Mar 21, 2013 | News
A resolution adopted today by the UN Human Rights Council highlights the Sri Lankan Government’s ongoing failure to provide accountability for serious violations of human rights and the laws of war, the ICJ said.
“The ICJ welcomes this resolution as it underscores the international community’s continuing concern about the horrific atrocities committed by all sides to the Sri Lankan conflict,” said Alex Conte, Director of ICJ’s International Law and Protection Programmes. “The UN, as well as the Commonwealth and other international organizations interested in helping the Sri Lankan people, should now press and assist the Sri Lankan Government to show tangible implementation of their oft-repeated promises.”
Twenty-five States supported the resolution, following from a similar resolution adopted by the Council on Sri Lanka last year.
The resolution reiterates the need for the Sri Lankan Government to demonstrate tangible steps to ensure accountability for violations of human rights and the laws of war, especially during the final months of the three-decade long conflict in 2009.
In particular, the resolution calls on the Sri Lankan Government to implement the recommendations of its own Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC).
The LLRC was widely criticized by Sri Lankan civil society as well as international observers as falling short of international standards of providing accountability.
“Sri Lanka has a long history of promising justice but delivering impunity, and the LLRC is only the most recent example of that. With this resolution, the international community shows it wants to see concrete action,” Conte added. “Not only has the Sri Lankan Government not addressed the violations of the past, but there are strong indications that the rule of law has significantly deteriorated.”
The resolution notes with concern the ongoing reports of human rights violations being committed with impunity in Sri Lanka, including enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings and torture.
In October 2012, the ICJ released a 150-page report Authority without Accountability: The Crisis of Impunity in Sri Lanka, documenting the systematic erosion of accountability mechanisms in Sri Lanka.
In recent months, Sri Lanka’s Government has stepped up its assaults on the independent functioning of the judiciary. In particular, the country’s Chief Justice was removed from office after she had challenged the legality of Government efforts to consolidate authority. The heavily politicized impeachment process was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka and was inconsistent with international human rights law and standards.
“In light of this resolution and the situation in Sri Lanka, the Commonwealth should change its plans to hold the 2013 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Colombo,” said Conte. “Sri Lanka has demonstrated its rejection of the Commonwealth Principles, notably democracy, the independence of the judiciary and human rights. This will no doubt be further confirmed when the High Commissioner for Human Rights presents her oral update to the Human Rights Council in September this year, just two months ahead of the scheduled Heads of Government Meeting.”
The ICJ has urged the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG), which meets next month, to address the human rights situation in Sri Lanka with the objective of removing its right to host the Heads of Government Meeting.
CONTACT:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, (Bangkok); t:+66(0) 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(at)icj.org
Sheila Varadan, ICJ Legal Advisor, South Asia Programme (Bangkok); t: +66 857200723; email: sheila.varadan(at)icj.org
NOTES:
- The resolution of the Council was adopted by 25 votes in favor, 13 against and 8 abstentions (with Congo, Ecuador, Indonesia, Kuweit, Maldives, Mauritania, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Thailand, Uganda, United Arab Emirates and Venezuela voting against; and Angola, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Malaysia abstaining)
- The resolution was led by the United States of America and co-sponsored by Austria, Canada, Estonia, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Spain, and Switzerland; as well as by the following non-member States of the Council: Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Malta, Monaco, Norway, Portugal, Saint Kitss and Nevis, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
- In January 2012, Chief Justice Dr Shirani Bandaranayake was removed in an impeachment process that violated international standards of due process and was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The impeachment was widely condemned internationally. The ICJ issued a letter supported by fifty-six senior jurists from over thirty countries worldwide.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Open letter: Sri Lanka should not host the 2013 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting
ICJ calls for International Commission of Inquiry on accountability in Sri Lanka
The International Commission of Jurists welcomes key Human Rights Council resolution on Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka: judges around the world condemn impeachment of Chief Justice Dr Shirani Bandaranayake
Mar 18, 2013 | News
The ICJ strongly condemns today’s suicide attack on the Peshawar court complex in Pakistan.
“An independent judiciary, free from violence, threats of violence or intimidation is a basic precondition to a functioning democracy under the rule of law,” said Alex Conte, Director of ICJ’s International Law and Protection Programmes.
“The suicide attack drives home the failure of the Pakistani government to fulfill its obligation to protect the right to personal security of the millions of people living in northwest Pakistan who have to face the daily threat of suicide bombings or unlawful killings,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia & Pacific Regional Director.
Under the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of Judges, the State must take steps to protect the judiciary from threats, violence or any other interference from any quarter for any reason.
Under international law, notably the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Pakistan must take active steps to ensure the safety of all persons within its territories.
Under the Beijing Statement of Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary in the LAWASIA Region, the executive authorities must at all times ensure the security and physical protection of judges and their families.
“Insurgent groups in northwest Pakistan have a long record of human rights abuses, including the use of suicide bombers to commit unlawful killings,” Zarifi added. “If this bombing was perpetrated by militants as part of a widespread or systematic attack against civilians, it constitutes a crime against humanity and must be treated as such.”
Earlier today, two suicide bombers detonated heavy explosives inside a Peshawar courthouse killing four people and injuring thirty others, including lawyers, police officers and civilians.
One of the bombers detonated the explosives in the courtroom of Judge Kulsoom Nawaz.
The Peshawar courthouse complex was attacked in November 2009, killing 19 people.
CONTACTS:
Laurens Hueting, ICJ Associate Legal Adviser, Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers (Geneva), t: +41 229793848, email: laurens.hueting(a)icj.org
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, (Bangkok); t:+66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Sheila Varadan, ICJ Legal Advisor, South Asia Programme (Bangkok), t: +66 857200723; email: sheila.varadan(a)icj.org
Mar 14, 2013 | News
Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi should not keep his position on the Supreme Court after he was appointed today as the country’s interim prime minister so as to preserve the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law.
“The Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi, has demonstrated a strong commitment to upholding the rule of law and protecting human rights in Nepal,” said Ben Schonveld, ICJ’s South Asia Director in Kathmandu. “To preserve the Nepali judiciary’s hard-won independence, the Chief Justice should step down from his post as soon as he assumes his position at the top of the Executive Branch.”
The Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi was appointed as Chairperson of the Council of Ministers – effectively the country’s Prime Minister – today.
The country’s four key political parties agreed on an arrangement whereby Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi will refrain from participating in his duties as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court while exercising powers of the Prime Minister conferred by the Interim Constitution, in brokering an election of the Constituent Assembly.
After the election is held, the agreement provides that the Chief Justice will resume his power and regular duties as Chief Justice.
In the interim, the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court will act as Chief Justice.
“Appointing the serving Chief Justice to act as Chairperson of the Council of Ministers throws the country into uncharted constitutional waters,” Schonveld added. “This agreement obliterates the line between the executive and the judiciary.”
A petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Agreement is currently before the Supreme Court.
The interim Constitution of Nepal guarantees the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers.
Article 106 bans sitting and retired judges from assuming any appointment in government service apart from a role in the national human rights commission.
To enable the Chief Justice’s appointment as Prime Minister, the President under the recommendation of the Council of the Ministers amended several provisions of the Interim Constitution, including Article 106.
These amendments were made in contravention of the requirements of the Interim Constitution, which calls for a mandatory two-thirds majority of Parliament.
Under international law and standards, including the United Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, States are required to ensure an independent judiciary at all times.
Under the Bangalore Principles on Judicial Conduct, judges must be free, and be seen to be free, from inappropriate connections with the executive and legislative branches of government.
The Beijing Statement of Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary stresses the importance of the independence of the judiciary in a free society observing the rule of law.
Judges must uphold the integrity and independence of the Judiciary by avoiding impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.
CONTACTS:
Ben Schonveld, ICJ South Asia Director, (Kathmandu); t: 977 9804596661; email: ben.schonveld(at)icj.org
Govinda Bandi Sharma, ICJ Senior Legal Advisor, Nepal (Kathmandu), t: +977 9851061167; email: govinda.sharma(at)icj.org
Sheila Varadan, ICJ Legal Advisor, South Asia Programme (Bangkok), t: +66 857200723; email: Sheila.varadan(at)icj.org
Photo by Bikash Dware
Feb 28, 2013 | News
The death sentence handed down by the International Crimes Tribunal today against Delwar Hossain Sayeedi (photo) violates international standards of due process and fair trial, and, if carried out, would violate his right to life, says the ICJ.
“The ICJ wholly condemns the atrocities committed in Bangladesh’s war of liberation in 1971, notably the widespread and systematic use of rape as a form of torture and the unlawful killings. It is paramount that those responsible should be held accountable,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director. “But even perpetrators of atrocities have rights. They should be brought to justice, not subjected to vengeance.”
Delwar Hossain Sayeedi, vice-president of the Jamaat-e-Islami party, was indicted on 3 October 2011 on 20 charges including genocide and crimes against humanity. He was arrested and brought before the War Crimes Tribunal for the first time on 2 November 2010. He was accused of working with the Al-Badr group during the independence struggle in the early 1970s.
The International Commission of Jurists opposes the death penalty as a violation of the right to life and a form of cruel and inhuman punishment. The United Nations General Assembly has called on all States to establish a moratorium on the death penalty with a view to universal abolition.
Today, crowds gathered outside the courthouse as the verdict was being read, demanding Delwar Hossain Sayeedi be sentenced to death for his role in the atrocities committed in the 1971 war of liberation. Earlier this month, widespread protests erupted across Bangladesh after the Tribunal imposed a life sentence on Abdul Qadar Mollah instead of the death penalty.
“The enormous demonstrations and the unfortunate violence that have accompanied each decision of the ICT demonstrate the passions still enflamed by the crimes of 1971. But it is in everyone’s interest to ensure that the rule of law and the path to justice are not subject to immediate political pressure,” Zarifi added. “The Government’s obligation to bring those responsible for the atrocities committed in 1971 to justice must not outweigh the presumption of innocence and the duty to ensure the security of all persons.”
The ICJ says that the International Crimes Tribunal does not adhere to international standards of a fair trial and due process.
According to the ICJ, there are serious procedure flaws at all stages: pre-trial release has been routinely and arbitrarily denied; witnesses have been abducted and intimidated; there have been credible allegations of collusion between the Government, prosecutors and judges.
On 14 February 2013, a draft amendment was tabled in Parliament, retroactively changing the International Criminal (Tribunals) Act 1973 to enable prosecutors to appeal a life sentence and seek the death penalty.
This amendment came after protests for a death sentence in the 5 February 2013 verdict against Abul Qadar Mollah.
As a State party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Bangladesh is obligated to guarantee due process and fair trial rights to all suspects, even those accused of war crimes.
Such obligations include the right to an public hearing before a competent, independent and impartial tribunal; the right to be tried in one’s presence; the right to counsel and the right to a full defence; and the right not to be punished again for an offence for which there has already been a final conviction in accordance with the law.
“Failing to abide by minimum standards of due process will cast doubt on the Tribunal’s findings and undermine victims’ hard-fought battle for justice,” Zarifi said. “The Bangladesh Tribunal is one of very few transitional justice mechanisms that have imposed the death penalty.”
This verdict is the third issued by the tribunal. Earlier this month, Abdul Qader Mollah, the assistant secretary-general of the Jamaat-e-Islami was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment for committing crimes against humanity during the 1971 liberation war.
On 21 January, Abul Kalam Azad, a former leading member of the Jamaat-e-Islami party, was tried and convicted in absentia and sentenced to death for crimes committed during Bangladesh’s war of liberation in 1971. He was convicted on six counts of a crime against humanity and one count of genocide.
The government established the Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal in 2010, after amending the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act 1973. The International Crimes Tribunal 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 supports the right of victims to seek truth and justice for the atrocities committed in the 1971 Liberation War.
However, any such process must adhere to international human rights standards, including full guarantees for a fair trial.
CONTACT:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, t: +66 26198477; email: sam.zarifi(at)icj.org
Sheila Varadan, ICJ Legal Advisor, South Asia Programme, t: +66 857200723; email: sheila.varadan(at)icj.org
Jan 30, 2013 | News
The Nepali government must ensure that the case of the 2004 killing of journalist Dekendra Thapa (photo) can proceed without further political interference, the ICJ said today.
“Political interference into an ongoing criminal investigation constitutes a fundamental attack on the rule of law in Nepal,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ Nepal Country Representative. “The Government must ensure that there are no further attempts to subvert the course of justice.”
On 11 January, Nepal’s Attorney General, Mukti Pradhan, sent a written instruction to the local police and prosecutor not to move forward with the investigation and prosecution.
In response to a petition challenging the instruction, on 16 January, the Supreme Court ordered both Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai and the Attorney General not to intervene in the ongoing investigation.
The Home Ministry subsequently ordered the transfer of officials involved in the investigation, and the Prime Minister himself has made public statements calling for the suspects to be released pending the much-delayed formation of a promised truth commission.
“It is now the obligation of the justice system to ensure due process and the right to a fair trial,” Rawski added. “This is an opportunity for Nepal to illustrate the political will exists to address past human rights violations, and that the country’s judiciary can provide justice for the victims while protecting the rights of the defendants.”
Dekendra Thapa was allegedly tortured and buried alive by Maoist cadres in 2004 during the country’s decade-long civil war, which ended in 2006.
The case was finally submitted to a District Court yesterday (January 28, 2013) by the District Attorney of Dailekh in Mid-Western Nepal. The Dailekh District Attorney has charged nine people alleged to be involved.
Five of the suspects have been arrested and produced before the district court.
“Dekendra Thapa was one of the thousands of civilians whose deaths have gone without proper explanation or justice,” said Rawski. “Thanks to the courageous decision of the local authorities to proceed with this case, there is now an opportunity for the Nepali justice system to begin answering the demands for justice.”
Contact:
In Kathmandu, Frederick Rawski, ICJ Nepal Country Representative : t +977-984-959-7681
In Bangkok, Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director: t +66-807-819-002
Photo credit: Dhurba Basnet
Jan 15, 2013 | News
The appointment of former Attorney General Mohan Peiris (photo) as Sri Lanka’s new Chief Justice raises serious concerns about the future of the Rule of Law and accountability in the country, the ICJ said today.
Mohan Peiris has served in a variety of high-level legal posts in the past decade, always playing a key role in defending the conduct of the Sri Lankan government.
He served as Sri Lanka’s Attorney-General from 2009 to 2011. Since then he has served as the legal adviser to President Mahinda Rajapakse and the Cabinet.
“During his tenure as Attorney-General and the government’s top legal advisor Mohan Peiris consistently blocked efforts to hold the government responsible for serious human rights violations and disregarded international law and standards,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia director.
“Mohan Peiris’ appointment as the new Chief Justice, after a politically compromised and procedurally flawed impeachment, adds serious insult to the gross injury already inflicted on Sri Lanka’s long suffering judiciary.”
The International Commission of Jurists, in its recent report on impunity in Sri Lanka, highlighted Mohan Peiris’ lack independence as Attorney-General, noting the alarming number of cases involving prominent politicians that were withdrawn during his tenure.
In November 2011, as Attorney General, Peiris told the UN Committee Against Torture in Geneva that political cartoonist Prageeth Ekneligoda, believed to have been subjected to enforced disappearance in January 2010, had actually left Sri Lanka. In June 2012, Peiris admitted to a court in Colombo that this claim was groundless.
“ICJ condemns this appointment as a further assault on the independence of the judiciary and calls on the Sri Lankan government to reinstate Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake. If there are grounds for questioning the Chief Justice’s actions, they should be pursued following due process and a proper impeachment process.”
CONTACT:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia-Pacific Regional Director, Bangkok, t:+66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(at)icj.org
Sheila Varadan, ICJ Legal Advisor, South Asia Programme, Bangkok, t: +66 857200723; email: sheila.varadan(at)icj.org
NOTE:
In a statement today (see below), Justice Bandarayanake strongly denied all the charges against her and asserted her status as the legal Chief Justice of Sri Lanka’s supreme court. She said: “The accusations leveled against me are blatant lies. I am totally innocent of all charges…Since it now appears that there might be violence if I remain in my official residence or my chambers I am compelled to move…”
Sri Lanka-CJ final speech-2012 (full statement, in pdf)
Read also:
ICJ condemns impeachment of Sri Lanka’s Chief Justice
Sri Lanka’s Parliament should reject motion to impeach Chief Justice
Impeachment of Sri Lankan Chief Justice: Government must adhere to international standards of due process
