with victims of human rights abuses and representatives of civil society.
“This ordinance was signed by the prime minister and president in record time without any consultation with conflict victims and civil society,” Schonveld added. “If the government had carried out proper consultations, the result would have been different, and we wouldn’t have an ordinance that entrenches impunity.”
The rights organizations also expressed concern about the ordinance’s heavy emphasis on reconciliation at the possible expense of justice for victims.
The ordinance cedes authority to the commission to implement “inter-personal reconciliation” between victim and perpetrator, even if neither the victim nor the perpetrator requests it, which could result in pressure being placed on a victim to give up any claims against a perpetrator.
Although the ordinance mentions the need for victim and witness protection, there are no specific safeguards to ensure the safety and security of victims who become involved in reconciliation processes.
Violation of international obligation for political expediency
Under international law, Nepal is obliged to take effective measures to protect human rights, including the right to life and freedom from torture and other ill-treatment.
Where a violation occurs, Nepali authorities must investigate, institute criminal proceedings, and ensure victims are afforded access to effective remedy and reparations.
“The passage of this ordinance is just the latest example of the Nepali government’s cynical willingness to trade meaningful justice and accountability for political expediency,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The government is kidding itself if it thinks it can ignore the voices of Nepal’s thousands of victims of human rights abuses. Nepal needs meaningful government initiatives to address its human rights problems, not the veneer of justice that this flawed ordinance represents.”
Contact:
In Kathmandu, for ICJ, Ben Schonveld: ben.schonveld(at)icj.org
In Bangkok, for ICJ, Sheila Varadan: +66-857-200-723; sheila.varadan(at)icj.org
Mar 22, 2013 | News
The Dalai Lama and the International Campaign for Tibet (ICT) will honour the ICJ with the Light of Truth Award in recognition of the organization’s consistent support of the Tibetan cause over six decades.
The Award will be presented to ICJ Secretary-General Wilder Tayler at a ceremony in Fribourg, Switzerland, on 13 April 2013.
The ICT presents the Light of Truth Award to individuals and institutions who have made significant contributions to the public understanding of Tibet and the struggle for human rights and democratic freedoms for the Tibetan people.
The award itself is an antique Tibetan butter lamp, symbolizing the light that each recipient has shed on the Tibet issue.
In addition to the ICJ, there will be four other Light of Truth Awardees in 2013, including ICJ Honorary Member Theo van Boven. Professor van Boven is a Dutch jurist and professor emeritus in international law, a former UN Rapporteur on Torture and served as ICJ Vice-President in the 1990s. He will be awarded for putting the spotlight on Tibet within and beyond the United Nations system.
Other honorees include Professor Dr. Christian Schwarz-Schilling, former German Minister and Parliamentarian, who has been working in a low-key manner for many years on the issue of the Tibetan-Chinese relationship; Ms. Sigrid Joss-Arnd, the longest-standing member of the Swiss Red Cross officials who was involved in helping Tibetans in the diaspora from the early 1960s; and Mr. Robert Ford, CBE, for his tireless advocacy on Tibet for more than half a century. Mr Ford is the only Westerner who was given official ranking in the Tibetan government before 1950 and he was imprisoned by the Chinese authorities for nearly five years.
The Light of Truth Award is the most prestigious award in the Tibet movement and has been presented by His Holiness the Dalai Lama, on behalf of the ICT, for many years.
Previous recipients include Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the late Václav Havel, Chinese scholar and writer Wang Lixiong, and film director Martin Scorsese.
At the ceremony, French politician and doctor Bernard Kouchner, former Minister in the French government and co-founder of the international humanitarian organization Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders (MSF) will introduce the Dalai Lama.
Photo/Phuntsog/Namgyal Archive
