Mar 21, 2013 | News
A resolution adopted today by the UN Human Rights Council highlights the Sri Lankan Government’s ongoing failure to provide accountability for serious violations of human rights and the laws of war, the ICJ said.
“The ICJ welcomes this resolution as it underscores the international community’s continuing concern about the horrific atrocities committed by all sides to the Sri Lankan conflict,” said Alex Conte, Director of ICJ’s International Law and Protection Programmes. “The UN, as well as the Commonwealth and other international organizations interested in helping the Sri Lankan people, should now press and assist the Sri Lankan Government to show tangible implementation of their oft-repeated promises.”
Twenty-five States supported the resolution, following from a similar resolution adopted by the Council on Sri Lanka last year.
The resolution reiterates the need for the Sri Lankan Government to demonstrate tangible steps to ensure accountability for violations of human rights and the laws of war, especially during the final months of the three-decade long conflict in 2009.
In particular, the resolution calls on the Sri Lankan Government to implement the recommendations of its own Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC).
The LLRC was widely criticized by Sri Lankan civil society as well as international observers as falling short of international standards of providing accountability.
“Sri Lanka has a long history of promising justice but delivering impunity, and the LLRC is only the most recent example of that. With this resolution, the international community shows it wants to see concrete action,” Conte added. “Not only has the Sri Lankan Government not addressed the violations of the past, but there are strong indications that the rule of law has significantly deteriorated.”
The resolution notes with concern the ongoing reports of human rights violations being committed with impunity in Sri Lanka, including enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings and torture.
In October 2012, the ICJ released a 150-page report Authority without Accountability: The Crisis of Impunity in Sri Lanka, documenting the systematic erosion of accountability mechanisms in Sri Lanka.
In recent months, Sri Lanka’s Government has stepped up its assaults on the independent functioning of the judiciary. In particular, the country’s Chief Justice was removed from office after she had challenged the legality of Government efforts to consolidate authority. The heavily politicized impeachment process was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka and was inconsistent with international human rights law and standards.
“In light of this resolution and the situation in Sri Lanka, the Commonwealth should change its plans to hold the 2013 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Colombo,” said Conte. “Sri Lanka has demonstrated its rejection of the Commonwealth Principles, notably democracy, the independence of the judiciary and human rights. This will no doubt be further confirmed when the High Commissioner for Human Rights presents her oral update to the Human Rights Council in September this year, just two months ahead of the scheduled Heads of Government Meeting.”
The ICJ has urged the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG), which meets next month, to address the human rights situation in Sri Lanka with the objective of removing its right to host the Heads of Government Meeting.
CONTACT:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, (Bangkok); t:+66(0) 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(at)icj.org
Sheila Varadan, ICJ Legal Advisor, South Asia Programme (Bangkok); t: +66 857200723; email: sheila.varadan(at)icj.org
NOTES:
- The resolution of the Council was adopted by 25 votes in favor, 13 against and 8 abstentions (with Congo, Ecuador, Indonesia, Kuweit, Maldives, Mauritania, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Thailand, Uganda, United Arab Emirates and Venezuela voting against; and Angola, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Malaysia abstaining)
- The resolution was led by the United States of America and co-sponsored by Austria, Canada, Estonia, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Spain, and Switzerland; as well as by the following non-member States of the Council: Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Malta, Monaco, Norway, Portugal, Saint Kitss and Nevis, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
- In January 2012, Chief Justice Dr Shirani Bandaranayake was removed in an impeachment process that violated international standards of due process and was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The impeachment was widely condemned internationally. The ICJ issued a letter supported by fifty-six senior jurists from over thirty countries worldwide.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Open letter: Sri Lanka should not host the 2013 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting
ICJ calls for International Commission of Inquiry on accountability in Sri Lanka
The International Commission of Jurists welcomes key Human Rights Council resolution on Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka: judges around the world condemn impeachment of Chief Justice Dr Shirani Bandaranayake
Mar 18, 2013 | News
The ICJ and other legal groups express their deepest concern at the unlawful arrest and detention of prominent Zimbabwean human rights lawyer, Beatrice Mtetwa and officials of the MDC-T party.
Beatrice Mtetwa was arrested after attempting to come to the aid of her clients, Thabani Mpofu, Felix Matsinde, Anna Muzvidziwa and Worship Dumba. Mtetwa had sought to ensure that the search of the communications office of the MDC-T and the arrest of the four complied with legal requirements, demanding that the police produce a search warrant. She was instead arrested and charged with “obstructing the course of justice.”
Thereafter, she and the four MDC-T officials were taken to Rhodesville police station in Harare. Lawyers from Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR) worked late into the night of Sunday, 17 March, urgently petitioning the High Court of Zimbabwe to secure Mtetwa’s release. The order was granted just before midnight.
At present it appears that police are seeking to elude compliance with the order as reports indicate that Mtetwa is being transferred from one Harare police station to another as lawyers for Mtetwa seek to serve the court order on different police stations.
The arrest of Mtetwa and the four MDC-T officials is in itself alarming, but that it comes on the heels of a referendum to endorse a new constitution which, whatever its other limitations, contains strong protection of the rights of those arrested and detained, is more distressing still.
Without a clear and unambiguous departure from a past characterized by harassment and intimidation of human rights defenders and of impunity for Zimbabwe’s police and security sector, the promise of the new Constitution will be laid to waste.
The ICJ, Pan African Lawyers Union (PALU), SADC Lawyers Association (SADC LA) and Southern Africa Ligitation Centre (SALC) urge the Zimbabwean police and authorities to respect the Zimbabwean High Court order, to release Mtetwa from detention and to allow her and other human rights defenders to conduct their work unhindered.
Contact:
Arnold Tsunga, ICJ Africa Director, +27 73 131 8411; e-mail: arnold.tsunga(at)icj.org
Mar 18, 2013 | Advocacy, Events
The ICJ’s Director of the International Law & Protection Programmes today addressed an international conference on strengthening cooperation in preventing terrorism, held in Baku, Azerbaijan.
In a session focussed on measures to address the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism, Alex Conte emphasised that it is only by avoiding the creation or maintenance of conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism – including human rights violations and lack of the rule of law – that a sustainable international effort can be achieved to combat terrorism.
Identifying numerous negative trends in the national implementation of counter-terrorism obligations, Dr Conte made concrete proposals towards international cooperation aimed at ensuring that national law and practice complies with human rights and the rule of law.
ICJ-BakuConference-Statement-2013 (download full statement in PDF)
Mar 18, 2013 | News
The ICJ strongly condemns today’s suicide attack on the Peshawar court complex in Pakistan.
“An independent judiciary, free from violence, threats of violence or intimidation is a basic precondition to a functioning democracy under the rule of law,” said Alex Conte, Director of ICJ’s International Law and Protection Programmes.
“The suicide attack drives home the failure of the Pakistani government to fulfill its obligation to protect the right to personal security of the millions of people living in northwest Pakistan who have to face the daily threat of suicide bombings or unlawful killings,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia & Pacific Regional Director.
Under the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of Judges, the State must take steps to protect the judiciary from threats, violence or any other interference from any quarter for any reason.
Under international law, notably the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Pakistan must take active steps to ensure the safety of all persons within its territories.
Under the Beijing Statement of Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary in the LAWASIA Region, the executive authorities must at all times ensure the security and physical protection of judges and their families.
“Insurgent groups in northwest Pakistan have a long record of human rights abuses, including the use of suicide bombers to commit unlawful killings,” Zarifi added. “If this bombing was perpetrated by militants as part of a widespread or systematic attack against civilians, it constitutes a crime against humanity and must be treated as such.”
Earlier today, two suicide bombers detonated heavy explosives inside a Peshawar courthouse killing four people and injuring thirty others, including lawyers, police officers and civilians.
One of the bombers detonated the explosives in the courtroom of Judge Kulsoom Nawaz.
The Peshawar courthouse complex was attacked in November 2009, killing 19 people.
CONTACTS:
Laurens Hueting, ICJ Associate Legal Adviser, Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers (Geneva), t: +41 229793848, email: laurens.hueting(a)icj.org
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, (Bangkok); t:+66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Sheila Varadan, ICJ Legal Advisor, South Asia Programme (Bangkok), t: +66 857200723; email: sheila.varadan(a)icj.org
Mar 14, 2013 | News
Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi should not keep his position on the Supreme Court after he was appointed today as the country’s interim prime minister so as to preserve the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law.
“The Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi, has demonstrated a strong commitment to upholding the rule of law and protecting human rights in Nepal,” said Ben Schonveld, ICJ’s South Asia Director in Kathmandu. “To preserve the Nepali judiciary’s hard-won independence, the Chief Justice should step down from his post as soon as he assumes his position at the top of the Executive Branch.”
The Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi was appointed as Chairperson of the Council of Ministers – effectively the country’s Prime Minister – today.
The country’s four key political parties agreed on an arrangement whereby Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi will refrain from participating in his duties as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court while exercising powers of the Prime Minister conferred by the Interim Constitution, in brokering an election of the Constituent Assembly.
After the election is held, the agreement provides that the Chief Justice will resume his power and regular duties as Chief Justice.
In the interim, the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court will act as Chief Justice.
“Appointing the serving Chief Justice to act as Chairperson of the Council of Ministers throws the country into uncharted constitutional waters,” Schonveld added. “This agreement obliterates the line between the executive and the judiciary.”
A petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Agreement is currently before the Supreme Court.
The interim Constitution of Nepal guarantees the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers.
Article 106 bans sitting and retired judges from assuming any appointment in government service apart from a role in the national human rights commission.
To enable the Chief Justice’s appointment as Prime Minister, the President under the recommendation of the Council of the Ministers amended several provisions of the Interim Constitution, including Article 106.
These amendments were made in contravention of the requirements of the Interim Constitution, which calls for a mandatory two-thirds majority of Parliament.
Under international law and standards, including the United Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, States are required to ensure an independent judiciary at all times.
Under the Bangalore Principles on Judicial Conduct, judges must be free, and be seen to be free, from inappropriate connections with the executive and legislative branches of government.
The Beijing Statement of Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary stresses the importance of the independence of the judiciary in a free society observing the rule of law.
Judges must uphold the integrity and independence of the Judiciary by avoiding impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.
CONTACTS:
Ben Schonveld, ICJ South Asia Director, (Kathmandu); t: 977 9804596661; email: ben.schonveld(at)icj.org
Govinda Bandi Sharma, ICJ Senior Legal Advisor, Nepal (Kathmandu), t: +977 9851061167; email: govinda.sharma(at)icj.org
Sheila Varadan, ICJ Legal Advisor, South Asia Programme (Bangkok), t: +66 857200723; email: Sheila.varadan(at)icj.org
Photo by Bikash Dware
Mar 12, 2013 | News
The ICJ today condemned the blatant disregard by the UAE of the right to a fair and public trial, after its international observers were prohibited from attending the first two hearings of criminal proceedings against 94 individuals.
The detainees include judges, lawyers and human rights defenders. The hearings took place before the State Security Chamber of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Federal Supreme Court.
The ICJ observers were turned away on 4 and 11 March 2013 by police officers before they reached the court.
“The ICJ deplores the decision of the UAE authorities to conduct the trial of the 94 detainees behind closed doors and to deny access to all international observers for both the opening and second hearing of this trial”, said Ketil Lund, ICJ Commissioner, former Supreme Court Judge of Norway and one of the two ICJ observers who was denied access to the court.
“This denial, combined with consistent and credible reports that detainees have been subjected to torture and other ill-treatment, including prolonged solitary confinement, and denied full access to defence counsel, both during questioning and in preparation for the trial, are inconsistent with fair trial standards and cast serious doubts about the fairness and the outcome of the process.”
Under international law and standards and UAE law, all criminal trials must be open to the public, subject to narrow exceptions not apparently applicable in this trial.
The denial of access to international observers itself constitutes a serious violation of the right to a fair trial.
The ICJ calls on the UAE authorities to fully investigate reports of torture and ill-treatment of the detainees and ensure that information obtained through such practices are not used as evidence in the criminal proceedings.
The UAE authorities must also ensure that as long as the accused remain in detention, their right to have full and unrestricted access to lawyers, including the right to consult in private, medical personnel and family members are fully guaranteed.
The ICJ notes that the accused are charged with “establishing, founding and administering an organization, Da’wat Al Islah, with the aim of challenging the basic principles upon which the government of the State is based, taking control of the government and establishing a secret structure for the organization” (Decision of referral No.79 of 2012 (State Security) of 27 January 2013).
“These ill-defined charges, which fail to meet international law requirements of legal certainty, criminalise the enjoyment and exercise of the rights of all UAE citizens to freedom of expression and association, and to fully take part in the conduct of public affairs. The UAE authorities must therefore drop these charges and put an immediate end to this unfair judicial process,” Lund added.
Contact:
Said Benarbia, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser of the Middle East and North Africa Programme, tel: 41 22 979 38 17, e-mail: said.benarbia(at)icj.org
UAE-right to a fair trial-press release-2013-Arabic (full text, pdf)
