Mar 13, 2019 | Advocacy
This important blog by ICJ Senior Legal Adviser Kingsley Abbott was first posted to Opinio Juris. It has been translated into Burmese language as a resource for individuals, institutions and organizations in the country.
Documenting criminal human rights violations in the Myanmar is critical, so we must be careful not to create problems for future efforts at establishing criminal responsibility.
In his article, Kingsley Abbott, discusses the important role of the documentation of serious human rights violations in Myanmar by civil society, UN bodies and journalists.
This effort has played a critical role in raising awareness of the situation inside and outside the country and in getting responses from the international community.
Read the article in English
Read the article in Burmese
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser for Global Redress & Accountability e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Mar 12, 2019 | News
Today, the ICJ co-hosted an art exhibition and public forum titled 15th Year of Somchai’s Disappearance and the Voices of the Disappeared at the Embassy of the Netherlands in Bangkok.
The event was held to commemorate 15 years since the enforced disappearance of Somchai Neelapaijit, a prominent human rights lawyer, whose case has never been adequately by the Thai authorities.
Somchai was abducted after being stopped on a road in Bangkok on 12 March 2004 and taken from his car by a group of police officers. He has not been seen since. Fifteen years after his disappearance, Somchai’s fate and whereabouts remain unknown and no one has been held accountable for the crime against him.
More than 100 participants attended the event, including family victims of alleged disappearance cases, students, lawyers, members of civil society, diplomats, and members of the Thai authorities and media.
Opening remarks were delivered by Angkhana Neelapaijit, wife of Somchai Neelapaijit, and Kenza Tarqaât, First Secretary of the Embassy of the Netherlands in Bangkok.
The opening session included remarks by the victims who spoke about their challenges and about the progress and development regarding investigations into the alleged disappearance cases of their relatives. The session included the following speakers:
Sanhawan Srisod, the ICJ’s National Legal Adviser, spoke during the second session on recent amendments to the Draft Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act.
She highlighted concerns that the recent amendments would, if adopted, fail to bring the law into full compliance with Thailand’s international human rights obligations.
Sanhawan further expressed concern that the fate of the Draft Act was uncertain as Thailand’s National Legislative Assembly (NLA) that is considering the bill, while it may also continue their work in case of the necessity, will stop considering laws on 15 March, prior to the scheduled elections of 24 March 2019.
She stressed that it is crucial the Thai Government continues to consider and amend the bill, and pass it without delay in line with Thailand’s international human rights obligations.
The panel was moderated by Chanatip Tatiyakaroonwong from Cross-Cultural Foundation and also included the following panelists:
- Nongporn Roongpetchwong, Human Rights Expert, Rights and Liberties Protection Department, Ministry of Justice
- Badar Farrukh, Thailand Team Leader, United Nations’ Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) Regional Office for South East Asia
Closing remarks was delivered by Pratubjit Neelapaijit, daughter of Somchai Neelapaijit.
The forum was co-organized with the Neelapaijit family, Amnesty International – Thailand, Cross Cultural Foundation (CrCF), the Embassy of the Netherlands in Bangkok, Human Rights Lawyers’ Association and the United Nations’ Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) Regional Office for South East Asia.
Read Also:
Thailand-Summary ICJ analysis Draft Act-Advocacy-2019-ENG (Summary of the ICJ analysis of the Draft Act, in PDF)
Ten Years Without Truth: Somchai Neelapaijit and Enforced Disappearances in Thailand
Missed Opportunities: Recommendations for Investigating the Disappearance of Sombath Somphone
Thailand: ICJ submits recommendations on draft law on torture and enforced disappearance amendments
Thailand: ICJ, Amnesty advise changes to proposed legislation on torture and enforced disappearances
Mar 12, 2019 | Events, News
The ICJ convened a two-day workshop from 9th to 10th March 2019 in Dhaka, Bangladesh to discuss applicable international legal mechanisms designed to achieve accountability for serious human rights violations in Asia.
Bangladesh-based non-government organizations the Centre for Peace and Justice and Naripokkho co-hosted the event with the ICJ, with a representative of AJAR (Asia Justice and Rights) also joining. Twenty Bangladeshi lawyers, activists and academics attended the event.
Legal advisers from the ICJ provided an overview of the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar (IIMM), currently being established following a UN Human Rights Council resolution in September 2018.
They also discussed the structure and procedures of the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose prosecutors are currently conducting a preliminary examination into the deportation of Rohingyas from Myanmar into Bangladesh. Unlike Myanmar, Bangladesh is a State Party to the Rome Statute of the ICC, and its pre-trial chamber has indicated the Court has jurisdiction over crimes listed in the Rome Stature were one element, or part of a crime, was committed inside the territory of Bangladesh.
AJAR’s co-founder provided an overview of transitional justice processes, drawing upon international and regional experiences of truth-seeking, prosecutions, reparations and reforms to guarantee non-repetition of human rights violations.
Two of the ICJ’s legal advisers also travelled to Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, where they met relevant stakeholders to discuss the situation of Rohingya refugees from Myanmar, and to share information about accountability mechanisms, including about expected timelines, outcomes and limitations.
The activity is part of the ICJ’s global work on promoting accountability and redress for gross human rights violations to facilitate justice and deter repetition.
Contact: Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior Legal Advisor for Global Redress and Accountability e: kingsley.abbott@icj.org
Mar 11, 2019 | Advocacy
The “Independent Commission of Enquiry” (ICOE) on Rakhine State, announced by the Government of Myanmar in May 2018 and established in July, has not demonstrated any reasonable prospect of meeting international standards of independence, impartiality or effectively contributing to justice or accountability for human rights violations constituting crimes under international law.
The ICOE is not transparent about how its information gathering will, if at all, shed light on the truth, or contribute to accountability and redress, while protecting individuals it comes into contact with. It is also yet to fulfill conditions called for by the UN Human Rights Council in its September 2018 resolution 39/2.
Any move to shift reference in the Council resolution currently under discussion, to include more positive recognition of the ICOE, would be wholly unjustified.
Furthermore, the government continues its unwillingness to address credible allegations of crimes under international law, including in its report to the CEDAW Committee in February in which rape allegations were dismissed as “wild claims.”
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), in response to a “Call for Submissions” on 12 December 2018, inviting “individuals, groups, witnesses and alleged victims to submit their complaints or accounts, with supporting data and evidence,” wrote to the ICOE Chairperson with four questions, summarised as:
- Are any measures in place to protect complainants and witnesses against threats of violence, legal action or other forms of reprisals for providing information to the ICOE? What specific measures have been taken to ensure the confidentiality of any materials submitted, and to protect the identities and wellbeing of witnesses?
- Given statements by commissioners that accountability is not part of their mandate, as the ICOE is seeking submissions of data and evidence from victims and witnesses, please clarify the ICOE’s position on how these submissions will be utilized – including for possible criminal investigations.
- Can you provide information on any measures taken to deal with real or perceived conflicts of interests that may affect the public’s trust in the ICOE’s impartiality and independence, including victims and witnesses and others who may submit materials in response to your call?
- The recommendations of past Commissions of Inquiry have not been fully implemented. Given the sensitive nature of the ICOE’s mandate, what considerations have been taken into account to increase the likelihood that recommendations will be more effectively implemented than in the past?
The ICOE did not respond to these questions, despite having formally acknowledged receipt of the letter. The deadline for public submissions to the ICOE has now passed. Its silence in this instance illustrates a broader failure to demonstrate independence or transparency and underlines protection concerns.
The ICJ is unaware of efforts by the ICOE to genuinely seek cooperation with the UN Independent International Fact Finding Mission or the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, as has been called for by the Council.
Based on extensive experience and research in Myanmar and globally, and recalling a 5-page legal assessment of the ICOE published in September 2018, the ICJ remains of the view that the ICOE, like previous government-backed inquires, cannot effectively contribute to or deliver justice or accountability.
Myanmar-Inquiry Rakhine-Advocacy-2019-BUR (Burmese version, in PDF)
Mar 8, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today addressed the UN Human Rights Council on the need for a time-bound implementation plan, developed with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, for Sri Lanka to implement its commitments and obligations on transitional justice.
The statement, delivered during an interactive dialogue with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on her annual report, read as follows:
“Madame High Commissioner,
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) appreciates the efforts undertaken by the OHCHR in advancing transitional justice in Sri Lanka, mentioned in paragraph 69 of your report.
Any progress made by Sri Lanka, especially in relation to the implementation of transitional justice mechanisms under Resolution 30/1, albeit slow and wholly insufficient, has been primarily due to the continued engagement of the Council, OHCHR and international community. Therefore, keeping Sri Lanka on the agenda of the Council is paramount to ensure progress on all remaining commitments set out in Resolution 30/1.
As the Council is poised to provide Sri Lanka with an extension of two years to fulfill its commitments under Resolution 30/1, ICJ considers the expeditious development of a time-bound implementation plan with a deadline for delivery as essential. It is also pertinent that the implementation process is not a mere procedural exercise, but holistic and contextually appropriate.
At present, it appears that women are largely excluded from meaningfully participating in transitional justice processes, despite having been at the forefront in demanding truth and justice. Even mechanisms that have been put in place so far lack a comprehensive gender strategy. It is imperative that problems faced by women during and in the aftermath of the conflict are effectively identified and addressed in order to ensure that they are not left behind as the country seeks to move forward. The OHCHR with its expertise and experience in the field is well-placed to provide the necessary advice and technical assistance, especially in relation to matters that often get ignored or marginalized.
Madam High Commissioner, how would you see OHCHR fulfilling its role in relation to the development of the time-bound implementation plan and the due accomplishment of all remaining commitments made under Resolution 30/1?”
The statement can be downloaded in PDF format here: HRC40-OralStatement-IDwHCitem2-2019
The oral statement follows a joint open letter from NGOs, calling for such a plan, here.
The ICJ earlier submitted a written statement on Sri Lanka, available here.
