Jul 8, 2018 | News
As the government begins a process of consultations around proposed amendments to the transitional justice mechanisms, the ICJ and Human Rights Watch have called on authorities to ensure the amendments comply with international human rights standards.
The government must also take into account concerns of all stakeholders, the organizations said.
The current draft law fails to address the many gaps in Nepali law that make it difficult to prosecute, especially at senior levels, for international crimes such as torture and crimes against humanity.
The Nepal government has ensured an extension of its two transitional justice commissions while also committing to future amendments to comply with international standards and Supreme Court rulings, the groups said.
The government is holding consultations around a proposed Commission on the Investigation of Enforced Disappeared Persons (CEIDP) and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) (Amendment) Bill.
“While Nepal has engaged in a transitional justice process over the last few years, with official commissions collecting complaints, holding meetings and generic consultations throughout the country, this is still without any tangible result, and victims say it has left them confused,” said Brad Adams, Asia Director at Human Rights Watch.
“For a successful, internationally accepted process, the authorities in Nepal should focus on providing justice to victims, and not engage in trying to get perpetrators off the hook,” he added.
Human Rights Watch and the ICJ issued the statement after the Nepal government shared a draft bill purportedly to amend flaws in the laws of the CEIDP and TRC Acts.
Ahead of submitting further analysis and recommendations in the consultative process, the organizations said that Nepal authorities should take into account concerns of all stakeholders, including the groups representing victims of serious crimes by all sides during the civil war, other civil society organizations, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).
Nepal’s new government under Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Oli of the Nepal Communist Party promised that the Nepali law on transitional justice would be brought into conformity with international law and standards as had been directed several times by the Supreme Court.
After years of previous governments failing to comply with the Supreme Court rulings, the new attorney general had announced that reforms to the law were underway, which victims’ groups said gave new hope, and as explicitly requested by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and human rights organizations.
While positive changes are noticeable including in relation to reparations, the proposed law authorizes the two transitional justice commissions to authorize prosecutions without strengthening the commissions themselves, proposes a special court without clear guidelines on impartial investigations, and includes a section permitting non-custodial sentences for the most serious crimes.
These raise concerns that the proposed draft may not meet international standards of justice and accountability.
The two commissions, which experts say require crucial bolstering, have conducted country-wide hearings and gathered nearly 60,000 cases between them.
Victim groups complain that the process has been arbitrary and confusing.
The organizations also noted a number of continuing obstacles to justice, which the bill has not addressed.
These include the continued failure to incorporate specific crimes into Nepali law that are serious crimes under international law, including torture, enforced disappearance, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
In addition, the bill provides for the wholly inadequate sanction of short-term community service as an alternative punishment for those convicted of serious crimes, which may constitute effective impunity.
Nor does the bill address the question of command and superior responsibility for such crimes, leaving doubt as to whether those at the highest levels of authority will be held accountable for these crimes.
The international organizations were invited to a meeting with the attorney general and other stakeholders on June 21 but did not have a translated draft available ahead of the discussion.
However, during the consultation, the groups stressed the need for meaningful consultations on the bill.
The organizations noted also that universal jurisdiction, which allows for any state to prosecute those believed to have engaged in torture, enforced disappearance, or other serious crimes under international law, will remain an available option for victims to seek justice in cases of serious abuses during the civil war.
“Without a justice process that meets international standards for prosecuting the most serious crimes, such as torture and enforced disappearances, anyone suspected of such crimes in Nepal risks arrest, extradition, and prosecution in the many countries that are committed to prosecuting such crimes,” said Ian Seiderman, ICJ Legal and Policy Director.
“It is very welcome that the Nepal government is finally looking to address longstanding demands of war victims and should use this opportunity to abide by its obligations, draw up security sector reforms, and pave the way to end impunity,” he added.
Full text in English (PDF): Nepal-ICJ-HRW-Transnational-justice-reform-News-Press-releases-2018-ENG
Jul 6, 2018 | Advocacy, News, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today joined other NGOs in highlighting key outcomes of the 38th ordinary session of the UN Human Rights Council.
The statement, delivered by International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) at the end of the session, read as follows (text in italics was not read aloud due to the limited time available):
“Our organisations welcome the adoption of the resolutions on civil society space, peaceful protest, on violence against women and girls and on discrimination against women and girls and the Council’s rejection of attempts to impede progress on protecting civic space, peaceful protest and the rights to sexual and reproductive health.
On civil society space, the resolution recognizes the essential contribution that civil society makes to international and regional organisations and provides guidance to States and organisations on improving their engagement with civil society. On peaceful protest, it sets out in greater detail how international law and standards protect rights related to protests.
On violence against women and on discrimination against women, we consider that ensuring sexual and reproductive health and rights are vital in efforts to combat violence and discrimination against women, online and offline, as well as to ensure targeted and specific remedies to victims. We appreciate that the work of women human rights defenders towards this is recognised.
We consider the adoption of the resolution on the contribution of the Council to the prevention of human rights violations as an important opportunity to advance substantive consideration on strengthening the Council’s ability to deliver on its prevention mandate.
Following challenging negotiations, we welcome the adoption by consensus of the resolution on human rights and the Internet, reaffirming that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, and calling on States to tackle digital divides between and within countries, emphasising the importance of tools for anonymity and encryption for the enjoyment of human rights online, in particular for journalists, and condemning once more all measures that prevent or disrupt access to information online.
We welcome continued Council attention to Eritrea‘s abysmal human rights record. This year’s resolution, while streamlined, extends expert monitoring of, and reporting on, the country and outlines a way forward for both engagement and human rights reform. We urge Eritrea to engage in long-overdue meaningful cooperation.
We welcome the renewal of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Belarus under item 4 with an increased vote – as it is still the only independent international mechanism to effectively monitor human rights violations in Belarus – while remaining concerned over a narrative to shift the mandate to item 10 in the absence of any systemic change in Belarus.
We welcome the consensus resolution on the DRC, putting in place continued monitoring and follow up on the expert’s recommendations on the Kasais. However, given violations and abuses throughout several regions in the country, occurring against the backdrop of an ongoing political crisis, delayed elections, and the brutal quashing of dissent, we urge the Council to promptly move towards putting in place a country-wide mechanism that can respond to events on the ground as they emerge.
We welcome the strong resolution on Syria, which condemns violations and abuses by all parties, and appropriately addresses concerns raised by the COI about the use of chemical weapons, sexual and gender-based violence, and the need to address situations of detainees and disappearances. The Council cannot stay silent in the face of continued atrocities as the conflict continues unabated into its seventh year.
We welcome the joint statements delivered this session on Cambodia, the Philippines, and Venezuela. We urge Council members and observers to work towards increased collective action to urgently address the dire human rights situations in these countries.
On the Philippines, we emphasise that the Council should establish an independent international investigation into extrajudicial killings in the ‘war on drugs’ and mandate the OHCHR to report on the human rights situation and on moves toward authoritarianism.
The joint statement on Cambodia represents a glimmer of hope after the Council’s failure to take meaningful action against clear sabotage of democratic space ahead of elections. Close scrutiny of the human rights situation before, during and after the elections is paramount and the Council must take immediate action on current and future human rights violations in this regard.
We welcome the joint statement delivered by Luxembourg calling on the HRC President to provide oral updates on cases of alleged intimidation or reprisal, including actions taken, at the start of the Item 5 general debate of each Council session and also provide States concerned with the opportunity to respond.
Finally, the new Council member to replace the United States of America should demonstrate a principled commitment to human rights, to multilateralism and to addressing country situations of concern by applying objective criteria.
Signatories:
- Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
- The Association for Progressive Communications
- The Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR)
- CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
- DefendDefenders (the East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project)
- Human Rights House Foundation (HRHF)
- International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
- The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA)
- International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
Jul 5, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today joined other NGOs in urging open discussion and debate about countries at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, including in discussions of cooperation, despite attempts by some States to interrupt and suppress debate.
The statement was delivered in a General Debate on items 2 and 10 of the Council, by Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) on behalf of the group of NGOs. It read as follows:
“Thank you, Mr. President. While we appreciate the importance of technical cooperation, we wish to stress that a debate on technical cooperation will be incomplete if it does not address non-cooperation and country situations that have worsened despite technical cooperation. We are alarmed by efforts to restrict discussion on such situations by some states under Agenda Item 10, including for instance by (the Bolivarian Republic of) Venezuela earlier today.
While we recognise that all delegations including NGOs are required to speak on the topic under discussion, we are deeply concerned when NGOs making relevant statements are interrupted and not given a chance to explain the relevance of their statement, and in some cases are even prevented from finishing the statement. This has happened even when an NGO is speaking specifically on concerns addressed by UN reports listed for discussion in the relevant debate. Statements on Cambodia during the March session of the Council are recent examples.
The concept of international cooperation should never be invoked to shut down any criticism of human rights situations in individual countries. Cooperation cannot succeed without accountability. To be effective, debates on technical assistance and capacity building must be open to frank discussion of the true gravity, character and extent of on-going violations in the country in question, as well as the impact or lack of impact of any assistance already undertaken.
Thank You”
Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies
Conectas Direitos Humanos
Freedom House
Human Rights House Foundation
Human Rights Watch
International Commission of Jurists
International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU)
International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
Jul 4, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today urged accountability for and the need to address the root causes of violations of human rights of Rohingya people in Myanmar, at the UN in Geneva.
The statement was made in an interactive dialogue with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, on his oral update on the situation, at the Human Rights Council.
The statement read as follows:
“The Government of Myanmar is duty-bound to investigate, prosecute and punish perpetrators of human rights violations. Yet impunity at domestic level necessitates international action: to secure criminal accountability, to provide redress and to deter repetition of crimes under international law.
In May, the government announced a new inquiry into rights violations in Rakhine State. Its mandate, composition and legal framework remain unclear – and there is no indication this will be more effective than previous national inquiries – which have not shed light on the facts, have rarely led to prosecutions and have failed to provide redress.
Justice cannot be further delayed. The International Commission of Jurists supports calls for establishing an international accountability mechanism.
It is also imperative to address the laws and practices discriminating against Rohingyas and other minorities, particularly the 1982 Citizenship Law, as recommended by the government’s Rakhine Advisory Commission.
As a UN Member State, Myanmar must fully cooperate with all UN organs. This includes allowing access to the Special Rapporteur, and permitting the UN Human Rights Office to establish in the country with a full mandate.
Quiet diplomacy and downplaying human rights concerns have failed to improve the situation for Rohingyas. UN organs and envoys present in Myanmar must engage in frank and direct dialogue with the Government about ongoing human rights violations – consistent with the UN Charter and the Human Rights Up Front initiative.
Human rights violations are the root cause of this humanitarian crisis. There can be no voluntary and sustainable return of Rohingya refugees without addressing the sources of human rights violations.
Thank you.”
Jul 4, 2018 | News
The ICJ held a workshop in Mawlamyine on 3 July attended by religious leaders and youth activists from southern Mon State in Myanmar’s southeast.
The workshop aimed to facilitate discussion on strategic litigation options for communities adversely affected by existing and proposed investment projects.
The ICJ and civil society organizations have extensively documented how human rights abuses continue to occur in the context of business activities in Myanmar.
Communities generally have limited understanding of their rights, while government actors and businesses regularly flout their legal obligations.
The ICJ’s international legal adviser Sean Bain first set out applicable international standards, with a focus on the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
He identified Myanmar’s nascent legal framework for environmental protection as a key area of law with potential to deter rights abuses. He noted that while in December 2015 the Government of Myanmar issued the Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure, its provisions are rarely followed or enforced in practice.
Workshop participants, from two different areas of Mon State, shared experiences of community mobilization and ideas on how to use law to protect human rights.
Presentation on Corporate Social Responsibility
Prior to this workshop, also in Mawlamyine, on 29 June the ICJ’s legal adviser presented on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) at invitation of the national assembly of MATA, the Myanmar Alliance for Transparency and Accountability.
Introduced to Myanmar only in recent years, CSR activities are increasingly invoked by foreign and local companies as evidence of responsible investment.
But in reality, many companies doing CSR have been and continue to be involved in unlawful business activities, sometimes constituting human rights abuses.
Participants from different areas of Myanmar shared stories of businesses using CSR activities in a non-transparent way without accountability.
Cases were described where CSR has allegedly been associated with corruption, undermining trust and cohesion in communities affected by large investment projects.
The presentation from ICJ pointed out that while CSR activities are voluntary and without a specific legal framework, all businesses are subject to national law and should respect human rights in accordance with international law and standards, including the UN Guiding Principles.
Lawful conduct that respects human rights lies at the core of any responsible business, and CSR activities do not change these obligations.
These activities in Mon State are part of the ICJ’s ongoing support to civil society actors in Myanmar, from community-level up to national level actors.
