Aug 13, 2013 | News
The ICJ today called on the Nepalese Government to release the body of Tibetan Monk Karma Nyidon Gyasto to the Tibetan community to carry out his last rites in accordance with Nepal’s laws and international obligations.
“We are deeply concerned about this rejection of Nepal’s laws and its international obligations,” said Asia Director Sam Zarifi.
On 5 August 2013, a Tibetan refugee, Karma Nyidon Gyasto self-immolated at the Boudha Stupa, in Kathmandu. He was taken to Tribhuvan University Teaching Hospital, where he was later declared dead. His body is apparently being held in the hospital’s mortuary.
On 12 August 2013, the Tibetan Refugee Welfare Office, registered an application to the Office of the Chief District Officer in Kathmandu to perform funeral rites. The Tibetan Refugee Welfare Office is acting on behalf of Gyatso given the lack of clear legal status of the resident Tibetan refugee community.
This is the second protest by self-immolation in Nepal. The first was in February 2013. In that case the government refused to hand over the body for funeral rites.
The refusal to hand over the body contravenes Nepal’s national laws.
The Interim Constitution, under Article 23 guarantees the right to religion, including the right to practice and perform religious rites.
Furthermore Article 17 provides that every community in Nepal has the right to preserve and promote its culture.
The action also contravenes Nepal’s international obligations.
Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provides for the right to a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
Furthermore, General Comment No 22 on Article 18 of the ICCPR states that this right includes ritual and ceremonial acts.
Under the Covenant, the Government of Nepal is obliged to respect and ensure the religious and cultural rights of the Tibetan refugee community, who have a legitimate right to receive the body and hold a funeral according to their religion and culture.
CONTACT:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director, (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Aug 12, 2013 | News
The ICJ is calling for the immediate release of Adilur Rahman Khan, a prominent Supreme Court lawyer and human rights defender in Bangladesh.
Mr Khan is the Secretary of Odhikar, a Bangladeshi human rights organization that has documented human rights violations allegedly carried out by Bangladeshi security forces.
Plainclothes police officers arrested Mr Khan from his home on 10 August 2013 without an arrest warrant.
“Adilur Rahman Khan is being charged for the lawful exercise of the right to freedom of expression, so Bangladeshi authorities must immediately and unconditionally drop all charges against him and release him,” said Ben Schonveld, ICJ’s South Asia director. “Until the charges are dropped, he must be released on bail.”
Adilur Rahman Khan was charged on 11 August under section 57 of the Information and Communication Technology Act, 2006, for distorting information regarding a police operation on a Hefazat-e Islam rally in May this year.
Odhikar reported that 61 people had been killed in the police crackdown on the rally. The government denied any casualties.
He was not allowed to speak with his family or his lawyers until August 11, when a Magistrate’s Court refused bail and remanded him for a further five days of custodial interrogation.
On August 12, the High Court Division of the Supreme Court stayed the remand order, directing that Mr. Khan be sent back to jail, where he could be interrogated ‘at the gate of the prison.’
“Adilur Rahman Khan’s arrest is illustrative of a deeply worrying government strategy to muzzle and discredit the work of human rights defenders and distract attention from human rights violations,” added Schonveld. “The High Court’s stay of the remand order is a positive development. However, the Bangladesh government must uphold its obligations under domestic and international law to guarantee freedom of expression and allow human rights defenders to carry out their work.”
Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Bangladesh is a party, guarantees ‘freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.’
The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers provide that lawyers must be allowed to carry out their work ‘without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference.’
Further, lawyers shall, in particular, have the right to take part in public discussions of matters concerning the law, administration of justice and the promotion and protection of human rights.
In addition, the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders clarifies that States must create an enabling environment for human rights defenders and 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:
Ben Schonveld, ICJ South Asia Director (Kathmandu), t: +977 14432651; email: ben.schonveld(a)icj.org
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director, (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Jul 5, 2013 | News
The Government of Pakistan should renew the official moratorium on the death penalty, with a view to definitively abolishing the practice in law, says the ICJ.
The Government signaled its intention to resume executions on Thursday, 4 July 2013 when it failed to renew a 2008 Presidential order imposing a moratorium on executions. It is estimated that approximately 8000 people are currently on death row in Pakistan.
“Resuming executions would be a major step backwards for Pakistan in protecting human rights,” says Sheila Varadan, ICJ Legal Advisor for South Asia. “The prospect of lifting the moratorium is all the more alarming given the extraordinarily high number of people on death row.”
The announcement apparently comes as part of the newly elected Government’s strategy to tackle high levels of crime and insecurity in Pakistan.
The ICJ condemns the death penalty as a violation of the right to life and a form of cruel and inhuman punishment. Moreover, it is widely accepted that the practice cannot serve as a deterrent to crime or be administrated without error or discrimination.
More than 150 of the 192 United Nations members States have either abolished the death penalty or imposed a moratorium on its practice.
In December 2012, the United Nations General Assembly adopted its fourth resolution calling on all States retaining the death to place a moratorium on the practice with a view towards abolition.
Of the 186 member States present, 111 member States voting in favour and only 41 member States against, an increase from the previous three resolutions.
“Pakistan is part of a dwindling minority of States who continue to retain the death penalty and carry out executions,” Varadan. “The ICJ urges the newly elected Government of Pakistan to demonstrate its commitment to upholding human rights and to desist from licensing the State deliberately to take the life any person in its custody.”
CONTACT:
Sheila Varadan, ICJ Legal Advisor, South Asia Programme (Bangkok), t: +66 857200723; email: sheila.varadan(a)icj.org
Jun 26, 2013 | News
The ICJ condemns the attempted assassination of Justice Maqbool Baqir, a judge of the Sindh High Court, who also sits on the anti-terrorism court in Karachi, Pakistan.
A bomb blast injured Justice Maqbool Baqir and thirteen others and killed at least nine people.
“This is the second bombing targeting the Pakistani judiciary in under six months. The ICJ is extremely concerned that these attacks signal a renewed challenge to the ability of the Pakistani judiciary to function as an independent institution,” said Sheila Varadan, ICJ’s South Asia Legal Advisor.
According to local media sources, the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), an armed group operating in northwestern Pakistan, has claimed responsibility for the bombing, admitting that it specifically targeted Justice Maqbool Baqir for his ‘anti-shariah’ judgments and ‘ruling against the mujahideen’.
“Any physical attack on a judge constitutes a serious threat to the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. If the TTP or another armed group is deliberately targeting judges, it could constitute a crime under international law,” Varadan added.
Under international standards, including the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of Judges, Pakistan is responsible for taking measures to ensure the protection of members of the judiciary from acts of violence or other threats to their safety.
Earlier in March 2013, the ICJ condemned the suicide bombing inside a Peshawar courthouse killing four people and injuring thirty others.
CONTACT:
Sheila Varadan, ICJ Legal Advisor, South Asia Programme (Bangkok), t: +66 857200723; email: sheila.varadan(a)icj.org
Jun 24, 2013 | News
The recent Rana Plaza building disaster, in Bangladesh, could, and should, have been averted if the government had performed its obligation to adequately protect the workers, the ICJ said today.
“The Rana Plaza collapse, which killed 1,131 workers and injured close to 2,500 others, is the most recent in a long list of industrial disasters brought about by the government’s failure to regulate and monitor workplace conditions and sanction private entities violating the law,” said Sheila Varadan, ICJ Legal Advisor on South Asia. “To single out and focus solely on the role of multi-national companies does not reflect the full picture.”
“While the ICJ does not minimize the responsibility of private enterprises, unless the underlying systemic issues such as institutional weaknesses, corruption and lack of enforcement are addressed, such tragedies will continue to happen,” Varadan added.
Litigation is a vital tool to ensure accountability, remedy and reparations, where government agencies fail in their essential functions.
The Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST), a leading national human rights organization, has been petitioning the Supreme Court over the past decade, obtaining orders against government agencies and seeking compensation for victims and their families in work-related disasters.
“The government of Bangladesh must take active measures to ensure its regulatory framework is adequate and effective; its laws are rigorously enforced; and victims are adequately compensated,” Varadan also said. “Failing to do so not only violates Bangladeshi law but is also in breach of Bangladesh’s obligations to protect human rights under international law.”
CONTACT:
Sheila Varadan, ICJ Legal Advisor, South Asia Programme (Bangkok), t: +66 857200723; email: sheila.varadan(at)icj.org
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, (Bangkok), t:+66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(at)icj.org
Bangladesh-Rana Plaza-Public interest litigation-backgrounder-featured article-2013 (full text in pdf)
Bangladesh-WGBHR5-OralStatement-LegalSubmission-2013 (full statement to the Working Group on Business and Human Rights)
Mar 22, 2013 | Feature articles, News
The inclusion of an amnesty provision, which could cover the worst possible crimes, in Nepal’s new Truth, Reconciliation and Disappearance Ordinance, will make it impossible for thousands of victims of gross human rights violations to obtain justice, ICJ and other right groups said today.
The Asian Centre for Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists and TRIAL pointed to fundamental flaws in Nepal’s new law, passed by President Ram Baran Yadav on March 14, 2013.
“The new ordinance leaves open the door to amnesties for persons implicated in gross human rights violations and crimes under international law,” said Ben Schonveld, ICJ’s South Asia director in Kathmandu. “Amnesties for serious rights violations are prohibited under international law and betray the victims, who would be denied justice in the name of political expediency.”
At least 13,000 people were killed and over 1,300 subjected to enforced disappearance in Nepal’s decade-long conflict between government forces and Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) combatants.
The fighting ended with the signing of the 2006 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, consolidating a series of commitments to human rights.
However, the government has yet to take steps to ensure that those responsible for crimes under international law during the fighting are identified and prosecuted.
International and local human rights groups have consistently decried the government’s efforts to side-step promises of justice and accountability, represented most recently by this new ordinance.
The revised ordinance calls for the formation of a high-level commission to investigate serious human rights violations committed during Nepal’s armed conflict from 1996 to 2006.
It grants the commission discretion to recommend amnesty for a perpetrator if the grounds for that determination are deemed reasonable.
The government then decides whether to grant an amnesty. There is no definition of what is reasonable.
Confusion over scope of amnesty provision
The ordinance states that “serious crimes,” including rape, cannot be recommended for an amnesty, but it does not define what other “serious crimes” are not subject to an amnesty.
Gross violations of human rights, such as extrajudicial killing, torture and enforced disappearance, are not mentioned.
Torture and enforced disappearance are not specific crimes under Nepali domestic criminal law.
The organizations expressed concern that the commission’s powers to recommend prosecution may mean little without crimes being adequately defined in law.
The final decision on whether to prosecute can only be made by the attorney general, a political appointee of the government, instead of an independent entity.
Human Rights Watch, ICJ and TRIAL have previously documented the systematic failures of the Nepali criminal law system to address serious human rights violations.
“Nepal has had years to investigate some 1,300 suspected enforced disappearances during the conflict and thousands of other human rights violations, but it has failed to deliver any credible or effective investigations,” said TRIAL Director Philip Grant in Geneva. “The provisions on prosecution contained in this ordinance don’t appear to be strong enough to overcome Nepal’s entrenched practices of safeguarding impunity by withdrawing cases or failing to pursue credible allegations. It does not leave victims with much faith that the commission will fulfill its mandate to end impunity.”
Call for review and consultation
The organizations called upon the government to establish a mechanism to review and amend the legislation in consultation with victims of human rights abuses and representatives of civil society.
“This ordinance was signed by the prime minister and president in record time without any consultation with conflict victims and civil society,” Schonveld added. “If the government had carried out proper consultations, the result would have been different, and we wouldn’t have an ordinance that entrenches impunity.”
The rights organizations also expressed concern about the ordinance’s heavy emphasis on reconciliation at the possible expense of justice for victims.
The ordinance cedes authority to the commission to implement “inter-personal reconciliation” between victim and perpetrator, even if neither the victim nor the perpetrator requests it, which could result in pressure being placed on a victim to give up any claims against a perpetrator.
Although the ordinance mentions the need for victim and witness protection, there are no specific safeguards to ensure the safety and security of victims who become involved in reconciliation processes.
Violation of international obligation for political expediency
Under international law, Nepal is obliged to take effective measures to protect human rights, including the right to life and freedom from torture and other ill-treatment.
Where a violation occurs, Nepali authorities must investigate, institute criminal proceedings, and ensure victims are afforded access to effective remedy and reparations.
“The passage of this ordinance is just the latest example of the Nepali government’s cynical willingness to trade meaningful justice and accountability for political expediency,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The government is kidding itself if it thinks it can ignore the voices of Nepal’s thousands of victims of human rights abuses. Nepal needs meaningful government initiatives to address its human rights problems, not the veneer of justice that this flawed ordinance represents.”
Contact:
In Kathmandu, for ICJ, Ben Schonveld: ben.schonveld(at)icj.org
In Bangkok, for ICJ, Sheila Varadan: +66-857-200-723; sheila.varadan(at)icj.org
