Nov 19, 2015 | News
Bangladesh President Abdul Hamid should stay the imminent executions of Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury and Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujahid, the ICJ said today.
Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury, a leader of the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party, and Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujahid, a leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami party, were found guilty of crimes committed during the 1971 war for independence in Bangladesh by the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) in October 2013.
On 18 November 2015, the Supreme Court rejected their review petitions challenging their death sentences.
The only legal option available to them now is to seek a pardon from the President.
“The ICJ expresses its solidarity with the victims and survivors of the human rights violations committed during the 1971 war, and believes the perpetrators of these atrocities must be brought to justice,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director. “However, the death penalty, especially following a deeply flawed trial, amounts to nothing more than vengeance and does not serve the interests of justice.”
The ICJ has previously raised concerns that trials before the ICT do not comply with international standards for fair trials.
Following the two previous executions in Bangladesh resulting from convictions by the ICT to date (Muhammad Kamaruzzaman in April 2015 and Abdul Qader Mollah in December 2013), the ICJ raised concerns about the serious procedural flaws in the ICT at all stages: pre-trial release has been routinely and arbitrarily denied; witnesses have been abducted and intimidated; and there have been credible allegations of collusion between the Government, prosecutors and judges.
UN agencies have also raised fair trial concerns with respect to how certain cases have been heard at the ICT.
Concerns have been raised with respect to Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury and Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujahid’s trials as well.
“There have been several problems about the fairness of the trials under the ICT,” Zarifi added.
“Instead of compounding injustice by executing people who have been found guilty through flawed trials, the Government of Bangladesh should commute these death sentences and abolish the death penalty.”
The ICJ opposes capital punishment in all cases without exception.
The death penalty constitutes a violation of the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Background:
Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojaheed was convicted by the International Criminal Tribunal and sentenced to death in July 2013. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence in June 2015.
Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury was found guilty and sentenced to death in October 2013 for war crimes, including genocide. The Supreme Court on appeal upheld the decision in July 2015.
The ICJ calls on Bangladesh to impose an official moratorium on the death penalty, with a view to abolishing the death penalty outright.
In December 2014, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution, for the fifth time since 2007, emphasizing that the use of the death penalty undermines human dignity and calling on those countries that maintain the death penalty to establish a moratorium on its use with a view towards its abolition.
117 UN Member States, a clear majority, voted in favor of a worldwide moratorium on executions as a step towards abolition of the death penalty.
Nov 11, 2015 | News
While welcoming the Maldives government’s revocation of the emergency yesterday, the arbitrary manner in which the emergency was first imposed and then suddenly revoked within the span of a week reflects a deeper erosion of the rule of law in the country, the ICJ said today.
On 10 November, a week after declaring a 30-day state of emergency, the Maldives lifted the emergency reportedly because authorities had arrested several people in connection with an alleged plot to “use dangerous weapons and explosives”, thereby neutralizing the purported national security threat cited as the grounds for the emergency.
Maldivian authorities have not provided any information as to who or how many individuals were arrested or the nature of the charges.
“The imposition of a state of emergency is not a political tool to be used willy-nilly as a matter of convenience to suspend human rights protections and suppress political opposition,” said Nikhil Narayan, ICJ’s South Asia Senior Legal Adviser.
“A state of emergency that suspends constitutional rights is not to be declared lightly,” he added. “It has serious implications for human rights and the rule of law in the country, and must only be invoked in the most extreme situations and in accordance with international law.”
International law expressly permits derogations of certain human rights only in times of public emergency which threatens ‘the life of the nation’.
“Declaring a 30-day emergency and then suddenly lifting it a week later only reinforces the serious concerns previously raised as to the legitimacy of the emergency in the first place, and speaks to the larger rule of law crisis in the country,” Narayan said.
The emergency decree issued by the Maldives government last week suspended several constitutional rights, including the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, and reduced the constitutionally mandated period for the vice president to respond to impeachment charges from 14 to 7 days.
The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) had planned a public anti-government demonstration for 6 November, two days prior to which the emergency was declared.
Meanwhile, the vice president was removed from his post the day after the emergency decree, 5 November, in a swift and seemingly arbitrary impeachment hearing.
“The circumstances surrounding events in the Maldives this past week clearly suggest that the government was using the emergency as a ploy to prevent the planned opposition rally and to eliminate the vice president as a political threat,” said Narayan.
The emergency also granted sweeping powers of search, arrest and detention without warrant to the police, who reportedly raided several buildings and arrested an unknown number of individuals under its emergency powers over the past week.
“The Maldives government cannot flout international law by invoking emergency powers as a means to deny the due process rights of the vice president and others arrested or detained for alleged crimes,” added Narayan. “The government must ensure that the individuals arrested during the emergency are afforded their full fair trial and due process rights in accordance with international law.”
Additional Information:
The ICJ previously raised concerns that the alleged grounds for the emergency did not appear to establish a threat to the life of the as required by the high threshold set by international law, and could not in any event justify the complete suspension of constitutional rights.
In August 2015, following a joint fact-finding mission to the Maldives, the ICJ and South Asians for Human Rights (SAHR) documented the breakdown of the rule of law and human rights in the Maldives in a 35-page report, Justice Adrift: Rule of Law and the Political Crisis in the Maldives.
Contact:
Nikhil Narayan, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser for South Asia, t: +977 9813187821 ; e: nikhil.narayan(a)icj.org
Nov 5, 2015 | News
On the 15th anniversary of Irom Sharmila’s hunger strike, the International Commission of Jurists calls on the Indian government to repeal the Armed Forces Special Powers Act without further delay.
Irom Sharmila began a hunger strike in November 2000, calling for the repeal of the AFSPA, following the unlawful killing of 10 civilians by security forces purportedly acting under it in Malom.
“The AFSPA has facilitated gross human rights violations by the armed forces in the areas in which it is operational,” Sam Zarifi, Asia-Pacific Director of the ICJ said. “It is a repressive and draconian law that should have no place in today’s India”.
Once an area is declared “disturbed” under the AFSPA, armed forces are given a range of “special powers”. These include the power to arrest without warrant, to enter and search any premises, and in certain circumstances, “fire upon or otherwise use force, even to the causing of death”. These and other vaguely framed provisions give armed forces broad powers that are inconsistent with the government’s obligations to respect the right to life.
In addition to leading to many unlawful killings in the areas in which it has been in effect, the provisions of the AFSPA have also facilitated torture, rape and enforced disappearances.
“The AFSPA has created a culture of impunity, shielding security forces from accountability in India for crimes under international law, and making it impossible for victims of human rights violations to access justice”, Sam Zarifi said.
Under the AFSPA, governmental permission, or sanction, is required before any member of the armed forces can be prosecuted for crimes in a civilian court. Decisions regarding sanction take many years, and as yet, no member of the armed forces has been prosecuted in a civilian court.
The Indian government has often justified the need for the AFSPA as necessary to address terrorism and militancy in “disturbed areas”. “International law requires and experience shows that effective counter- terrorism measures must reinforce human rights, and not undermine and violate them,” said Sam Zarifi.
Calls for the repeal or amendment of the AFSPA –including from official bodies – have come from near and far for a number of years.
Several UN human rights bodies have recommended that the AFSPA be repealed or significantly amended. These include the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (2014), the Special Rapporteur on violence against women (2014), the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (in 2013 and again in 2015), the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders (2012), the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (2007), and the UN Human Rights Committee (1997).
In recent years, prominent Indian bodies have recognized the brutality of the AFSPA and echoed demands for repeal or amendment. The Justice Jeevan Reddy Committee set up by the Government of India to review the working of the AFSPA, has advocated its repeal. The Fifth Report of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission seconded this recommendation.
The Verma Commission, set up by the government following the gang rape in Delhi in 2012, called for the repeal of sanction provisions under the AFSPA as they relate to sexual offences. In 2015, a High Level Committee on the Status of Women also reportedly advocated its repeal.
In 2012, the Extra Judicial Execution Victims Family Association, Manipur (EEVFAM) filed a petition at the Supreme Court of India, alleging that between 1979 and 2012, 1528 people were extra-judicially executed by security forces in Manipur.
A court-appointed fact-finding commission – popularly known as the Santosh Hegde Commission – studied 6 of these cases, and found that the deaths were not lawful.
In its report, the Hegde Commission agreed with the observation of the Jeevan Reddy Commission, that the AFSPA had become “a symbol of oppression, an object of hate, and an instrument of discrimination and high-handedness.”
The case is still pending in the Supreme Court.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Sanhita Ambast, ICJ International Legal Advisor (Delhi), t: +91 9810962193; email: Sanhita.ambast(a)icj.org
Nov 4, 2015 | News
The government of Maldives must immediately revoke its suspension of human rights protections under the state of emergency declared today and restore the rule of law to the country, said the ICJ.
The Maldivian government suspended a range of constitutional protections under a 30-day state of emergency declared on 4 November, citing a threat to national security based on the allegation that “some groups are planning to use … dangerous weapons and explosives,” according to a translated version of the emergency decree obtained by the ICJ.
“The complete suspension of constitutional protections for human rights such as the right to liberty and right to free assembly goes far beyond anything that could be justified by the alleged grounds cited by the government,” said Nikhil Narayan, ICJ’s South Asia Senior Legal Adviser.
“International law strictly regulates attempts by governments to suspend or otherwise derogate from human rights on the grounds of emergency,” he added.
Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the Maldives is a State Party, expressly permits derogations only for certain human rights, and then only ‘in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation’.
“Maldivian authorities have not come close to explaining how the current situation constitutes a threat to the ‘life of the nation’, the high threshold set by international law for the derogation of rights in times of emergency,” Narayan said.
According to the emergency decree, the constitutionally protected rights that have been suspended during the state of emergency are, among others:
- Article 19: “A citizen is free to engage in any conduct or activity that is not expressly prohibited by Islamic Shari’ah or by law. No control or restraint may be exercised against any person unless it is expressly authorised by law.”
- Article 24: “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his private communications. Every person must respect these rights with respect to others.”
- Article 31: “Every person employed in the Maldives and all other workers have the freedom to stop work and to strike in order to protest.”
- Article 32: “Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly without prior permission of the state.”
- Article 41(a): “Every citizen has the freedom to enter, remain in and leave the Maldives, and to travel within the Maldives.”
- Article 45: “Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained, arrested or imprisoned except as provided by law enacted by the People’s Majlis in accordance with Article 16 of this Constitution.”
- Article 47(a) and (b): “(a) No person shall be subject to search or seizure unless there is reasonable cause. (b) Residential property shall be inviolable and shall not be entered without the consent of the resident, except to prevent immediate and serious harm to life or property, or under the express authorisation of an order of the Court.”
“The basic prohibition against arbitrary detention and imprisonment can never be derogated from,” Narayan said.
The declaration of the state of emergency also seems to target the country’s vice president, whom the president appears to regard as a political threat. The vice president is facing impeachment proceedings for his alleged role in the boat explosion which the government claims was caused by a bomb as part of a deliberate assassination attempt.
The emergency decree reduces the period provided under Article 100 of the Maldives Constitution for the vice president to respond to the impeachment charges from 14 days to 7 days.
“There seems to be a clear political motive in arbitrarily reducing the vice president’s procedural rights in the impeachment process,” added Narayan.
Additional information
The alleged threat cited by the Maldivian government refers to the announcement that Maldivian security forces had discovered weapons and explosives in two areas, and that some additional weapons were missing.
These allegations followed the purported discovery of an explosive device near the president’s palace on Monday that, following closely on last month’s explosion on a boat carrying the president and his wife, the government claims is part of an alleged assassination attempt on the president.
The government rejected the findings of an FBI investigation into the earlier boat explosion which ruled out the possibility that it was caused by a bomb.
In August 2015, following a joint fact-finding mission to the Maldives, the ICJ and South Asians for Human Rights (SAHR) documented the breakdown of the rule of law and human rights in the Maldives in a 35-page report, Justice Adrift: Rule of Law and the Political Crisis in the Maldives.
Contact:
Nikhil Narayan, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser for South Asia, t: +977 9813187821 ; e: nikhil.narayan(a)icj.org
Oct 26, 2015 | News
The Government of Bangladesh should withdraw the Foreign Donations Regulation Bill 2015 (FDRB), the ICJ said today.
The provisions of the FDRB are unduly restrictive and inconsistent with Bangladesh’s international legal obligations to respect the right to freedom of association, the ICJ said, and if not withdrawn, the Parliament should reject it.
“The provisions of the Foreign Donations Regulation Bill are clearly designed to restrict and harass human rights defenders in Bangladesh,” Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific director said. “If passed, this law will enable the Bangladeshi executive to control the space for civil society even more than it does now”.
Read the full story here:
Bangladesh-Foreign Donations-News-Web Story-2015-ENG (full text in PDF)
Oct 1, 2015 | News
The ICJ today welcomed the adoption by the UN Human Rights Council of a further resolution on promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka.
The resolution, co-sponsored for the first time by the Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL), is a historic step towards post-war justice, accountability and reconciliation.
The ICJ at the same time called on the GOSL to take genuine and prompt steps to deliver on the commitments and obligations reflected in the resolution, which was adopted by the UN Human Rights Council by consensus.
“Today’s resolution is a significant step towards achieving justice, accountability and reconciliation for the victims of Sri Lanka’s long and bloody civil war,” said Nikhil Narayan, ICJ’s senior legal adviser for South Asia.
“The shift in posture of the Sri Lankan Government in co-sponsoring the resolution marks a further welcome break from the Rajapakse regime. The Government must now demonstrate its political will by immediately launching concrete steps towards a genuine process of truth-seeking, justice and reconciliation,” he added.
The consensus resolution reflects certain key recommendations contained in the Report of the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) summarizing findings of the OHCHR Investigation on Sri Lanka (OISL), the ICJ notes.
The investigation and report was mandated by an earlier UN resolution on Sri Lanka, adopted in March 2014 over the strong objections of the Rajapakse government.
The report documents in vivid detail alleged serious violations and abuses of human rights and humanitarian law amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by both sides during the armed conflict in Sri Lanka, including extrajudicial killings, torture, enforced disappearances, forced recruitment, including of children, and sexual violence.
One of the most important recommendations of the High Commissioner for Human Rights called for an accountability process through a special judicial mechanism and prosecutor’s office that involves the full participation of international judges, prosecutors, lawyers and investigators.
Responding in part to this call, the resolution affirms the importance of participation of foreign judges, defence lawyers, prosecutors and investigators in an independent and impartial judicial mechanism to hold individuals accountable for human rights and humanitarian law violations, including those documented in the report.
The resolution also mandates further monitoring and reporting back to the Council on implementation of the accountability and other measures.
“The international community, through the UN Human Rights Council, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and Special Procedures, and other UN member states, must as the High Commissioner himself recommended, remain engaged through continued and sustained monitoring, assistance, support and fully integrated involvement of the international community to ensure full implementation of the resolution,” said Narayan.
Background:
The ICJ has worked with judiciaries, governments, civil society and victims around the world for decades to address impunity and victims’ right to remedy for violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, including in situations of transition.
In Sri Lanka, the ICJ has been documenting and reporting on a gradual erosion of judicial independence, impartiality and integrity under successive governments, and the resulting culture of impunity, for over thirty years.
The ICJ considers the International Criminal Court (ICC) to be the preferred mechanism for individual accountability where national authorities and courts lack the capacity or the willingness to genuinely investigate and prosecute all war crimes and crimes against humanity. In the absence of an ICC process, the ICJ’s extensive experience in Sri Lanka and elsewhere demonstrates that any credible and effective accountability process in Sri Lanka must involve, at a minimum, a majority of international judges, prosecutors and investigators.
The ICJ therefore advocated for and welcomed the resolution’s recognition of the need for international participation.
Since January 2015, when a new president was elected, the GOSL has undertaken a number of important steps to reverse the slide towards authoritarianism and the erosion of the rule of law and the culture of impunity experienced under the Rajapakse government, and restore democratic governance and build confidence towards reconciliation among Sri Lanka’s ethnic minorities, including by restoring the Constitutional Council through the passage of the 19th amendment to the Sri Lankan Constitution, and returning some tracts of military-occupied lands in the North and East.
However, after decades of war and distrust, and a history of promises undelivered, much work remains to be done to deliver justice to victims and their families, and to rebuild trust and confidence among Sri Lanka’s fractured ethnic minorities. Continued and sustained monitoring and engagement by the international community in ensuring the progress of the implementation of this resolution will be essential.
Equally importantly, today’s consensus resolution also reaffirmed the OHCHR’s recommendations on: the mandate and resources of the accountability mechanisms; legislating retroactive recognition of international crimes under national law; justice and security sector reform; repealing the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA); strengthening the Witness and Victim Protection Act; accession to the International Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances (CED), the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Convention, and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court; and continued monitoring of and technical support for implementation through the OHCHR and by the Council.
Contact
Nikhil Narayan, ICJ’s senior legal adviser for South Asia; t: +41 79 730 09 27; e: nikhil.narayan(a)icj.org
