Mar 3, 2014 | News
The shooting and bombing at an Islamabad Court today should be condemned as a presumed attack against the judicial officials and the independence of the judiciary in Pakistan, says the ICJ.
The attack resulted in the killing of Additional Sessions Judge Rafaqat Ahmad Khan Awan and at least ten other persons, including several lawyers.
According to reports, armed gunmen forced their way into a court complex in Islamabad, openly firing on judges and lawyers before at least two of the men blew themselves up inside the court complex.
One of the attackers detonated himself outside the door of a judge’s office, while the other targeted the office of the Lawyers’ Union President.
Another gunmen entered Judge Rafaqat Awan’s courtroom, where he shot and killed him.
“An intentional killing of a member of the judiciary can be seen as nothing other than an attack against the independence and impartiality of the judiciary as a whole,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director.
“In addition to personal tragedy that has befallen the slain victims and their families, this attack and those like it are devastating for the people of Pakistan,” he added. “Courthouses, which should be places where justice is administered, are instead becoming slaughterhouses.”
This is the third armed attack against members of the judiciary in Pakistan in under a year. In March 2013, a judicial compound was attacked in Peshawar, killing four people.
In June 2013, a Sindh High Court judge’s convoy was attacked in Karachi, killing nine people.
As set out in the UN Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, Pakistan must take steps to protect and ensure the safety of members of the judiciary from threats and violence from any quarter for any reason.
The Beijing Statement of Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary in the LAWASIA region further elaborates that the executive branch must at all times ensure the security and physical protection of judges and their families.
As a State party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Pakistan is under a general obligation to ensure the safety of all persons within its territory at all times.
“If judges are under constant fear of violence from insurgent groups, they cannot function as an independent and impartial judiciary – an indispensible requirement for preserving rule of law and democracy,” Zarifi said.
The ICJ calls on the Government of Pakistan to take steps to immediately investigate and bring to justice those persons responsible for the armed attack on the Courthouse.
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, (Bangkok), t:+66(0) 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ Legal Advisor, Pakistan (London), t: +447889565691; email: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Photo credit: MYRA IQBAL
Feb 24, 2014 | Events, Training modules
In partnership with the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), the ICJ conducted two-day workshops on NGO engagement with the United Nations, held in Pakistan on 18-19 and 21-22 February 2014.
The workshops, held in Lahore and Islamabad, focused on enhancing the meaningful participation of national NGOs with the UN human rights system. Participants included representatives from civil society working on a wide range of human rights issues, including enforced disappearances, education, violence against women and child rights.
Drawing from experiences of ICJ staff and participants, the workshops considered how international advocacy and engagement with the UN can benefit NGOs and addressed:
- The nature of international human rights law;
- State obligations under international human rights law;
- The UN human rights system;
- The Universal Periodic Review mechanism;
- The UN Special Procedures and the making of individual complaints to them;
- The UN Treaty Bodies, individual complaints and periodic reporting; and
- Documenting human rights violations.
Background materials on the Universal Periodic Review: (ENG) and (URDU)
Background materials on the UN Special Procedures: (ENG) and (URDU)
Background materials on the core functions of the UN Treaty Bodies: (ENG) and (URDU)
BAckground materials on periodic reporting to the UN Treaty Bodies: (ENG) and (URDU)
Feb 11, 2014 | News
The personal decision of Khil Raj Regmi to resign and not return to his post as Chief Justice safeguards the independence of the judiciary and maintains the rule of law in Nepal, the ICJ says.
Caretaker Council of Minister Chairman Khil Raj Regmi announced this afternoon that he would not return to his former post of Chief Justice after acting as the Chairman of the Council of Ministers since March 2013.
“Khil Raj Regmi’s decision is one that will help to preserve the Supreme Court’s hard-earned reputation as an independent institution,” said Ben Schonveld, ICJ’s South Asia Regional Director.
International standards, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, clarify that all governmental officials and institutions as well as judges must respect and preserve the independence and integrity of the judiciary.
The 2007 Interim Constitution of Nepal enshrines guarantees for the independence of the judiciary and contains safeguards for the separation of executive, legislative and judicial powers.
Article 106 of the 2007 Interim Constitution explicitly bans sitting and retired judges from assuming any appointment in government service apart from a role in the national human rights commission.
To enable former Chief Justice Regmi to act as caretaker Prime Minister, the President amended several provisions of the Interim Constitution, including Article 106.
These amendments were made in contravention of the Constitution, which required a two-thirds majority of a sitting Parliament.
“The return of Khil Raj Regmi to the post of Chief Justice would have significantly undermined the appearance of independence of the Supreme Court and the judiciary as a whole,” Schonveld added.
The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct clarify that judges must not only be free from any inappropriate connections with the executive and legislative branches of government but also must appear to a reasonable observer to be free therefrom.
The ICJ applauds the personal decision of Chairman Khil Raj Regmi to resign as Chief Justice.
The ICJ calls on the new Government under the leadership of the Nepali Congress Chairperson, Sushil Koirala as well as the other elected political parties of the Constituent Assembly to honour the commitments made during the election and work to end impunity for gross violations of human rights.
Contact:
Ben Schonveld, ICJ South Asia Director, (Kathmandu); t: 977 9804596661; email: ben.schonveld(a)icj.org
Govinda Bandi Sharma, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, Nepal (Kathmandu), t: +977 9851061167; email: govinda.sharma(a)icj.org
Sheila Varadan, ICJ Legal Adviser, South Asia Programme (Bangkok), t: +66 857200723; email: sheila.varadan(a)icj.org
Feb 7, 2014 | News
Bangladesh authorities must immediately cease their harassment of Adilur Rahman Khan, Secretary of Odhikar, a prominent human rights organization and ICJ affiliate, and members of his family, the ICJ said today.
On 5 February 2014, Odhikar reported that two officers of the Special Branch of Police followed a member of Adilur Rahman Khan’s family from his home. When he realized he was being followed he decided to return home. The security officers continued to follow him, and parked their motorcycle next to his house.
Odhikar previously reported that security forces monitor its Dhaka offices as well as Adilur Rahman Khan, his family and other staff. In August 2013, security forces raided Odhikar’s office, confiscating computers containing potentially sensitive material such as the identities of witnesses.
“These actions are deliberate acts of intimidation against Odhikar, its staff and their families, designed to silence the legitimate actions of human rights defenders,” said Ben Schonveld, the ICJ’s Asia Director.
Article 12 of the United Nations Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups, and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Declaration on Human Rights Defenders), clarifies that States must take all necessary measures to ensure the protection of human rights defenders from any violence, threat, retaliation, pressure, or any other arbitrary action as a consequence of the legitimate exercise of rights, including the freedom of expression.
Background:
Adilur Rahman Khan and Nasiruddin Elan, Secretary and Director of Odhikar, have been charged under section 57 of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Act, 2006, for publishing a report on the Government crackdown on a Hefazat-e-Islam rally in May 2013. The report alleged that 61 people were killed in the protest; the Government disputes the number of casualties. Rahman and Khan were indicted on 8 January 2014 and are both currently on bail.
Contact:
Ben Schonveld, ICJ South Asia Director (Kathmandu), t: +977 14432651; email: ben.schonveld(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Advisor (London), t: +447889565691; email: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Jan 31, 2014 | News
The Parliament of Nepal should reject the Ordinance on Truth, Reconciliation and Disappearances tabled this week and enact a new transitional justice mechanism that complies with international human rights law, the ICJ and HRW said today.
The Ordinance on Disappearances, Truth and Reconciliation Commission, signed by the President on 14 March, 2013, was declared unconstitutional and in violation of international human rights law by the Nepali Supreme Court on 2 January, 2014.
In a directive, the Supreme Court ordered the Ordinance be repealed or amended significantly to bring it in line with Nepal’s obligations under national and international law.
However, on 27 January, the Government reintroduced the Ordinance with no amendments in the meeting of the Legislative-Parliament – in direct contravention of the Supreme Court’s orders.
“Tabling a rejected version of the Ordinance after the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment on transitional justice is contemptuous, and raises serious concerns over the government’s respect for the rule of law in Nepal,” said Ben Schonveld, ICJ’s South Asia Director.
The Interim Constitution says clearly that the Supreme Court’s rulings are binding on the Government of Nepal. Article 116 of the Interim Constitution states that any order issued by the Supreme Court in the course of the hearing of a case shall be binding on the Government of Nepal and all its offices and courts.
The Supreme Court has previously held that any mechanism for transitional justice must conform with international standards, lead to accountability for serious human rights violations, and ensure victims their right to remedy and reparations, which includes the right to truth, justice, and guarantees of non-recurrence.
In its 2013 briefing paper, “Authority without Accountability,” the ICJ expressed concern over multiple provisions in the Ordinance, including amnesty provisions, which would entrench impunity for gross human rights violations in Nepal.
Any amnesty for gross human rights violations would add another layer to the complex web of immunities, documented in the report, that continue to shield those responsible for human rights abuse from accountability in Nepal.
“The Parliament of Nepal should strongly reject the tabled Ordinance and the government must expeditiously implement the Supreme Court’s directive,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia Director at Human Rights Watch. “The ordinance in its current form violates undertakings made as part of the peace agreement, and essentially strips victims of serious rights abuses of a proper chance at justice.”
The rights groups called on the government to implement the Supreme Court’s ruling, creating a new transitional justice law that, at a minimum:
- Establishes two separate transitional justice commissions: a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” and a “Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappeared Persons;”
- Criminalizes the act of enforced disappearance in accordance with the definition set out in the International Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and ensures that it is punishable with penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime;
- Criminalizes other serious crimes, including crimes against humanity, and other crimes under international law, in a manner that is consistent with international law;
- Prohibits amnesties for gross human rights violations or crimes under international law;
- Does not contain a limitation period on the reporting of violations and ensures there are no time limits on the prosecutions of of serious crimes including enforced disappearance, other crimes under international law including, war crimes, and crimes against humanity;
- Ensures that the composition and structure of the Commissions complies with international standards. In particular, there should be a fair vetting system which aims to ensure the impartiality of the commission members and to ensure that no individuals against whom there are credible allegations they have committed human rights abuses are selected as Commissioners;
- Requires the necessary legal and institutional measures to be taken to enable and ensure the establishment, adequate resourcing and maintenance of effective victim and witness protection mechanisms; and
- Establishes and requires other necessary legal, administrative, institutional, or other arrangements for an effective reparation program.
Contact:
In Bangkok, Sam Zarifi: +66-857200723; or sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
In Kathmandu, Ben Schonveld +977-9804596661; : ben.schonveld(a)icj.org
Read also: ICJ releases new report on the struggle for justice in Nepal
The report Authority without accountability: the struggle for justice in Nepal can also be downloaded below:
Nepal-SUMMARY-Authority without Accountability-Publication-report summary-2012 (full text in pdf)
Nepal-FULL-Authority without accountability-publications-report-2012 (full text in pdf)
Jan 10, 2014 | News
The ICJ calls on the Bangladeshi authorities to immediately and unconditionally drop ‘cybercrime’ charges against Nasiruddin Elan and Adilur Rahman Khan, President and Secretary of the human rights group Odhikar.
“These charges are a flagrant attempt to silence critical voices, and the Bangladeshi authorities must immediately and unconditionally drop all charges against the two human rights defenders,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia director.
On 8 January 2014, a cyber crimes tribunal in Dhaka indicted Nasiruddin Elan (picture, on centre) and Adilur Rahman Khan under section 57 (1) and (2) of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Act, 2006, for publishing “fake, distorted and defamatory” information. Khan and Elan plead innocent to the charges.
The charges relate to a report by Odhikar that alleged that security forces had killed 61 people during a rally by the Islamist group Hefazat-e Islam in May 2013. The Government disputes the casualty numbers.
The trial is set to begin on 22 January 2014. Under the terms of the newly amended ACT the two human rights defenders face a minimum of seven and maximum of 14 years imprisonment.
“The ICJ has warned that the ICT Act can be used to attack freedom of expression in Bangladesh,” said Sam Zarifi. “As predicted, the Government is now using the newly amended law to silence political and public discourse through the threat of punitive sentences and deliberately vague and overbroad offences in clear violation of international law.”
In a briefing paper released on 20 November 2013, ICJ highlighted that provisions of the 2006 ICT Act (amended 2013), particularly section 57, violate Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Bangladesh ratified on 6 September 2000: the offences prescribed are poorly defined and overbroad; the restrictions imposed on freedom of expression go beyond what is permissible under Article 19(3) of the ICCPR; and the restrictions are not necessary and proportionate to achieve a legitimate purpose.
In addition, the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders underscores that States must take all necessary measures to protect human rights defenders “against any violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary action as a consequence of his or her legitimate exercise of his or her rights.”
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Ben Schonveld, ICJ South Asia Director, t: +61 422 561834; email: ben.schonveld(a)icj.org
Additional information
Adilur Rahman Khan was arrested his home on 10 August 2013 without an arrest warrant.On August 11, a Magistrate’s Court refused his bail application and remanded him for five days of custodial interrogation.
On August 12, the High Court Division of the Supreme Court stayed the remand order and directed that Adilur Rahman be sent back to jail, where he could be interrogated ‘at the gate of the jail.’
On 4 September 2013, the Detective Branch of Police filed a charge sheet against Adilur Rahman Khan and Odhikar’s Director, Nasiruddin Elan, under Section 57 of the International Communication and Technology Act 2006. On 30 October Adilur Rahman Khan was released on bail. On 6 November 2013, a Dhaka cyber crimes tribunal rejected Nasiruddin Elan’s bail application and ordered his detention in Dhaka Central Jail. Bail was granted on 24 November by the High Court. But the bail order was finally enforced after the appellate division’s order on 3 December 2013.
