Aug 6, 2019 | News
The Indian Government’s revocation of the autonomy and special status of Jammu and Kashmir violates the rights of representation and participation guaranteed to the people of Jammu and Kashmir under the Indian Constitution and in international law and is a blow to the rule of law and human rights in the state and in India, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) said.
The Indian Government today pushed through a legislative package effectively eliminating the special status accorded to Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, which granted autonomy to Jammu and Kashmir and limited the Indian Government’s legislative powers in the state. The move was preceded by a communication blackout, arbitrary detention of political leaders, banned movement and meetings of people, and increased military presence, purportedly to quell protests.
“The Indian Government has pushed through these changes in contravention of domestic and international standards with respect to the rights of people in Jammu and Kashmir to participate and be adequately represented, accompanied by draconian new restrictions on freedoms of expression, assembly, and travel, and with an influx of thousands of unaccountable security personnel,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Secretary General.
“The legality of the Indian Government’s measures to eviscerate Article 370 will certainly be tested before the Indian judiciary, which should look closely at the serious violations of proper legislative and Constitutional processes,” Zarifi said. “All eyes are now on the Indian Supreme Court to fulfill its functions in defense of the rights of people of Jammu and Kashmir and the Indian Constitution,” Zarifi said.
The procedure adopted to revoke the special status and autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir appears to be incompatible with judgments and observations of high courts and the Indian Supreme Court, who have clarified that the President of India would need the agreement of the government of Jammu and Kashmir to change its status. The amendments effectively render Article 370 inoperative in its entirety, without meeting the Constitutional requirements in spirit.
The revocation of special status of Jammu and Kashmir without agreement from the state government is contrary to the spirit of Article 370, which envisioned that the will of the people would be taken into account in decisions relating to state’s special status and autonomy.
“The Indian Government rushed through the amendments at a time when Jammu and Kashmir was under the direct rule of the Central Government, and the state legislature was dissolved. As the government of Jammu and Kashmir is not empowered to discharge its functions, it has not been consulted, let alone agreed to the revocation,” Zarifi said.
“The lack of consultation with the people of Kashmir is all the more troubling because the changes pushed by the Indian Government will materially affect Kashmir’s status as India’s only Muslim-majority state, including special rights for citizens of the state to own and hold land and seek education and employment,” Zarifi said.
The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in successive reports in 2018 and 2019 has noted that the region of Jammu and Kashmir, under dispute between India and Pakistan since 1947, has been the theatre of grave human rights violations, including unlawful killings, enforced disappearances and torture, committed with impunity by Indian security forces.
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in both reports recommended to the Indian Government to “fully respect the right of self-determination of the people of Kashmir as protected under international law”.
The ICJ condemns the legislative steps taken with respect to Jammu and Kashmir, and calls on the Indian Government to implement in full the UN High Commissioner’s recommendations, including respecting the right to self-determination of people of Jammu and Kashmir, and to respect, protect and fulfill the human rights of people in Jammu and Kashmir.
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Secretary General,e: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org, t: 41 (0)22 979 38 00
India-Jammu Kashmir and Autonomy-News-press release-2019-ENG (full story with additional information, in PDF)
Jul 29, 2019 | News
The Government of Nepal has failed to fulfill its commitment to provide justice for the victims of the country’s decade-long armed conflict, the ICJ, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and TRIAL International said today.
The organizations echoed statements by victims and human rights groups about the Nepal government’s inaction on addressing conflict-era human rights violations, and a lack of transparency in the appointment of commissioners to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and to the Commission on the Investigation of Enforced Disappearances.
“The lack of progress in holding perpetrators accountable for the suffering inflicted upon victims, their families and Nepali society as a whole, is appalling,” said ICJ Asia-Pacific Director Frederick Rawski.
“Nearly 13 years after the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, political leaders inside and outside of government are still playing games by politicizing the process. It is about time that they showed some courage, and took action to ensure access to justice, instead of continually looking after their own short-term self-interests,” he added.
“We have seen no evidence so far that the authorities of Nepal are serious about fulfilling their obligation to investigate conflict-era violations and bring all those suspected of criminal responsibility to justice in fair trials before ordinary civilian courts,” said Raju Chapagai, South Asia researcher at Amnesty International. “If the commitment to human rights obligations was as unflinching as claimed by Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, the government would have acted diligently to deliver on its transitional justice responsibilities.”
After being elected in 2018, Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Oli renewed promises that the legal framework governing the transitional justice process would be brought into conformity with Nepal’s international human rights law obligations, as the Supreme Court had repeatedly directed. However, the government never amended the law, and instead pushed forward – without adequate consultation – with the establishment of a committee to recommend appointments to the transitional justice bodies.
“The failure of the government to deliver on its commitment to ensure truth, justice and reparations for the victims of conflict-era abuses shows a dismaying disregard for the protection of human rights,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia Director at Human Rights Watch.
The organizations called on the government to: 1) suspend the current process, and initiate a consultative and transparent process for the nomination and appointment of commissioners; 2) follow through on commitments to amend the 2014 transitional justice law to ensure that the legal framework is consistent with international human rights standards and Supreme Court rulings; and 3) adopt and publicize a plan for taking the transitional justice process forward.
“The legitimacy of Nepal’s transitional justice process lies both on a transparent and consultative appointment process for commissioners, and a strong legal foundation to allow the commissions to fulfil their mandate,” said Helena Rodríguez-Bronchú, Head of TRIAL International’s Nepal program. “Societal consensus is crucial for both factors.”
Amnesty International, ICJ and TRIAL International had previously submitted their analysis of the draft transitional justice legislation circulated in 2018 and had made recommendations on ensuring compliance with international human rights law. Human Rights Watch had also alerted for reform of the transitional justice law before appointing the commissioners. In April 2019, United Nations experts also wrote a joint letter to the foreign minister reminding the government of its commitment to amend the law and calling for a transparent process for appointing new commissioners after the terms of the previous commissioners expired.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director, t: +66 644781121 ; e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org,
Nepal-trans just-News-Press releases-2019-NEP (story in Nepali, PDF)
Jul 23, 2019 | News
The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2019, does not adequately protect the rights of transgender people and should be revised to address the concerns of the transgender community and to conform with India’s international human rights obligations, the ICJ said today.
“The Transgender Bill as currently drafted still fails to fully protect the rights of transgender people including to self-identify, a right that has been upheld by the Indian Supreme Court,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Pacific Director.
“If Parliament passes the Bill in its current form, it will miss an important opportunity to introduce a law that respects, protects and fulfills the human rights of transgender people as required by the Supreme Court’s decision in NALSA and India’s international obligations,” he added.
The Government introduced the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2019, before the Parliament on 19 July 2019.
The current draft, fails to address key concerns that have been repeatedly raised by the transgender community and human rights organizations.
Critically, the Bill continues to mandate sex reassignment surgery for transgender people who seek to identify as male or female.
This requirement clearly contravenes the Supreme Court’s judgment in NALSA v. UOI, which guarantees the right to self-identification, without any need for medical intervention. Nor does the Bill make provision for reservations in employment or education despite a mandate by the Supreme Court in NALSA.
Among the problematic provisions are those which set out lighter sentences for criminal offences when committed against transgender people (including “sexual abuse”, “physical abuse”, “verbal and emotional abuse”, “economic abuse” and denial of “passage to a public place”); inadequate or missing definitions of offences; the retention of provisions that could be used to target transgender people for criminal prosecution; and the absence of mechanisms to enforce prohibitions on discrimination in the law.
The ICJ acknowledges that the draft of the Bill contains improvements over the version passed by the Lok Sabha in 2018.
The new draft removes the requirement for a screening committee to review applications for the issuance of a gender identity certificate. It also no longer criminalizes “compel[ing] or entice[ing] a transgender person” to engage in begging
The ICJ and other human rights organizations have recommended the deletion of these provisions in light of the well-documented historical abuse that such laws enabled by making it possible to target transgender persons, and the resulting effect of creating a specter of criminality around transgender identities.
“The Bill does include some important improvements over its 2018 version, such as the elimination of screening committees for the issuance of identity documents, and problematic criminal provisions relating to begging. However, it still falls significantly short from a constitutional and an international human rights perspective,” said Rawski.
“We urge the Parliament to address the deficiencies that remain – such as provisions on mandatory sex reassignment surgery, which contravene human rights law – before passing it into law,” he added.
The current session of Parliament will close on July 26, 2019 and may be extended by two-three days. If passed by the Lok Sabha, this Bill will be introduced in the Rajya Sabha (Upper House of the Parliament) for consideration.
The ICJ urges the Lok Sabha to reconsider the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill in accordance with the constitutional and international law obligations of the Indian state, and to ensure meaningful consultation with the transgender community in its lawmaking.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Region Director, e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org, t: +66 644781121
Maitreyi Gupta (Delhi), ICJ International Legal Adviser for India, e: maitreyi.gupta(a)icj.org, t: +91 7756028369
Read also
ICJ Briefing Paper on India: Legal and Jurisprudential Developments on Transgender Rights, SAATHII Vistaara Coalition. The paper analyses in detail the domestic judicial developments on transgender rights as well as the legislative process undertaken until the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2018 was passed on 17 December 2018.
ICJ Briefing Paper on The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2016, analyzes the 2016 Bill, its shortcomings, and India’s international obligations, as it is the basis of the 2018 Bill.
ICJ Briefing Paper on Implementation of NALSA Judgment discusses the 2014 April NALSA decision that affirmed that transgender people have the right to decide their self-identified gender. The paper analyses the responsibilities placed on Indian authorities, gaps in implementation, and India’s relevant international law obligations.
Jul 21, 2019 | News
Today, the ICJ hosted a discussion on Thailand’s legal frameworks on corporate accountability for outbound investments in Chiang Mai, Thailand. The forum was co-organized with Earth Rights International.
Lawyers, members of civil society organizations and academics from Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Thailand attended the discussion.
Participants discussed:
- corporate civil, criminal and administrative liability and in particular, the applicable laws governing the prosecution and adjudication of human rights abuses committed by Thai corporations and gaps in Thailand’s legal frameworks. The meeting also looked into recommendations to strengthen Thailand’s domestic laws to increase access to justice for victims of human rights abuses committed by Thai corporations in the context of their business activities abroad, particularly on issues such as: limited liability of shareholders and the “corporate veil” in relation to the responsibilities of Thai corporations, the complexity of laws governing joint ventures, and challenges in bringing state-owned enterprises to justice;
- jurisdiction of Thai courts in civil, criminal and administrative cases where de facto and de jure foreign subsidiaries of a Thai corporation were involved in wrongful acts or omissions abroad, and problems posed by statutes of limitation;
- tools for preventing human rights abuses by corporations such as Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD), Transboundary environmental impact assessments (EIA), Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) measures, and the Duty of Care principle under tort law; and
- the role of other related actors to prevent and mitigate human rights risks, including the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand (NHRCT), National Contact Points (NCPs), financial institutions and securities institutions, and provided recommendations to strengthen mandates of such organizations which would allow them to provide better protection for individuals and communities who may be affected by outbound investments.
This discussion will provide the foundation for further work and analysis by the ICJ regarding Thailand’s legal frameworks on corporate accountability for outbound investments. It will also provide the basis for ICJ strategic advocacy at the national level.
Jul 18, 2019 | News
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) today welcomed the decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ-CIJ for its acronym) upholding the right of consular access and notification for Indian national Kulbhushan Jadhav.
The Court determined that Pakistan had unlawfully denied Jadhav consular access before and after his summary trial by a military court.
It emphasized that any “potential prejudice and the implications for the evidence and the right of defence of the accused should receive close scrutiny during the review and reconsideration.”
The Court categorically held that Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) “does not exclude from its scope certain categories of persons, such as those suspected of espionage,” as argued by Pakistan.
“The decision by the International Court today is a resounding affirmation that there can be no curtailment of the right to consular access by foreign nationals by States that are Party to the VCCR,” said Ian Seiderman, Legal and Policy Director of the ICJ.
“Consular access is essential to ensure a fair trial for foreign nationals and this human right must not in any way be made contingent upon the offence foreign nationals are charged with.”
The International Court called on Pakistan to give effect to the Court’s ruling by providing effective review and reconsideration of both his conviction and sentence, including by taking account of the principles of the right to a fair trial.
The ICJ has pointed out that Pakistan’s military justice system and procedures are incompatible with the right to a fair trial. Under international standards, military tribunals are never permissible in prosecutions against civilians for offences carrying the death penalty.
Since 3 March 2016, Kulbhushan Jadhav has been in custody of the Pakistani authorities. The circumstances of his arrest remain in dispute between the Parties.
India was informed of the arrest on 25 March 2016. On 10 April 2017, Pakistan’s military announced Kulbhushan Jadhav had been convicted and sentenced to death by a military court for “espionage and sabotage activities against Pakistan.”
India had brought the case against Pakistan before the International Court of Justice, alleging “egregious violations” of the VCCR by Pakistan because of the denial of consular access to Jadhav.
In response, Pakistan had primarily argued that Jadhav is a an Indian spy involved in acts of terrorism in Pakistan, and the VCCR is not applicable to spies or “terrorists” due to the inherent nature of the offences of espionage and terrorism.
“States around the world continue to use counter terrorism and national security as a justification to curtail human rights – the International Court of Justice’s affirmation that the protections under the VCCR are not conditional is hugely significant in this context,” said Ian Seiderman.
The International Court also held that it considered a continued stay of Jadhav’s execution as constituting “an indispensable condition for the effective review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence.”
In May 2017, the Court had asked Pakistan to take all measures at its disposal to ensure that Jadhav is not executed pending the final decision in the proceedings.
The ICJ considers the death penalty a violation of the right to life and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and notes that a large majority of States, in repeated UN resolutions, have called on retentionist states to declare a moratorium on the practice with a view to abolition.
Background
In addition to the arguments regarding espionage and terrorism, Pakistan also relied on a bilateral agreement on consular access, signed by India and Pakistan in 2008, arguing that the agreement overrides the obligations under the VCCR. The International Court of Justice, however, rejected this argument, on the ground that, among other things, obligations under the VCCR may be enhanced or clarified by bilateral treaties, but cannot be diluted or undermined.
India had requested a number of other measures of relief from the Court, including the annulment of Kulbhushan Jadhav’s death sentence; a declaration that Kulbhushan Jadhav’s military trial was in violation of the VCCR and international human rights law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); a directive restraining Pakistan from giving effect to the death sentence; and a directive to release Kulbhushan Jadhav and ensure his safe passage to India.
However, in accordance with its jurisdictional competencies and prior precedents, the Court denied these remedies to India. As “appropriate reparation” in this case, the Court directed Pakistan to effectively review and reconsider Jadhav’s conviction and sentence “to ensure that full weight is given to the effect of the violation of the rights set forth in Article 36 of the Vienna Convention.”
Contact
Ian Seiderman: ICJ Legal and Policy Director, e: ian.seiderman(a)icj.org
Frederick Rawski: ICJ’s Asia Pacific Region, e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Jul 15, 2019 | News
On 13 July 2019, the ICJ hosted a discussion on the human rights consequences of Special Investment Zones in Thailand particularly focusing on the legislative frameworks of Thailand’s Special Economic Zones (SEZs) and the Eastern Economic Corridor (EEC).
Lawyers, members of civil society organizations and academics from across Thailand attended the discussion.
The participants explored existing adverse impacts and potential future impacts on human rights arising from the implementation of the current EEC and SEZ legal frameworks.
The discussion focused on: (i) governing authorities of the SEZs and EEC; (ii) designation of target areas and land acquisition; (iii) environment, health and well-being of the local communities; (iv) other rights of affected individuals and communities; (v) issues pertaining to workers and labour rights and (vi) roles of other stakeholders, including financial institutions, the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand, and the corporate sector.
The participants considered concerns with respect to Thailand’s duty to protect human rights under international human rights standards and identified key issues of concern relating to the legal frameworks of the EEC and SEZs.
During their discussion, the participants highlighted the lack of meaningful participation of affected individuals or communities at the policy and law-making levels and the absence of a formalized way for such individuals and communities to voice their concerns regarding their inability to exercise their rights connected to economic, cultural and social development and international human rights law.
The participants highlighted that the processes of land acquisition and classification of State-owned lands in the areas of SEZs and the EEC were allegedly not carried out in a human rights-compliant manner, and were not in line with the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-Based Evictions and Displacement.
Key concerns were raised regarding people and communities who has been living on lands upon which they depend for their livelihoods but to which they do not hold land title deeds.
Some participants also stressed the importance of strengthening Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environmental & Health Impact Assessment (EHIA) procedures.
Proposed improvements included the hiring of independent consultants to carry out EIA and EHIA assessments, effective review by an independent body to ensure the credibility of assessment reports, and other mechanisms to ensure effective monitoring and follow-up on assessments.
Participants also called for the following rights to be respected in the implementation of development-based policy:(i) the right to genuinely and meaningfully take part in public affairs; (ii) the right to take part in cultural life; (iii) the right to secure one’s livelihood; (iv) the right to enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health; (v) the right to water and sanitation; and (vi) the right of access to justice, which encompasses the right to effective remedy and guarantees of the due process of law.
They also urged financial institutions which fund the development of the EEC and SEZs to take a more active role to prevent and mitigate human rights risks.
This discussion will provide the foundation for further work and analysis by the ICJ in detailing the human rights consequences of special investment zones frameworks in Thailand, focusing on the implementation of SEZs and EEC policies. It will also provide the basis for ICJ strategic advocacy at the national level.
Background
The Eastern Economic Corridor (EEC) and Special Economic Zones (SEZs) are flagship economic schemes of the Thai government to boost Thailand’s economy after the military coup in 2014 through large-scale investments into special investment zones covering areas in 13 provinces of Thailand.
In 2015, 10 SEZs were established in 10 different provinces of Thailand as a means to create economically-productive areas in border cities linked to other countries in Southeast Asia.
The SEZs were established towards enhancing growth in 13 target industries. Each SEZ will have different targets depending on each location development and province strategy.
Launched in 2016, the EEC builds upon the former Eastern Seaboard project and is being developed in the eastern coastal provinces of Rayong, Chonburi, and Chachoengsao purportedly to encourage investment into 10 next-generation industries that use innovation and high technology.
The EEC is also designated to be a pilot model in developing other SEZ areas in the future.
The EEC is currently already in operation in part. Most of the SEZs are currently in the process of land acquisition or classification.
Criticisms raised during the discussion noted that (i) the SEZs and EEC had been established without carrying out assessments with the full participation of affected persons, groups and communities; (ii) local residents had been forced off their land without fair or adequate compensation; and (iii) allowing fast-track environmental impact assessments (EIA) could result in undermining the overall objective and effectiveness of EIA.
