Jun 8, 2015 | News
While the constitution of Pakistan’s first National Commission for Human Rights is welcome, the Commission risks being toothless unless its powers are extended to investigate human rights violations allegedly committed by the security agencies, the ICJ warned today.
The ICJ was informed that members of the National Commission for Human Rights were notified on 20 May 2015, three years after the National Commission for Human Rights Act was passed in June 2012.
“The establishment of a national human rights commission is a much-needed step for the promotion and protection of human rights in Pakistan,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director. “But for the new Commission to be able to assist the people of Pakistan, who face tremendous violations of their rights in terms of civil, political, social, economic, and cultural rights, it must be able to address the conduct of the country’s powerful military and security agencies.”
Under the National Commission for Human Rights Act, the Commission’s powers include investigating human rights violations, suo motu or on petition; visiting detention centers to ascertain the legality of the detention of detainees and ensure detainees are treated according to law; reviewing and suggesting amendments to Pakistan’s constitutional and legal framework on human rights; making recommendations for the effective implementation of international human rights treaties; and developing a national plan of action for the promotion and protection of human rights.
The law provides that while inquiring into complaints under the Act, the Commission shall have all powers of a civil court, including summoning and ensuring attendance of witnesses, receiving evidence on affidavits; and discovery and production of documents.
However, the Commission’s mandate is very limited where the armed forces or security agencies are accused of committing human rights violations, the ICJ says.
The law specifically states that “the functions of the Commission do not include inquiring into the act or practice of the intelligence agencies”.
Where the armed forces are accused of human rights violations, the Commission is only authorized to seek a report from the Government and make recommendations.
“The 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 said. “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.”
“With these exceptions in place, it seems questionable that the Commission will get accreditation by the International Coordinating Committee of NHRIs, which is a requirement for a National Human Rights Institution to be recognized internationally,” he added. “The Pakistani government should ensure that the Commission complies with international standards so it can help protect and promote the rights of all people in Pakistan.”
Additional Information:
Justice (r) Ali Nawaz Chohan was appointed as the Chairperson of the Commission. Other members include one representative from each province; one representative each from the Islamabad Capital Territory and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas; the Chairperson of the National Commission on the Status of Women; and a member belonging from a religious minority community.
The UN Principles relating to the Status of National Institutions (Paris Principles) provide the minimum standards required by national human rights institutions to be considered credible and effective, and get accreditation by the International Coordinating Committee of NHRIs. Section 3 (a) (ii) of the Paris Principles 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”.
Section 4 of the National Commission on Human Rights Act, 2012, provides the following procedure for appointment of members of the Commission: the Federal Government invites nominations for commissioners through public notice; the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition scrutinize the nominations; and the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition forward three names for each member of the commission to a parliamentary committee for confirmation. The law provides that the parliamentary committee would comprise of two members of the National Assembly (lower house) and two members of the Senate (upper house) –with two members each from the government and two from the opposition.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser for South Asia (London), t: +44 7889565691; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
May 21, 2015 | News
The ICJ and the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) have expressed deep concern that following the 21st amendment, juveniles suspected of committing offences related to terrorism could end up being tried by the newly constituted military courts.
Apr 11, 2015 | News
The ICJ today condemned the execution of Muhammad Kamaruzzaman following an unfair trial. The ICJ repeated its call for the authorities in Bangladesh to institute an immediate moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty in the country.
Muhammad Kamaruzzaman (photo), a senior leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami party, was hanged today in Dhaka Central jail.
He had been sentenced to death by the Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) in 2013 for his role in the atrocities committed during the 1971 war for independence in Bangladesh.
His conviction and sentence were confirmed on appeal in 2014.
The government established the ICT in 2010, after amending the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act 1973.
The ICT has jurisdiction to try crimes against humanity, crimes against peace, genocide, violations of the Geneva conventions and any other crimes under international law.
The ICJ has previously raised concerns that trials before the ICT do not comply with international standards for fair trials.
According to the ICJ, there are serious procedural flaws 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.
“This execution constitutes a violation of the right to life and freedom from cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment,” said Sam Zarifi, the ICJ’s Director for Asia and the Pacific. “The fact that this execution was based on a trial that was procedurally and substantively flawed is all the more regrettable and a perversion of justice.”
On 6 April 2015, the Supreme Court rejected Muhammad Kamaruzzaman’s petition for a review of his sentence.
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has denounced the death sentence, noting that his review petition was summarily rejected without consideration on merits.
Government officials have reported that Muhammad Kamaruzzaman decided to not seek a presidential pardon for his sentence, following the rejection of his review petition.
After Abdul Qader Mollah in 2013, Kamaruzzaman is the second individual to be executed after being sentenced to death by the ICT.
“The ICJ supports the rights of all victims of the atrocities committed during the 1971 war for independence in Bangladesh to truth and justice. But the death penalty is not the answer,” Zarifi added. “Bangladesh should impose an official moratorium on the death penalty, with a view to abolishing it outright.”
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.
In December 2014, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution, for the fifth time since 2007, emphasizing that 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 to its abolition.
A majority of 117 UN Member States voted in favor of a worldwide moratorium on executions as a step towards abolition of the death penalty, with only 37 opposed.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Apr 7, 2015 | News
Bangladesh President Abdul Hamid should intervene to stay the imminent execution of Muhammad Kamaruzzaman, a senior leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami party, said the ICJ today.
Kamaruzzaman was sentenced to death by the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) in 2013 after an unfair trial, the ICJ says.
On Monday, 6 April 2015, the Bangladesh Supreme Court rejected Kamaruzzaman’s last-ditch petition for independent review of the sentence – he was claiming discrepancies in prosecution witness testimony during the trial – paving the way for his imminent execution.
“The ICJ has long supported the right of victims to seek truth and justice for the atrocities committed in the 1971 war to gain Bangladesh’s independence, but the death penalty, especially after a trial with procedural and substantive flaws, perpetuates the cycle of violence and is a perversion of justice,” said Sam Zarifi, the ICJ’s Director for Asia and the Pacific.
The ICJ has previously raised concerns that the ICT does not comply with international standards for fair trials.
Following the Supreme Court’s rejection of his review petition, Kamaruzzaman must now decide whether to seek clemency from the President, as the last resort.
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.
“The death penalty is not justice and is the ultimate form of cruel and inhuman punishment,” Zarifi said. “Especially where the death penalty is concerned, the trial process has to meet the highest standards of fairness and due process, but this case falls far short of that.”
The ICJ calls on Bangladesh to impose an official moratorium on the death penalty, with a view to abolishing the death penalty outright.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Background:
In May 2013, the ICT found Kamaruzzaman guilty of mass killing during the 1971 Liberation War and sentenced him to death.
In November 2014, the Supreme Court issued a judgment on appeal upholding Kamaruzzaman’s conviction and death sentence.
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.
Mar 26, 2015 | News
The conviction of the Maldives’ former president, Mohamed Nasheed, on terrorism charges after a grossly unfair trial marks a significant deterioration of the independence and impartiality of the country’s judiciary, said the ICJ.
On 13 March, Mr. Nasheed (photo) was sentenced to 13 years in prison for the dismissal and alleged unlawful detention of the Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, Mr. Abdullah Mohamed, in 2012, when Mr. Nasheed was president.
He was convicted of an “act…of kidnapping or abduction of person(s) or of taking hostage(s)” under Section 2(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1990.
“The Maldivian judiciary’s independence has been compromised for years by serious pressure from the government, and this grossly unfair conviction highlights the numerous problems with the politicization of the judiciary in the country,” said Sam Zarifi, the ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific. “It is crucial for Maldivian authorities to allow Mr. Nasheed to appeal his case effectively, with transparency and monitoring by Maldivian and international observers.”
The case’s pre-trial phase and trial were marked by gross violations of international standards of fair trial, including Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the Maldives acceded in 2006.
Two of the judges on the three-judge bench testified as witnesses against Mr. Nasheed in the 2012 investigation; these statements were submitted as evidence in the present trial.
Mr. Nasheed’s defense team was not allowed to be present on his behalf during the first proceeding, nor was he given the opportunity to seek bail.
The defense team was repeatedly denied full access to prosecution evidence and witnesses or to regularly consult with Mr. Nasheed during the course of the trial.
When Mr. Nasheed’s defense team recused itself in protest of the lack of fairness, the court proceeded with the trial without legal representation present for Mr. Nasheed rather than granting him the opportunity to obtain new counsel. The defense was also denied the opportunity to call its own witnesses.
Mr. Nasheed now has the right to appeal the conviction, but his right to appeal has been infringed by the unprecedented amendment of the statutory period for appeal from 90 days to 10 days, via Supreme Court circular six weeks prior to the trial.
In addition, the court has still not released to Mr. Nasheed’s defense team the full court record required to prepare and present an effective appeal within this accelerated timeframe.
The ICJ has previously documented the politicization of the judiciary and the polarized political climate in the Maldives, calling attention to a justice system characterized by vested interests and political allegiances rooted in the country’s authoritarian past (See Maldives: Securing an Independent Judiciary in a Time of Transition (February 2011)).
“Recent events reflect a justice system that still remains deeply politicized along the same lines of entrenched political loyalties that pre-date the transition period,” Zarifi said. “The Maldivian judiciary must allow a proper appeal in this case if it is to establish itself as a separate and equal branch of the government dedicated to supporting the rule of law.”
The ICJ urged Maldivian authorities to ensure Mr. Nasheed’s defense team full access and adequate opportunity to prepare an effective appeal, and to ensure that the appeal proceeding is conducted fairly and transparently, with full access to media and domestic and international observers, in compliance with fair trial and due process standards under both Maldivian and international law.
The Maldives must also take effective measures to ensure that such violations do not reoccur in this or future cases.
Background information can be downloaded here:
Maldives-Background Brief Nasheed Trial-Advocacy-Anylysis brief-2015-ENG (full text in PDF)
Mar 12, 2015 | News
Pakistan’s decision to fully reinstate the death penalty puts at imminent risk of execution more than 500 people on death row who have exhausted all avenues of appeal, with another 8000 facing death penalties, said the ICJ today.
“The total abandonment of the moratorium on the death penalty is a disaster for human rights in Pakistan,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia director. “We fear a major acceleration in the flow of executions we have seen over the past few months—none of which do anything to protect the rights of the Pakistani people.”
25 people have been executed since 16 December 2014, when Pakistan lifted a moratorium on executions in cases of capital punishment related to terrorism. The decision to partially lift a six-year unofficial moratorium on executions was in response to an attack on a school in Peshawar, killing 150 people, almost all of them children. Pakistan Tehreek-e-Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack.
In January, Pakistan also amended the Constitution and the Army Act, 1952, empowering military courts to try civilians for terrorism related offences.
“The Pakistani people face a very real threat from terrorist attacks, but there is no indication that the death penalty will decrease this threat,” said Zarifi. “Instead, the government is targeting hundreds of people on death row whose convictions had nothing to do with terrorism-related offenses.”
In Pakistan, capital punishment is prescribed for 27 different offences, including blasphemy, sexual intercourse outside of marriage, kidnapping or abduction, rape, assault on the modesty of women and the stripping of women’s clothes, smuggling of drugs, arms trading and sabotage of the railway system. Many of these crimes do not meet the threshold of ‘most serious crimes’ stipulated by Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Pakistan ratified the ICCPR in 2010. Article 6 of the ICCPR, guaranteeing the right to life, requires that states restrict capital punishment to only the ‘most serious crimes’. The UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions has clarified that in the context of the death penalty, the definition of the ‘most serious crimes’ is limited to those cases in which there was an intention to kill, which resulted in the loss of life.
In December 2014, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution, that emphasizes that that the use of the death penalty undermines human dignity and that calls on countries that maintain the death penalty to establish a moratorium on its use with a view to its abolition. An overwhelming majority of 117 UN Member States voted in favor of the call for a worldwide moratorium on executions, as a step towards abolition of the death penalty.
Pakistan should reinstate a moratorium on the death penalty, with a view to definitively abolishing the practice in law,” said Zarifi.
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
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Advisor for Pakistan (London), t: +447889565691; email: reema.omer(a)icj.org
