Dec 19, 2013 | Advocacy, News
The ICJ is profoundly concerned at the judgment of 11 December 2013 of the Supreme Court of India, which effectively recriminalizes consensual same-sex sexual conduct between adults in private.
The decision by India’s highest court in Suresh Kumar Koushal and another v NAZ Foundation and others overturned the 2009 decision of the Delhi High Court.
That earlier judgment had held section 377 of the Indian Penal Code to be unconstitutional to the extent that it violated the rights to equality before the law, non-discrimination, life and personal liberty guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.
Section 377 criminalized certain consensual sexual acts in private between adults that are particularly associated with same-sex conduct.
The 2009 High Court’s ruling had the effect of decriminalizing such conduct between adults in private in India.
Its decision was based on an in-depth analysis of India’s obligations under international human rights law and standards, as well as international comparative law.
The High Court had examined the scope of the rights to equality, non-discrimination and personal liberty under the Indian Constitution and determined Section 377 to be unconstitutional.
Section 377, which was enacted in 1860, is a historical relic from colonial times bequeathed to India under the British empire; it made it an offence to voluntarily have “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” with any man, woman or animal.
Those convicted are liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years or for life and a fine.
The Supreme Court decision of 11 December reversed the High Court’s courageous and much celebrated decision.
Purporting to uphold the separation of powers, the judgment of the Supreme Court overturned the High Court by ruling that it acted in excess of its judicial review jurisdiction by failing to exercise restraint and to accord the necessary deference to the Indian legislature in its review of the constitutionality of section 377.
The Court effectively holds that the provision is not inconsistent with human rights and India’s obligations under international human right law, and that it is up to the Indian Parliament to amend or repealed it.
The ICJ is deeply troubled by the reasoning of the Supreme Court judgment.
It would appear to constitute an abdication of the essential role of the judiciary in safeguarding human rights.
In this case, the Court failed to uphold and protect the rights to equality and non-discrimination; equality before the law and equal protection of the law; dignity; privacy; freedom of expression and association; family life; and the highest attainable standard of health.
The judgment is inconsistent with India’s obligations under international human rights law.
The judgment also disconcertingly dismisses without apparent reason the wealth of evidence before the court documenting how the criminalization of same-sex sexual conduct leads directly to human rights violations.
Dec 10, 2013 | News
The ICJ urgently calls on Bangladesh President Abdul Hamid to intervene to stop the execution of Abdul Quader Mollah.
The Supreme Court handed down its judgment against Abdul Quader Mollah on 5 December 2013.
The 790-page judgment was sent to the International Crimes Tribunal on 8 December 2013 and a death warrant was issued against Abdul Quader Mollah (photo) on the same day.
It was immediately sent to the Dhaka Central Jail and he may be executed at any time unless President Abdul Hamid or the Supreme Court intervenes.
Last week, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay issued a statement, expressing her deep concern over the rising levels of political violence in Bangladesh, calling on both sides to ‘’halt their destructive brinkmanship.’’
‘‘In an increasingly volatile situation, executing Abdul Quader Mollah risks pushing the Government towards a state of emergency, placing democracy and rule of law in peril,’’ said Ben Schonveld, ICJ South Asia Director. ‘‘The timing of the Supreme Court’s decision and the Tribunal’s subsequent death warrant raise serious questions about the political motivations behind the ICT process as well as the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.’’
The ICJ is concerned that the International Crimes Tribunal has not adhered to international standards.
As a State party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Bangladesh is obligated to guarantee the right to a fair trial to all suspects, which includes special protections for those facing the death penalty.
The ICJ considers the death penalty to constitute a violation of the right to life and the right to be free from cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
It calls on the government of Bangladesh to impose a moratorium on the carrying out death sentences with a view to abolition, in compliance with repeated United Nations General Assembly resolutions on the question.
“The use of the capital punishment is particularly egregious in the Abdul Quader Mollah case, given that Parliament retroactively changed the law to enable the Supreme Court to impose a sentence of death on appeal,’’ added Schonveld. ‘‘Retroactively changing laws to influence the outcome in a case not only goes against the prohibition on retroactivity, it undermines the independence of the judiciary and the judicial function.’’
The ICJ urges President Abdul Hamid to intervene to stop the execution of Abdul Quader Mollah.
CONTACT:
Ben Schonveld, ICJ South Asia Director (Kathmandu), t:+97714432651 ; email: ben.schonveld(a)icj.org
Sheila Varadan, ICJ International Legal Advisor, South Asia Programme (Bangkok), t: +66857200723; email: sheila.varadan(a)icj.org
BACKGROUND:
Political violence has continued to escalate in Bangladesh
Abdul Quader Mollah was indicted on six counts of crimes against humanity before the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT). On 5 February 2013, the ICT rendered its verdict, finding him guilty on five counts and acquitting him on the sixth count. The ICT sentenced him to life imprisonment on two counts for his involvement in the Alubdi mass murder and the murder and rape of a family. He was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment on the remaining three counts.
At the time of the verdict, section 21(2) of the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act 1973 did not permit the Prosecution to appeal a sentence to obtain a heavier sentence.
The ICT verdict in the Mollah case sparked widespread protests, drawing tens of thousands of protesters to Shabagh Square, demanding that Mollah be sentenced to death.
Responding to public outcry, on 14 February 2013, the Parliament of Bangladesh drafted an amendment to change Section 21(2) of the International (Crimes) Tribunal Act 1973 to allow Prosecution to appeal a sentence in a conviction to seek a heavier sentence. The amendment was passed on 17 February and deemed to apply retroactively from 14 July 2009.
Acting on the basis of the Amendment to Section 21(2), the prosecution appealed the life sentences given to Mollah, seeking the death penalty. The prosecution also appealed the acquittal handed down. The defence in turn appealed the convictions on the five counts.
On 17 September 2013, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court issued an oral decision with no reasons overturning the acquittal and entering a conviction; overturning one of the life sentences and imposing a sentence of death; dismissing the appeal made by the defence.
On 5 December 2013, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court issued its 790-page judgment giving its reasons for overturning the life sentence and handing down the death penalty. The 790-page judgment was forwarded to the ICT-2 on 8 December 2013. The ICT-2 then issued a warrant of death against Abdul Quader Mollah and sent it to the Central Dhaka jail to be executed.
Nov 14, 2013 | News
The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) and the ICJ urge the Commonwealth Heads of States meeting in Colombo this week to make Sri Lanka accountable to Commonwealth values.
The IBAHRI and the ICJ recall that the Commonwealth Charter, passed in March 2012, sets out 16 core values, which include safeguarding the independence of the judiciary, protecting the rule of law, respecting the separation of powers and promoting democratic rule.
But the two organizations point out numerous examples where these values have not been respected by the Government of Sri Lanka.
The IBAHRI and the ICJ were holding a press conference in Bangkok Thailand today after a high-level IBAHRI delegation was blocked from entering Sri Lanka late last week to attend a conference on the rule of law and independence of the legal profession hosted by the Bar Association of Sri Lanka.
Giving a statement remotely, Gabriela Knaul, UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, expressed “serious concerns about acts of reprisals against judges, prosecutors, lawyers and other actors of the judicial system who cooperate, or seek to cooperate, with UN and regional human rights mechanisms.”
“Reprisals against judicial actors and legal professionals are a kind of attack to their institutional and functional independence,” she added.
Earlier this year, the IBAHRI conducted a remote fact-finding mission on the politically motivated impeachment of Chief Justice Banadranayake in January 2013, after being denied entry into Sri Lanka.
The IBAHRI Mission concluded that the Chief Justice’s removal was unlawful, undermined public confidence in the rule of law and threatened to eviscerate the country’s judiciary as an independent guarantor of constitutional rights.
In an open letter signed by 56 eminent jurists and senior judges from around the world, the ICJ also expressed its grave concern over the disregard for international standards on the independence of the judiciary and the removal of judges.
“This weakening of rule of law and independence of the judiciary is accompanied by an equally deteriorating human rights situation,” said Sheila Varadan, ICJ Legal Adviser for South Asia.
The United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights, Navi Pillay, in her recent visit to Sri Lanka expressed concern over the curtailment or denial of personal freedoms and human rights, the persistent impunity and the failure of rule of law.
“The state of affairs in Sri Lanka sits uneasily with the aspirations set out in the Commonwealth Charter,” said Human Rights Barrister and IBAHRI Sri Lanka Mission Rapporteur, Sadakat Kadri. “The Government of Sri Lanka has spent years undermining the values and principles of the Commonwealth.”
“If the Commonwealth is to remain a relevant and effective international organization, it is paramount that those heads of State who have chosen to attend this week’s summit take measures to make Sri Lanka accountable to the core values and principles of the Commonwealth,” said IBAHRI Senior Programme Lawyer Alex Wilks.
Contact:
Sheila Varadan, ICJ Legal Advisor, South Asia Programme (Bangkok), t: +66857200723; email: sheila.varadan(a)icj.org
Notes:
- The IBAHRI delegation blocked from entering Sri Lanka included UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Ms Gabriela Knaul, former UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers and ICJ Commissioner Dato’ Param Cumaraswamy, and IBAHRI senior programme lawyer Alex Wilks, had intended to travel to Colombo to attend a conference on the rule of law and independence of the legal profession hosted by the Bar Association of Sri Lanka. IBAHRI Mission Rapporteur Sadakat Kadri was also unable to enter Sri Lanka as he was denied a visa.
- The Bar Association of Sri Lanka with the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute had planned a conference for 13 November 2013 on ‘Making Commonwealth values a reality: the rule of law and independence of the legal profession’. The 13 November 2013 conference was cancelled when the Government of Sri Lanka revoked visas for the UN Special Rapporteur and the IBAHRI delegation on 7 November 2013.
- In March 2013, a delegation of the IBAHRI undertook a remote fact-finding mission to investigate the impeachment proceedings of Chief Justice Bandaranayake, the independence of the legal profession and rule of law in Sri Lanka. The mission was conducted remotely following the cancellation of visas by the Government of Sri Lanka for the IBAHRI delegation. A report was released in April 2013 A Crisis of Legitimacy: The Impeachment of Chief Justice Bandaranayake and the Erosion of the Rule of Law in Sri Lanka.
- The ICJ released a report, Authority without Accountability: The crisis of impunity in Sri Lanka in November 2012 documenting the systemic erosion of rule of law and accountability mechanisms in Sri Lanka. The ICJ report described how decades of Emergency rule and legal immunities granted to the President and other government officials weakened the checks and balances in the Sri Lankan government, while political interference has increasingly led to attacks on the independence of the judiciary and rule of law.
Nov 6, 2013 | News
The ICJ is calling on the Bangladeshi authorities to immediately and unconditionally release Nasiruddin Elan, Director of the human rights group Odhikar.
Odhikar is an affiliate organization of the ICJ.
On 6 November 2013, a Dhaka cyber crimes tribunal rejected Nasiruddin Elan’s bail application and ordered his detention in Dhaka Central Jail.
Nasiruddin Elan (in the middle on the picture) has been accused of distorting information, presenting false evidence and manipulating photographs of a Government crackdown on a rally by Hefazat-e-Islam, an Islamist political organization, in May this year.
The action reportedly resulted in multiple deaths and injuries. Odhikar had reported that 61 protestors were killed by the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) and the police. The Government contests the number of casualties.
“What we are seeing is a continuing unlawful attack on Odhikar and voices critical of the Government,” said Ben Schonveld, ICJ’s South Asia Director. “Nasiruddin Elan is being arbitrarily detained for the lawful exercise of the right to freedom of expression and his legitimate work as a human rights defender.”
“The Government should immediately drop its opposition to Nasiruddin Elan’s bail application,” he added. “We are concerned that he will be one of the many detainees who faces torture and ill-treatment during detention, as documented by Odhikar and other human rights organizations.”
Bangladesh-Elan arrest statement-news-web story-2013 (full text in pdf)
Nov 5, 2013 | News
The ICJ condemns Bangladesh’s imposition of the death penalty in contravention of the global trend towards abolition of capital punishment.
It signifies a weakening of the rule of law and respect for human rights standards in the country.
On 5 November 2013, a special court sentenced 152 persons to death, most of them former officers of the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR), for participating in the 2009 mutiny in which 74 people were killed.
Two days earlier, the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) had convicted Chowdhury Mueen Uddin and Ashrafuzzaman Khan in absentia for abduction and murder during Bangladesh’s liberation war in 1971 and sentenced them to death.
The ICT, set up by the Government of Bangladesh in 2010 to prosecute persons accused of committing genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and other serious crimes during the 1971 war, has so far convicted nine accused. Seven have been given death sentences.
“The numbers of death sentences issued by special courts in Bangladesh is alarming,” said Ben Schonveld, ICJ’s South Asia Director. “There seems little interest in seeking justice; this looks more like revenge.”
“Those responsible for committing atrocities during the Bangladeshi war of liberation and the 2009 mutiny must be prosecuted and brought to justice,” he added. “But the death penalty is a perversion of justice, even more so when imposed after trials that violate due process.”
The ICJ considers the death penalty to constitute a violation of the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. The United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly called on all States to establish a moratorium on the death penalty with a view to abolition.
Under international law and standards, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Bangladesh is required to scrupulously and strictly to observe all relevant fair trial guarantees.
This includes the right to effective legal assistance at all stages of the proceedings including the appeal.
The International Crimes Tribunal as well the Special Court set up by Bangladesh to try those accused of committing atrocities in the 2009 mutiny do not meet international standards and Bangladesh’s legal obligations concerning the right to a fair trial.
The 846 suspects tried by the special court in Dhaka for the 2009 mutiny had limited access to lawyers; did not have sufficient knowledge of the charges and evidence against them; and at least 47 suspects died while in custody, allegedly after being subjected to torture.
There are also serious procedural flaws at all stages in the ICT.
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.
The ICJ calls on Bangladesh to join the great majority of States around the world in rejecting the death penalty.
To that end, Bangladesh should impose a moratorium on the practice and take steps towards its abolition, as prescribed by repeated United Nations General Assembly Resolutions.
In addition, Bangladeshi authorities must order a retrial of all persons accused of participating in the 2009 mutiny and ensure that their fresh trials meet international law standards on fair trial.
Bangladesh-Death penalty statement-news-web story-2013 (full text in pdf)
Oct 10, 2013 | News
The ICJ calls on the Dhaka Central Jail authority to immediately process an order for bail issued for the release of Adilur Rahman Khan.
The six-month bail was ordered by the High Court of Bangladesh on 8 October 2013.
The Attorney General filed an application seeking a stay on the bail order, which was denied by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh on 9 October 2013.
The bail order was signed by the required Sessions Judge and delivered to the Dhaka Central Jail in the late afternoon on 9 October 2013.
Over 24 hours later, Adilur Rahman Khan still remains in custody in the Kashimpur Jail.
“The bail order must be carried out expeditiously without undue delay or other obstruction, including by the Executive. To do so would undermine the independence of the judiciary and constitute arbitrary detention,” said Ben Schonveld, ICJ South Asia Director.
It has been two months to the day that Adilur Rahman Khan was arbitrarily detained for the lawful exercise of the right to freedom of expression, the ICJ recalls.
Under international law, notably Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Bangladesh is a party, everyone has a right to liberty and security of person.
Any detention or deprivation of liberty must be in accordance with procedures established by law.
The ICJ calls on the jail authorities to uphold the order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh and immediately release Adilur Rahman Khan on bail.
CONTACT:
Sheila Varadan, ICJ Legal Advisor, South Asia Programme (Bangkok), t: +66 857200723; email: sheila.varadan(a)icj.org
