Mar 12, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today delivered a statement at the UN Human Rights Council calling on Myanmar to cooperate with UN mechanisms and for all UN agencies in the country to make human rights central to their approach.
The statement, made in the interactive dialogue with the international Fact Finding Mission on Myanmar, and the Special Rapporteur, read as follows:
“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) welcomes the update of the Independent International Fact Finding Mission. In relation to crimes under international law, the ICJ encourages the experts to continue to develop further specific recommendations for securing criminal accountability and providing redress.
The ICJ also welcomes the report of the Special Rapporteur, and strongly supports the renewal of her mandate and tenure.
As a UN Member State, the Government of Myanmar should fully cooperate with all the organs and mechanisms of the UN, in accordance with its obligations under the UN Charter.
At this session, the government asked for ‘concrete evidence’ of alleged human rights violations, and committed to taking action against perpetrators, but permission to enter the country is still refused to the Fact Finding Mission, to the Special Rapporteur and to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
To demonstrate a genuine commitment to truth and accountability, the Government must allow them full access to areas of concern, particularly to Rakhine State and to conflict areas in Kachin State and Shan State.
Humanitarian actors and independent media must also be immediately allowed full and unimpeded access, particularly to Rakhine State, as recommended by the government’s own Advisory Commission.
The current situation in Rakhine State is incongruous to voluntary returns of Rohingya refugees. At the same time, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights must be included in repatriation planning with a full mandate to protect refugees. This is contemplated in current repatriation arrangements with the Government of Bangladesh, and the Government of Myanmar must now formalize this relationship with UNHCR.
Experts, what can be done to ensure all UN agencies present in Myanmar actually put ‘human rights up front’ in the line with the mandate of every UN organ under the UN Charter?”
Mar 9, 2018 | Events, News
This side event at the Human Rights Council takes place on Monday, 12 March, 16:30-18:00, room XXVII of the Palais des Nations. It is organized by Forum-Asia, and co-sponsored by the ICJ.
Speakers:
Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar
UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar
Human Rights Defenders from Myanmar
Moderator:
R. Iniyan Ilango, Forum – Asia
Mar 8, 2018 | Multimedia items, News, Video clips
Today on International Women’s Day the world looks to celebrate the achievements of women and advances made towards the realization of women’s human rights but the day is also an opportunity to address the issues that continue to disadvantage women.
In the 70th anniversary year of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights many women around the world have seen States failing to live up to their obligations to ensure that they are able to exercise their human rights.
Where women’s human rights are violated many women face discrimination, denial of equal protection of the law and other impediments in accessing the justice that they deserve.
“The ICJ has a strong commitment to addressing the obstacles women face in accessing justice,” said ICJ Acting Vice-President, Justice Radmila Dragicevic-Dicic.
“The judiciary has an important role in protecting the rights of women, but in many States there is a lack of proper awareness and understanding of issues such as gender based-violence. Many judges would benefit from judicial education on specific gender-based issues to ensure that women victims are made visible and their rights protected by domestic laws and relevant international standards,” she added.
For several years the ICJ has worked on women’s access to justice issues in different countries in all regions with a variety of stakeholders, including human rights defenders, lawyers, judges, governmental authorities and international rights experts and mechanisms.
For example, in Tunisia, the ICJ issued a memorandum calling on authorities to remove the obstacles women face in accessing justice.
The ICJ has held regional dialogues in Africa and Asia with judges and lawyers.
In Asia, one outcome of this was The Bangkok General Guidance for Judges in Applying a Gender Perspective, designed to assist judges in employing a gender perspective in deciding cases before them, which has since been adopted for use by judiciaries in Indonesia and the Philippines.
In Africa, the need for gendered perspectives in judicial decision-making was also raised in a regional report evaluating sexual and gender based violence (SGBV) and fair trial rights.
The ICJ has undertaken substantial work on women’s access to justice in the context of SGBV, including a report calling for an eradication of harmful gender stereotypes and assumptions and a Practitioners’ Guide on Women’s Access to Justice for Gender-Based Violence.
Both have been used as training tools in Asia, Africa and MENA, most recently at a workshop on SGBV in Swaziland.
Last year the ICJ released a memorandum on effective investigation and prosecution of SGBV in Morocco.
The ICJ has also undertaken trial observations during hearings in the landmark Sepur Zarco case, the first case that resulted in a conviction for sexual crimes that had occurred during Guatemala’s internal conflict in the early 1980s.
The ICJ regularly engages with the UN Human Rights Council and the UN Committee on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women to highlight issues around women’s access to justice and call on the international community to be vigilant in upholding women’s rights protections.
“The ICJ is lucky to count among its number some very impressive women human rights defenders, who bring a great deal of expertise to the work of the organization,” said Dragicevic-Dicic.
“The five most recent additions to the ICJ have further strengthened the organization’s ability to speak authoritatively on women’s rights, and I look forward to working with my new colleagues to enhance women’s access to justice,” she added.
The new additions to the ICJ include Dame Silvia Cartwright, Former Governor of New Zealand; Professor Sarah Cleveland, Constitutional and Human Rights Professor at Columbia Law School in the USA; Justice Martine Comte who has over 30 years judicial experience in France; Mikiko Otani, member of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child from Japan; and Justice Lillian Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza from the Supreme Court of Uganda.
In an interview with the ICJ, Commissioner Justice Elizabeth Evatt, a distinguished Australian lawyer, jurist and trailblazer for women in the legal profession in her country, spoke about the importance of women being able to access justice.
One of the architects of Australia’s Family Law Act of 1975, Justic Evatt told the ICJ how the Act made divorce more accessible and abolished the Common Law relics that gave men greater rights over women, however new problems have emerged since then.
Justice Evatt explained that “(the Act) was an extremely important reform for women. It made it far easier for men and women to access divorce and have their matters dealt with because the court had conciliation and counselling services and also legal aid was more readily available. But I am afraid that since those days, thing have changed. The Family Court is now beset with delays and obstacles and it is impossible for people to get legal aid. People have to take their case on their own or face huge legal costs, so having begun well, it hasn’t continued well. More resources are needed.”
Justice Evatt also considers that there is a need for the government and the judiciary to take more action to address domestic violence.
However, she noted, “there has been a change over the years with a growing awareness of both the police and the local courts, which are the main ones dealing with violence. They have become far more aware of the need to take action to protect women and prevent violence but the cure for domestic violence does not lie just with the courts but also with the whole of society.”
Watch the interview:
Mar 8, 2018 | News
The Sri Lankan government must act swiftly and in line with human rights to prosecute those responsible for recent communal violence.
Particularly for attacks against the minority Muslim community in Kandy district, while avoiding the abusive practices of the past, said the ICJ today.
Sri Lanka’s President, Maithripala Sirisena, proclaimed an island-wide state of emergency on 6th March 2018, following a curfew imposed in several areas since Monday.
The action came following a spate of attacks against members of the Muslim community that was spreading in the Kandy district, following attacks in Ampara last week, in Gintota in 2016, and Aluthgama in 2014.
“The government must show that it will bring to account those who have incited communal violence, particularly notorious figures who have been emboldened by the pervading impunity to preach hatred openly and publicly. The arrest of key suspects yesterday is a start and convictions must follow,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia director.
“But the government must ensure that its investigation is impartial and effective and follows due process of the law,” he added.
The ICJ called upon the government of Sri Lanka to swiftly prosecute those responsible for inciting and carrying out the communal violence using existing legal provisions in the Penal Code and the ICCPR Act, the latter of which prohibits advocating “national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.”
The ICJ is concerned that the Emergency Regulations issued by the President through powers under the Public Security Ordinance, confer excessively broad powers on the army and the police to search, arrest and investigate.
“Given Sri Lanka’s experience of Emergency Regulations, the government should ensure that these regulations are time-bound and comply with Sri Lanka’s international human rights obligations, including under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,” said Rawski.
The government has further restricted access to selected instant messaging applications and social media platforms “as an extraordinary but temporary response to limit the increasing spread of hate speech and violence through social media websites and phone messaging applications.”
“Blocking social media and other communication channels, even with the best of intentions, typically has the negative effect of restricting affected persons from seeking assistance, journalists from reporting around the situation and may actually undermine efforts to counter violence and hate speech. Any such measures should be narrowly targeted and limited in time,” said Rawski.
“A better approach would be for the Sri Lankan government to aggressively push back against these hateful narratives by demonstrating in actions as well as its rhetoric that Sri Lanka is a diverse country in which all of its citizens’ rights are respected and protected equally,” he added.
Background
Chapter XVIII of the Constitution and the Public Security Ordinance of Sri Lanka empowers the President to make emergency regulations in the interest of ‘public security and the preservation of public order or for the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community.’ Sri Lanka has a history of governance using emergency powers, which in the past has posed a challenge for democratic governance and human rights, providing law enforcement with wide powers, circumventing ordinary checks and balances.
The President, while justifying circumstances that led to his proclamation of a state of emergency, has stated that he “has given special instructions the Police and the tri-forces to take action in terms of these regulations, in a lawful manner in good faith while ensuring minimum disturbance to the life and well-being of people, in conformity with Fundamental Human Rights of people.”
Mar 5, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today delivered an oral statement to the UN Human Rights Council, on transitional justice, prevention and impunity, highlighting the continuing problem of impunity in Nepal.
The statement, which was made during a clustered interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence and the Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide, read as follows:
“The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) remains deeply concerned by continuing impunity for gross human rights violations in many parts of the world, which undermines the potential for transitional justice to contribute to prevention as outlined in the Joint Study (A/HRC/37/65).
For example, in Nepal, more than ten years after the civil war, political expediency has trumped calls for justice and accountability. There has been near absolute impunity for those responsible for serious crimes under international law.
Transitional justice mechanisms – the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons (CoID) – have fallen short of international standards, both in their constitution and their operation, despite repeated orders by the Supreme Court of Nepal to enforce the standards.
The Commissions’ deeply flawed mandates, among other problems, allow them to recommend amnesties for gross human rights violations. In addition, their non-consultative, uncoordinated and opaque approach to their work has also created distrust with all major stakeholders, including conflict victims and members of civil society.
The Government continues to flout its obligation, both pursuant to the Supreme Court’s orders and under international law, to enact domestic legislation to criminalize serious crimes in accordance with international standards.
As highlighted by in the Joint study, turning a blind eye on past atrocities signals that some perpetrators are above the law, which further discredits State institutions and “breeds a (long-standing) culture of impunity in which atrocities may become ‘normalized’, rendering prevention significantly more difficult.” (para 43)
That, indeed, is the experience in Nepal: continuing impunity for gross human rights violations perpetrated during the conflict is one of the major obstacles to the creation of a stable and legitimate democratic government and lies at the heart of the rule of law crisis in the country. Ending impunity is essential to preventing further violations.”
Video of the statement is available here:
The delegation of Nepal exercised its right to reply later in the day. Its reply is here:
The ICJ oral statement complements a related written statement by the ICJ at the session.
