Jun 28, 2019 | News
The ICJ categorically condemns Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena’s endorsement of death warrants of four people convicted of drug-related offences.
Today, the ICJ urged the President to stop the imminent execution of these four convicts and to respect the de facto moratorium Sri Lanka has observed on capital punishment that over the past 43 years.
The ICJ has called on Sri Lanka to move toward full abolition of the abhorrent practice.
“President Sirisena’s resolve to resume executions would be a violation of Sri Lanka’s obligations under international human rights law and a disastrous for human rights in the country. It is also inconsistent with the global trend towards the abolition of the death penalty,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia-Pacific Director.
Speaking to the media on Wednesday June 26, President Sirisena announced that four execution warrants of those convicted of drug offences had been signed and that the dates for the execution had also been determined.
Those dates were left unspecified. With 1299 people on death row, the lives of at least 46 more prisoners, whose execution warrants have been prepared, are now under imminent threat.
Sri Lanka is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, under which it is not permitted to impose the death penalty for drug offences, the resumption of the death penalty after an extended is also incompatible with the ICCPR.
The ICJ opposes the death penalty in all circumstances without exception. The death penalty constitutes a violation of the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
The UN General Assembly has adopted repeated resolutions, most recently in December 2018, by overwhelming majority in calling for all retentionist States to observe an immediate moratorium with a view to abolition.
Sri Lanka voted in favour of a moratorium on the use of the death penalty in the 2018 UN GA Resolution.
The ICJ urgently calls on the Government of Sri Lanka to immediately halt all plans for execution and to do away with the capital punishment once and for all in keeping with its own commitment before the UN General Assembly for a global moratorium on the use of death penalty.
Instead of resuming executions, the Sri Lankan authorities should focus on effective, evidence-based approaches to crime prevention in manners that conform to international human rights law and standards.
Background
The UN Human Rights Committee, the supervisory body for the ICCPR, has made it clear that the imposition of the death penalty for crimes that are not of extreme gravity involving intentional killing, such as “drug offences” is incompatible with the Covenant as such offences do not meet the threshold of “most serious crimes”.
It has affirmed that that States parties that are not yet totally abolitionist should be on an irrevocable path towards complete eradication of the death penalty, de facto and de jure, in the foreseeable future.
The death penalty cannot be reconciled with full respect for the right to life, and abolition of the death penalty is both desirable and necessary for the enhancement of human dignity and progressive development of human rights.
It is contrary to the object and purpose of article 6 for States parties to take steps to increase de facto the rate and extent in which they resort to the death penalty, or to reduce the number of pardons and commutations they grant.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Region Director, e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org, t: +66 644781121
Jun 25, 2019 | News
Myanmar’s 1982 Citizenship Law, which has fueled widespread discrimination against various ethnic minority groups, is irreconcilable with core rule of law principles and the State’s obligations under international human rights law, the ICJ said today in a briefing paper.
The briefing paper Citizenship Law and Human Rights in Myanmar: Why Law Reform is Urgent and Possible (available in English and Burmese) analyses the legal framework for citizenship in Myanmar, and assesses certain provisions of the 2008 Constitution relevant to citizenship as well as the 1982 Citizenship Law.
This law embedded the current narrow definition of citizenship, which generally links citizenship acquisition to membership of a prescribed “national race.”
The resulting system enables and legitimizes discrimination against various groups, particularly against persons of South Asian or Chinese descent, members of whole ethnic groups, such as the Rohingya, and also the children of single mothers.
“Enacted by unelected military governments, Myanmar’s citizenship laws fuel widespread discrimination throughout the country,” said Sean Bain, Legal Adviser for the ICJ.
“The government must act immediately to dismantle this discriminatory system and to protect in law the human rights of all persons,” he added.
The intentionally discriminatory character of this law, and its equally discriminatory implementation, largely explain why many long-term residents of Myanmar lack a legal identity (more than 25 percent of persons enumerated in the 2014 Census).
The ICJ recommends three immediately achievable, concrete areas of law reform to the Government: 1) legislative reform, including most urgently of the 1982 Citizenship Law and the Child Rights Bill now being considered by the parliament; 2) Constitutional reform, to protect the right of citizens to full political participation; and 3) to institute interim measures to address discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity.
A review of the 1982 Law was recommended in 2017 by the Government’s advisory commission chaired by the late United Nations Secretary-General Mr Kofi Annan, but the Government has not yet demonstrated any tangible progress on this.
“The government has the means at hand to get rid of this discriminatory system, which has undermined the rule of law and blocked the development of a pluralistic democracy. The government can and must implement the recommendations of its own advisory commission. The pervasiveness of discrimination cannot continue to go unaddressed, and there are no reasonable legal grounds for further delay in initiating pathways to reform,” Bain said.
UN Member States, as well as International Finance Institutions and UN agencies, must also ensure that assistance to the Government of Myanmar enables necessary reforms, and does not, in any way, entrench the existing discriminatory system.
Coinciding with the launch of this report, yesterday the ICJ hosted an event in Yangon where a panel of Myanmar legal scholars and researchers discussed the impact of current legal arrangements for citizenship on human rights, and why law reform is both urgent and possible. Representatives including from diplomatic missions, UN agencies, the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission, a multilateral donor and Non-Government Organizations attended the event.
Background
“Citizenship” is a legal concept describing an individual’s relationship to the State. In contrast, “statelessness” is when somebody does not have citizenship of any State. Terms such as “nationality,” “race” or “ethnicity” are generally culturally embedded concepts, understood differently by different people and in different contexts.
In many countries, particularly those with diverse populations, the right to citizenship is defined broadly to include persons with different ethnicities and even nationalities. In post-independence Myanmar, the concept of being a “national” or “indigenous” had a generally broad definition, allowing persons of different backgrounds to become citizens, including but not limited to the descendants of persons who had immigrated to Myanmar.
The 1982 Citizenship Law embedded in legislation the concept of “national races,” and introduced a hierarchy of citizenship categories that effectively institutes first-class and second-class citizens. Under this system, many life-long residents of Myanmar have effectively been rendered stateless, including members of entire ethnic groups, and children of mixed ancestry.
This discriminatory system has fostered an environment where crimes against humanity have taken place with absolute impunity.
Although section 347 of Myanmar’s 2008 Constitution guarantees “any person to enjoy equal rights” and protections before the law, other constitutional provisions restrict “fundamental rights” to citizens, including the rights to health and to education. Even for citizens, political rights are limited if a parent, child or spouse is not a citizen of Myanmar – the most infamous example of this is Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, who is constitutionally barred from the Presidency because her sons are foreign citizens.
The formation in February of this year of a Constitutional Amendment Committee also presents opportunities to expand the narrow definition of “fundamental rights,” to ensure their compliance with the constitutional guarantee of equality and protection before the law for “any person” (section 347), and with the State’s international human rights law obligations.
The Child Rights Bill, currently under consideration by the parliament, also offers opportunities to ensure that Myanmar’s laws comply with its treaty obligations, for example, under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, including with respect to the right of a child to acquire a nationality (citizenship), and the State’s related obligation to prevent statelessness.
See also
ICJ convenes workshop on reforming 1982 Citizenship law
ICJ materials on human rights law in Myanmar
Download
Myanmar-Citizenship law reform-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2019-ENG (full report in English)
Myanmar-Citizenship law reform-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2019-BUR (full report in Burmese)
Myanmar-Citizenship law reform-News-web story-2019-BUR (full story in Burmese)
Contact
Sean Bain, ICJ Legal Adviser, sean.bain(a)icj.org
Jun 24, 2019 | News
The ICJ convened a half-day panel discussion today in Yangon, Myanmar, to discuss national laws governing citizenship, and outline how, throughout the country, they have a discriminatory impact on people’s enjoyment of their human rights.
The event also provided the opportunity to introduce the ICJ’s new legal briefing Citizenship and Human Rights in Myanmar: Why Law Reform is Urgent and Possible
ICJ legal researcher Ja Seng Ing and legal adviser Sean Bain kicked off the event by noting that Myanmar’s legal framework for citizenship – enacted by unelected military governments – fuels widespread discrimination against members of ethnic minority groups throughout the country.
Bain highlighted the incompatibility of the domestic legal framework governing citizenship in Myanmar with core rule of law principles and with the State’s obligations under international human rights law, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
He presented the ICJ’s practical recommendations for law reform, outlined in the ICJ’s new legal briefing, including with respect to the 1982 Citizenship Law and the 2008 Constitution, and to the Child Rights Bill currently under consideration by Myanmar’s national parliament.
Senior Advocate U Ohn Maung, a lawyer with decades of experience supporting access for members of minority groups to the official documentation often necessary to obtain even basic services, emphasized that citizenship in Myanmar should be a more inclusive concept, reflective of its pluralistic, multi-ethnic demography.
Daw Zarchi Oo and Daw Su Chit shared the findings of independent civil society research.
They highlighted various groups including: migrants and migrant workers; individuals belonging to sexual and/or gender minorities; single mothers; the children of fathers who are foreign nationals or who are estranged from their fathers; and people living with disabilities, who are all adversely impacted by current legal arrangements for citizenship and by their discriminatory implementation.
Daw Zarchi Oo also spoke about her own past experience of being stateless, and Daw Su Chit elaborated on her work with civil society and others to develop a gendered analysis of the impact of discriminatory citizenship laws in Myanmar.
Around 60 participants, including from domestic civil society, the legal community, international non-government organizations, the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission, the diplomatic community and others joined this event, and participated in the discussions.
The 1982 Citizenship Law embedded the current narrow definition of citizenship, which generally links its acquisition to membership of a prescribed “national race.”
Many of the 2008 Constitution’s provisions on “fundamental rights” are restricted to citizens only, with a result being that the State generally does not recognize the human rights of persons who do not qualify as citizens under domestic law, or are otherwise excluded due to the laws’ discriminatory implementation.
The intentionally discriminatory character of the 1982 Law, and its discriminatory implementation, largely explains why many long-term residents of Myanmar lack a legal identity (more than 25 percent of persons enumerated in the 2014 Census).
The situation of Rohingya people, who the State generally does not recognize as citizens, is the most egregious example of the human rights violations associated with this system.
This event is part of the ICJ’s broader support to promote and protect human rights in Myanmar through research, analysis, advocacy and creating spaces for discussion.
See also:
ICJ convenes workshop on reforming 1982 Citizenship law
Jun 23, 2019 | Events, News
This side event will take place on Friday 28 June 2019, from 13:00-14:00, in Room XXI, at the Palais des Nations.
There has been an increase in serious human rights violations in Kashmir, particularly since 2016. This has coincided with shrinking space for human rights reporting and advocacy at the national level, with human rights defenders facing unprecedented threats and reprisals.
The escalating violence, coupled with systemic impunity for perpetrators, has made it imperative for the human rights situation in Kashmir to be highlighted at the international level, including at the UN.
This event aims to bring to the forefront the human rights aspect of the conflict and discuss possible strategies through which the international community can play a more effective role in ensuring the promotion and protection of human rights in the region.
Keynote Address
Hon. Judge Navanethem Pillay: Former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (2008-2014)
Moderator
Sam Zarifi: ICJ Secretary General
Speakers
Juliette Rousselot: Program Officer for South Asia, International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
Gerard Staberock: Secretary General, World Organization Against Torture (OMCT)
Dr. Angana Chatterji: Co-chair, Initiative on Political Conflict, Gender and People’s Rights, Center for Race and Gender, University of California, Berkeley
Kashmir-HRC-Event-2019-ENG (Flyer in PDF)
Jun 8, 2019 | Multimedia items, News, Publications, Reports, Thematic reports, Video clips
The Indian Government must give effect to recent rulings of the Supreme Court and end discrimination and other human rights violations and abuses based on real or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, the ICJ said today at the Delhi launch of its new report on the conditions of LGBTQ people in India.
The ICJ’s 152-page report Living with Dignity: Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity-Based Human Rights Violations in Housing, Work, and Public Spaces in India details human rights violations suffered by LGBTQ persons in their family homes, workplaces, and public spaces including streets, public toilets, public transport and shopping centres.
Following on the Supreme Court’s decisions in NALSA and Navtej, which strongly affirmed the human rights of LGBTQ persons, the report identifies legal and policy challenges, as well as structural barriers that prevent them from enjoying the full range of human rights.
”Despite the promise of recent jurisprudence, the Indian government has not consistently met its constitutional and international obligations to guarantee the rights of LGBTQ persons,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Director.
“The ICJ encourages the Indian State to build on existing efforts to protect these rights to ensure full compliance with the right to live with dignity in terms of the Indian Constitution and international human rights law,” he added.
The Living with Dignity report identifies a wide range of violations and abuses of rights in the context of housing, work and public spaces.
Human rights violations associated with housing included discrimination in accessing rental accommodation, harassment and violence by landlords and by families, and arbitrary evictions.
The report sets out instances of discrimination in the workplace, at all stages of employment, and throughout the formal and informal sectors.
It also documents obstacles faced by LGBTQ persons seeking access to public spaces, including discriminatory policing, gendered toilets and transport, harassment and abuse by State officials, and discriminatory targeting through the application of public nuisance, sex work and anti-beggary laws.
The report offers a set of recommendations meant to make existing law and policy more protective of LGBTQ persons’ rights and calls for the amendment or repeal of certain existing laws.
“There is no single law or policy solution to ending long-standing and systemic discrimination. But legal and policy reforms are essential to addressing the abuses suffered by LGBTQ persons and these must include the effective, inclusive and meaningful participation of a diverse range of LGBTQ individuals and advocacy groups,” Rawski said.
The report also recommends the convening of a nationwide consultation geared towards the enactment of a comprehensive anti-discrimination law prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity as is required by international human rights law.
In a preface to the report, ICJ Commissioner and former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, Justice Ajit Prakash Shah, indicates his hope that the report will “be used as a tool by lawyers, human rights defenders and policymakers” and “contribute to enhancing public discourse on LGBTQ rights, as well as broader issues of discrimination and the rule of law in India”.
Download
Report: Living with Dignity: Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity-Based Human Rights Violations in Housing, Work, and Public Spaces in India (English)
Executive Summary (English)
Infographics
SOGIE-based Human Rights violations in Housing
SOGIE-based Human Rights violations at Work
Barriers experiences by LGBTQ people in accessing Public Spaces
Contact
Maitreyi Gupta (Delhi), ICJ International Legal Adviser for India, e: maitreyi.gupta(a)icj.org, t: +91 7756028369
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Region Director, e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org, t: +66 644781121
Read also
Briefing Paper on Navtej Singh Johar et al. v. Union of India and Others, July 2018.
Unnatural Offences”: Obstacles to Justice in India Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, February 2017.
ICJ Briefing Paper on Implementation of NALSA Judgment, 2016.
Watch the video
May 20, 2019 | Advocacy, News
The ICJ has made a submission to Ms. Karima Bennoune, the United Nations Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights (“Special Rapporteur”) in response to a call for submission, in advance of her forthcoming report to the General Assembly on how actors from across the cultural ecosystem access and use public spaces and the impact this has on their cultural rights.
ICJ’s submission draws on its ongoing work on the human rights of LGBTQ persons in India and includes findings from the ICJ’s forthcoming report on the rights of LGBTQ persons in the home, at work and in public spaces. The ICJ, concludes that LGBTQ persons’ rights to adequate housing, decent work, and equal access to public spaces are frequently violated throughout India.
The interviews conducted by the ICJ reveals that LGBTQ persons have challenges in accessing a variety of public spaces including streets, public transport, sanitation facilities, cultural and religious events, parks and shopping malls, challenges which are not faced by, or not faced in the same way by, non-LGBTQ persons. The ICJ submits that these findings are in contravention of Indian constitutional law and international human rights law.
Read the full submission here.
