Nov 28, 2023 | Cases, News
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Berlin, November 28, 2023 – A German court in the city of Celle is expected to deliver a verdict on November 30, 2023, in the first trial in Germany for crimes committed in The Gambia, Gambian and international civil society groups said today in releasing a question and answer document about the trial.
The groups are: the African Network against Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced Disappearances (ANEKED), the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), the Gambian Center for Victims of Human Rights Violations, Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists, Reporters Without Borders (RSF), the Rose Lokissim Association, the Solo Sandeng Foundation, and TRIAL International.
This trial is possible because Germany recognizes universal jurisdiction over certain serious crimes under international law, allowing for the investigation and prosecution of these crimes no matter where they were committed and regardless of the nationality of the suspects or victims.
The trial concerns Bai L., an alleged member of the “Junglers,” a paramilitary unit also known as the “Patrol Team,” which was set up by then-president Yahya Jammeh in the mid-1990s. Jammeh’s 22-year rule was marked by systematic oppression and widespread human rights violations, including torture, extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and sexual violence against actual and perceived opponents.
German prosecutors accuse Bai L. of being a Junglers driver involved in the attempted murder of Ousman Sillah, a lawyer; the murder of Deyda Hydara, a journalist; the attempted murder of Ida Jagne and Nian Sarang Jobe, who worked with the independent newspaper Hydara; and the murder of a former Gambian soldier, Dawda Nyassi
The verdict in the Bai L. case represents a major step in the search for justice for years of abuses committed under Jammeh’s rule in The Gambia, the groups said. The Bai L. trial reinforces the role that governments like Germany can play in advancing justice for atrocities committed abroad under the principle of universal jurisdiction.
Civil society groups will hold a news conference online on Thursday, November 30 after the verdict is issued – scheduled for 3:30 pm CET – at the following link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/81236784593?pwd=tvLgbtT3I8N9rF2Db2XTIRyH3Kn1gv.1
To read the question-and-answer document, please see the attached PDF:
Questions and Answers on first German trial for serious crimes
For more information, please contact:
For Reporters Without Borders, in Dakar, Sadibou Marong (English, French): +221-70-960-40-92 (mobile); or smarong@rsf.org. Twitter: @cheikhsadbu
For TRIAL International, in Geneva, Babaka Mputu (English, French, German): +41-775-07-04-56 (mobile); or media@trialinternational.org. Twitter: @Trial
For Human Rights Watch, in New York, Elise Keppler (English, French): +1-917-687-8576 (mobile); or kepplee@hrw.org. Twitter: @EliseKeppler
For Solo Sandeng Foundation, in Germany, Fatoumatta Sandeng (English, German, Mandinka, Wollof): +49-163-174-7519 (mobile); or solosandengfoundation@gmail.com. Twitter: @solosandengfound
For ANEKED, in New York, Nana-Jo Ndow (English, French, Spanish, Portuguese): +1-929-684-5734 (mobile); or nanajo.ndow@aneked.org. @theANEKED
For Reporters Without Borders, in Berlin, Nicola Bier (German, English, French, Spanish, Italian): +49-160-9957-6073 (mobile); or nicola.bier@reporter-ohne-grenzen.de. Twitter: @ReporterOG
Lawyer for Baba Hydara and Omar and Modou Nyassi, in Celle, Patrick Kroker (German, English, French): +49-170-813-6258 (mobile); or info@patrickkroker.net. Twitter: @pkroker2
For International Commission of Jurists, in New York, Reed Brody (English, Spanish, French, Portuguese): +1-917-388-6745 (mobile); or reedbrody@gmail.com. Twitter: @reedbrody
Nov 7, 2023 | News
Arbitrary restrictions and excessive government control.
(Tunis, 7 November 2023) – The draft law on associations submitted by 10 parliamentarians to the Tunisian Parliament on 10 October 2023 would violate the right to freedom of association and endanger civic space in Tunisia if adopted as currently formulated, 8 rights groups said today.
البيان باللغة العربية على هذا الرابط
The draft law, if passed, would replace Decree-Law 2011-88 on associations, which enabled the emergence of a diverse civil society in the aftermath of Tunisia’s 2011 revolution. As presently drafted, it threatens to end more than a decade of work by independent groups. According to official data, over 24,000 civil society organizations are currently registered with the Tunisian authorities, although it remains unclear how many are active today. If adopted in its current form, the draft law would grant the government pervasive control and oversight over the establishment, activities, operations and funding of independent groups, which are one of the last remaining counterweights to President Kais Saied’s autocratic rule.
While the text claims to maintain a notification system for establishing new associations, it would actually introduce a thinly disguised registration system, granting a department under the Prime Minister’s Office the authority to deny a group the right to operate within a month after of registering (article 9.2). Without being required to provide any reasons, the government would also be able to petition the judiciary at any time requesting the cancellation of an association’s registration (article 9.3).
In addition, new organizations would not be allowed to operate until a government-headed “administration of associations” publishes a notice in the Official Gazette, leaving open the possibility of denying a group’s registration. At present, under Decree-Law 2011-88 on associations, an association may begin operating once the representative of the association has notified its registration to the Official Gazette.
Under the draft law, international organizations would be required to obtain prior authorization to register from the Foreign Affairs Ministry (articles 8 and 19). Without setting conditions or deadlines for any such a process, the draft law empowers the Ministry to issue temporary authorizations and to revoke and suspend them at its own discretion (article 20). As a result, international organizations may be arbitrarily denied registration for any reason and without due process, the groups said.
In 2012, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association’s report on best practices related to the right to freedom of association recommended a “notification procedure”, rather than a “prior authorization procedure” requesting the authorities’ approval to establish an association as a legal entity. The 2017 Guidelines on Freedom of Association and Assembly in Africa of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights stipulate that “registration shall be governed by a notification rather than an authorization regime, such that legal status is presumed upon receipt of notification” and that the administrative body overseeing registration should carry out its functions “impartially and fairly.”
The draft law’s preamble states that associations must operate in accordance with the “principles of national orientation,” and must not “violate laws related to good morals,” “disturb public security,” “undermine the unity of the national territory and the republican system,” or “violate national sovereignty.” Such terms are vague, imprecise, arbitrary and overly broad and, as such, do not comply with the principle of legality. As a result, these concepts are open to broad interpretations and the authorities could use them to justify arbitrarily restricting or closing associations that displease them, the groups said.
The draft law places national organizations under “the supervision and control” of the Ministry relevant to their main area of work and international organizations under Prime Minister Office’s supervision (article 6). The current draft law does not specify what such “supervision and control” entail. It also requires associations to inform the pertinent Ministry of any planned activities (article 13).
The draft law also gives rise to concern about surveillance as it empowers the authorities to establish a digital database of associations and volunteers (article 14).
If the draft law is adopted in its current form, then the authorities may interpret its many vague provisions to ban or dissolve associations. The establishment of associations on religious or ethnic grounds is forbidden in the draft law. In addition, the qualification that a group’s work must be “voluntary” may be interpreted as a ban on paid labour by non-profit groups (article 2). The draft text further provides that the Prime Minister’s Office can “automatically” dissolve any group “suspected of terrorism” or that has a “terrorist background” (article 24), without judicial review.
This text also dangerously conflates associations with unions (article 15), which are currently separately governed by the Tunisian labour law, without providing any specific guarantees or sufficient protections for union rights.
National associations would have to obtain prior approval from the Prime Minister’s Office before receiving foreign funding (article 18). Associations that fail to comply with this requirement would risk immediate suspension or dissolution (article 24).
The draft law requires all existing associations to “rectify” their situation in accordance with the new law within a year of the law’s publication.
In 2013, the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association’s report affirmed that a civil society organization’s access to funding from domestic, foreign and international sources was “an integral part of the right to freedom of association.” Requiring groups to get prior government approval to receive foreign funding without specifying the grounds for refusal is inconsistent with the principle of legality and constitutes an arbitrary interference with the right to freedom of association.
Under Article 38 of the Guidelines on Freedom of Association and Assembly in Africa, governments may neither impose blanket bans on foreign funding for civil society groups nor require prior government authorization to receive it.
Decree-Law 2011-88 on associations provides sufficient guarantees and procedures to ensure that civil society groups’ funding be transparent and law compliant, the groups said. The draft law’s foreign funding provisions are open to abuse and may be used to punish and reject funding for organizations critical of the government.
In February 2022, a draft law on associations prepared by the executive that threatened human rights safeguards was leaked and denounced as restrictive by the Tunisian civil society. Shortly after, on 24 February 2022, President Saied announced his intention to “prevent foreign funding to associations.” In light of this, UN experts expressed concern over the then draft law in a communication to the Tunisian authorities in April 2022, to which the Tunisian government responded in June 2022, confirming their intention to amend Decree-law 88.
Since 25 July 2021, President Saied has dismantled Tunisia’s democratic institutions, undermined judicial independence, stifled the exercise of freedom of expression and repressed dissent.
Tunisia is obliged to respect, protect, promote and fulfill the right to freedom of association, guaranteed by Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 10 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Restrictions on the exercise of this right may be permissible only when they are prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society; that is, using the least restrictive means possible and reflecting basic values of pluralism and tolerance.
“Necessary” restrictions must also be proportionate; that is, carefully balanced against the specific reason for imposing them in the first place. In addition, they may not be discriminatory, including on the grounds of national origin or political opinion or belief.
The Tunisian authorities should refrain from adopting the proposed draft law and, instead, should commit to safeguarding the right to freedom of association as enshrined in Decree-law 88 and under international human right law binding on Tunisia, the groups said. The authorities should ensure that associations are able to operate without political interference, intimidation, harassment or undue restrictions.
Signatories:
1-International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
2-Euromed Rights
3-Human Rights Watch (HRW)
4-Avocats Sans Frontières (ASF)
5-Access Now
6-World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT)
7-Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy (TIMEP)
8- International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
Nov 6, 2023 | News
Today, the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights (AfCHPR) opens its 71st Ordinary Session. To mark the occasion, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), in collaboration with inkyfada, looks back at AfCHPR’s September 2022 judgement against Tunisia, in which it ordered the republic to return to constitutional democracy and establish an independent constitutional court. The ICJ examines the impact of the judgement on human rights in Tunisia, and how individuals can operationalize the AfCHPR to challenge the curtailment of fundamental freedoms, judicial independence and rule of law in Tunisia.
ICJ’s questions and answers:
It has been more than a year since the African Court on Human and People’s rights issued its judgment in case No. 017/2021, “Ibrahim Ben Mohamed Ben Brahim Belguith v. Republic of Tunisia”, of 22 September 2022. The case was brought by Mr. Belguith, a national of Tunisia and a lawyer, who complained of violations of his rights under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and other human rights instruments as a result of the promulgation of several Tunisian presidential decrees adopted under the “state of exception” pursuant to article 80 of the 2014 Constitution since 25 July 2021. In this judgment, the African Court ordered Tunisia to repeal these decrees, to return to constitutional democracy within two years and to ensure the establishment and operation of an independent constitutional court within the same period.
What does this judgment mean and why is it important for the rule of law and human rights in Tunisia? The ICJ provides answers in the Q&A below:
-
- What is the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights?
* The African Union
* The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights
* The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights
* The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights
* Tunisia’s adherence to the African Human Rights System
-
- Why was the African Court seized of the situation in Tunisia? Contextual overview
* President Kais Saied’s power grab of 25 July 2021
* The absence of a Constitutional Court
-
- What did the 22 September 2022 judgment rule?
* How the African Court came to rule on the matter: the application
* What the judgment ruled:
-
- What are the next steps?
* Implementation
* Other complaints against Tunisia pending before the African Court
Download the full Q&A in English here
Download the full Q&A in French here
Download the full Q&A in Arabic here
Nov 1, 2023 | Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Legal submissions, News, Treaty Bodies, Work with the UN
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) made a submission to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in view of the Committee’s examination of the Combined Ninth to Eleventh Periodic Reports of South Africa under Article 9 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). The submission focussed primarily on the treatment of non-citizens with reference to the 2019 National Action Plan and on South Africa’s violations of the right to access health care and treatment, the right to work, as well as on concerns around residence and humanitarian protection for Zimbabweans.
The following are among some of the recommendations featured in the submission, which ICJ addressed to the South African government, to tackle a number of violations of the ICERD:
- Enact legislation that permits trained attorneys who are non-citizen/non-permanent residents to be admitted into the South African legal profession. Remove unequal practices and policies that discriminate against non-citizens and deny or undermine their ability to work in their chosen profession. Promote and advance the rights to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work, to protection against unemployment, to equal pay for equal work, to just and favorable remuneration;
- Acknowledge that, based on the demographics of South Africa’s migration trends, discrimination based on national origin and citizenship status carries a quality of xenophobia and racial discrimination and should be recognized as unconstitutional and a violation of South Africa’s obligations under the Convention;
- Halt the termination of the ZEP programme and institute a pathway toward permanent residency for the 178,000 Zimbabweans who have lived and worked in South Africa for over a decade under the ZEP programme; and
- Extend the ruling that found denying access to public healthcare for non-citizen mothers, lactating mothers and children under the age of six is unconstitutional so as to ensure that denial of access to public healthcare to any individual in South Africa is unconstitutional;
- Formalize the informal economy by ensuring that informal economy workers are catered for under labour, occupational health and safety, social protection and non-discrimination laws;
- Ensure that by-laws and regulations comply with the right to work and the right to non-discrimination in the South African Constitution and under the Convention.
The following organizations have endorsed this submission:
- Lawyers for Human Rights
- Section 27
- Centre for Applied Legal Studies
- Health Justice Initiative
- Kopanang Africa Against Xenophobia
- Solidarity Centre
- The Consortium for Refugees and Migrants in Southern Africa.
Download the submission
Oct 23, 2023 | News
On 11 and 12 October 2023, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), People’s Matrix Association and Seinoli Legal Centre (SLC) jointly held a workshop for magistrates and judges in Maseru, Lesotho’s capital. Drawing on ICJ’s 8 March Principles for a Human Rights-Based Approach to Criminal Law Proscribing Conduct Associated with Sex, Reproduction, Drug Use, HIV, Homelessness and Poverty, the workshop was aimed at enhancing the Lesotho judiciary’s ability to apply a human rights-based approach in the application and enforcement of domestic criminal law.
The central theme explored by participants throughout the workshop was the profoundly negative human rights impact of unjustified criminalization, especially for marginalized individuals and communities. At the workshop, the Acting Chief Justice of Lesotho, Tšeliso Monapathi, emphasized the importance of the judiciary as the last line of defence for ensuring the protection of human rights.
Participants at the workshop noted some positive legal developments in Lesotho that are consistent with international human rights law, including the repeal of vagrancy laws through the introduction of the 2010 Penal Code. Most recently, in October 2022, the High Court of Lesotho, sitting as a Constitutional Court, declared section 32(a)(vii) of the 2003 Sexual Offences Act unconstitutional. The Court ruled that the provision, which imposes the death penalty on HIV-infected persons who commit sexual offences, was unconstitutional to the extent that it violated the rights to equality before the law and equal protection of the law, freedom from discrimination, and freedom from inhuman treatment as guaranteed by the Lesotho Constitution. However, in June this year, in their joint submission to the UN Human Rights Committee, the ICJ, People’s Matrix and Seinoli Legal Centre noted with concern that the Sexual Offences Act left the common law offence of “sodomy” intact.
“Despite some progressive milestones in the protection and promotion of fundamental human rights and freedoms of all persons, it is deeply concerning that there remain a number of criminal laws that disproportionately impact sex workers, LGBTQI+ persons, those seeking sexual and reproductive health care services, such as abortion care, and other marginalized groups,” said Mosa Lestie, Programme Lawyer at Seinoli Legal Centre.
The participants, the majority of whom were magistrates, discussed measures the courts have employed to promote and protect the human rights of marginalized groups. This includes sensitization on the human rights of persons with disabilities, LGBTQI+ persons and other marginalized groups, particularly their right to access to justice and the implementation and continual development of court rules to ensure that all persons can participate in court proceedings on an equal basis as complainants, witnesses, accused persons or experts. For instance, in July 2023, the Lesotho National Federation hosted a training workshop with some magistrates and prosecutors on access to justice for persons with disabilities and the 2023 Disability Equity (Procedure) Rules.
Despite these efforts, participants expressed concern that limitations continue to exist in relation to: the provision of accommodations for accused and witnesses at court; worrying trends of discrimination within the wider criminal justice system, especially among the police. They also identified the need for ongoing human rights training for magistrates and other actors in the criminal justice system.
“The unjustified or arbitrary over-criminalization of conduct associated with LGBTQI+ individuals in Lesotho continues to result in discrimination and stigmatization. In turn, this has significantly impeded access to justice for the communities the People’s Matrix supports,” said Giselle Ratalane, Programme Manager at the People’s Matrix Association.
“As the ICJ’s 8 March Principles underscore, these criminal laws have discriminatory effects on marginalized groups and violate Lesotho’s obligations under international human rights law, including with respect to the rights to equality, non-discrimination, dignity, privacy, freedom of expression and more,” concluded Mulesa Lumina, ICJ Africa’s Legal and Communications Associate Officer.
Contact
Mulesa Lumina, Legal and Communications Associate Officer (Africa Regional Programme), e: mulesa.lumina@icj.org
Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh, Director (Africa Regional Programme), e: kaajal.keogh@icj.org
Background
While Lesotho has made some strides in recognizing and safeguarding the human rights of all persons, including through the introduction of various laws and policies, certain conduct continues to be targeted by criminal laws notwithstanding the fact that under general principles of criminal law and international human rights law and standards, such conduct should not be criminalized in the first place.
As a State Party to a number of international human rights instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa, Lesotho must ensure that its criminal laws do not directly or indirectly discriminate against anyone on grounds prohibited by international human rights law.
The 8 March Principles for a Human Rights-Based Approach to Criminal Law Proscribing Conduct Associated with Sex, Reproduction, Drug Use, HIV, Homelessness and Poverty, recently published by the ICJ, offer a clear, accessible, and operational legal framework and practical legal guidance for a variety of stakeholders, including judges and magistrates, on the application of criminal law to conduct associated with consensual sexual activities, such as consensual same-sex sexual relations and sex work (Principles 16 and 17); the criminalization of sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression (Principle 18); drug use (Principle 20); as well as homelessness and poverty (Principle 21). As stated in Principles 7 and 8, criminal law “must be interpreted consistently with international human rights law” and “…may not, on its face or as applied, in substance or in form, directly or indirectly discriminate on any, including multiple and intersecting, grounds prohibited by international human rights law”.
