Jul 11, 2019 | News
The ICJ today condemned the raids on 11 July by India’s Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on the homes and offices of Anand Grover and Indira Jaising, two lawyers prominent for frequently challenging the Indian government’s failures to respect and promote the rights of all people in India.
Grover and Jaising are both Supreme Court lawyers and co-founders of the Lawyers Collective, a non-governmental organization.
These raids were reportedly conducted pursuant to CBI’s registration of criminal charges into alleged violations of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), a much criticized law frequently used to target human rights defenders and critics of the Indian government.
“This raid seems designed to harass and intimidate two tireless advocates of Constitutional and international rights in India,” said Sam Zarifi, Secretary-General of the ICJ.
“The Indian government must immediately cease harassment of the Lawyers Collective and its founders Anand Grover and Indira Jaising,” he added.
The CBI raids appears to be based on a 2016 Ministry of Home Affairs report, now under appeal in the Bombay High Court, and without any material change in circumstances since its release.
The raid has also been conducted notwithstanding a National Human Rights Commission statement seeking a status report from the CBI by 21 July 2019 to ensure that the investigation is “non-discriminatory and to avoid arbitrariness”.
The attack is emblematic of a broader pattern of official threats to and harassment of Indian civil society in general, and the Lawyers Collective in particular.
Lawyers Collective’s FCRA license was cancelled in November 2016, a decision that is under appeal in the Bombay High Court. The action relied upon overly broad and vague legal provisions of the FCRA that violate India’s legal obligation to respect and protect the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly.
“The repeated use of the FCRA to target civil society including Lawyers Collective has had a devastating chilling effect on public comment about the government,” said Zarifi.
“The law should be repealed, or substantially amended to include safeguards against arbitrary use of its provisions, and to protect freedom of expression and association,” he added.
The ICJ supports the 2016 call by three United Nations Special Rapporteurs to the Indian Government to repeal FCRA, which decried the FCRA’s use to “silence organisations involved in advocating civil, political, economic, social, environmental or cultural priorities, which may differ from those backed by the Government”.
Jul 8, 2019 | News
The ICJ welcomes the report issued today by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) documenting human rights violations and abuses in Indian administered Kashmir and Pakistan administered Kashmir.
The ICJ called upon both India and Pakistan to take immediate measures to implement the Report’s main recommendations, and to hold security forces as well as non-state actors accountable for human rights violations and abuses.
The Report follows a June 2018 report that documented similar violations, as well as the widespread impunity for human rights violations by Indian security forces and armed groups allegedly supported by Pakistan. The Indian Government has rejected both reports as a violation of its “sovereignty and territorial integrity”. The Pakistan government has welcomed the report and called for the establishment of a United Nations Commission of Inquiry.
“It is unfortunate that India has again refused to acknowledge the facts set out in the OHCHR report, or to pledge action on its recommendations,” said Frederick Rawski, Asia Pacific Director for the ICJ.
“This is an opportunity for India, a member of the Human Rights Council, to lead by example. It can start by repealing the Armed Forces Special Powers Act and launching an investigation into rights abuses in line with international standards and the guidelines set out by the Indian Supreme Court,” he added.
The Report documents human rights violations by Indian security forces including extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detentions, unlawful custodial deaths, enforced disappearances, and ill-treatment and torture, including rape and sexual violence, in Indian-administered Kashmir.
According to the Report, based on data from civil society organization Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS), 71 extrajudicial killings were allegedly committed by security forces in 2018 (for a total of 1081 between 2008 and 2018). Between 2016 and 2018, 1253 people have been blinded by pellet guns.
The Report highlights how the extraordinary powers granted to security forces by the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990 has been wielded arbitrarily and led to near total impunity from prosecution. In addition, it documents human rights abuses committed by non-state armed groups in Indian-administered Kashmir including kidnappings, killings and rape.
The Report also documents rights violations in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, including restrictions on freedom of expression and opinion, assembly and association, and the abuse of vague and overbroad anti-terrorism laws in contravention of international human rights law.
The Report documents cases of arbitrary arrest by local authorities and intelligence agencies, including charging 19 activists with treason for organizing a rally in November 2018, and the arbitrary detention of 30 members of the Jammu Kashmir National Students Federation in March 2019 by Pakistani law enforcement. The Report notes the particular vulnerability of journalists to threats, harassment and arbitrary arrest.
“While we commend Pakistan for welcoming the Report, the fact remains that the Government has done little to prevent the continuation of human rights violations by its security forces, or to implement the recommendations of the previous report,” Rawski said.
“Pakistan must take action to hold perpetrators of rights violations accountable, and take action to end threats and violence targeted at human rights defenders and journalists,” he added.
The ICJ called on both Pakistan and India to grant unconditional access to the OHCHR and Special Procedures of the UN Human Rights Council, and to ensure that human rights defenders and journalists can carry out their work without threats or reprisals from security forces and non-State armed groups.
The ICJ also underscores the importance of the OHCHR recommendation that the United Nations set up an independent commission of inquiry into allegations of rights violations by all parties to the conflict.
The ICJ urged both the Indian and Pakistan governments to respect, protect and fulfill their international human rights obligations in Kashmir, to accept the Report’s findings and take immediate and effective action to implement its recommendations.
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)
