Feb 7, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ has submitted a written statement on Sri Lanka to the Human Rights Council ahead of its 40th Session in Geneva.
Almost ten years after Sri Lanka emerged from a period of conflict and massive human rights violations, the Government of Sri Lanka still has largely failed to implement its human rights obligations and commitments as reflected in Resolution 30/1.
The ICJ statement focuses on two of four transitional justice mechanisms which the Government committed to establish under the Resolution: (a) the judicial mechanism with special counsel to investigate violations of human rights and international humanitarian law; and (b) the office of missing persons. It highlights how female victims of war are uniquely impacted by the Government’s failure to implement the commitments made before the UNHRC and underscores the importance of holistically including women when such measures are implemented.
Recommendations:
The ICJ considers that the gravity and character of the crimes under international law committed in Sri Lanka, and the failure of the Government of Sri Lanka to meet its obligations and commitments to ensure justice for such crimes including as provided for in resolution 30/1, means that referral to the International Criminal Court or the creation of another international mechanism to facilitate criminal accountability would be fully warranted. If however the Council does not choose to pursue these options at this stage, the ICJ urges the Council at minimum to:
- Continue the monitoring of Sri Lanka through the adoption of a new resolution to ensure that the Government complies with all its obligations and commitments as reflected in resolution 30/1.
- Provide for OHCHR to develop, with the Sri Lankan Government, an implementation strategy with definitive timelines to ensure that the time afforded under the new resolution is utilised to expedite the implementation of measures assured under Resolution 30/1.
- Encourage Member States to exercise universal jurisdiction in order to bring perpetrators to justice.
The ICJ urges the Government of Sri Lanka to:
- Take immediate measures to establish the judicial mechanism with international involvement as contemplated under operative paragraph 6 of Resolution 30/1. The mechanism should ensure gender parity, be accessible for women in civil society, and allow female victims to fully participate in the process.
- Spread awareness regarding the importance of certificates of absence and confirm to the community that issuance of a certificate will not result in the end of efforts to find the person.
- Ensure an overall gender strategy is integrated in all other transitional justice mechanisms that are yet to be established so that structural injustices against women, especially in terms of discrimination and lack of participation, are addressed.
(full text of submission, in PDF: UN-HRC40-SriLanka-WrittenStatement-2019-EN)
Jan 29, 2019 | News
On the second anniversary of the killing of prominent lawyer U Ko Ni, in public view at Yangon International Airport, the ICJ repeats its calls for a thorough and impartial investigation with a view to establish the facts, to deliver justice and to deter the repetition of similar crimes.
“This brazen killing of a prominent democracy advocate demands a rigorous State response to show this type of crime will be fully punished,” said Frederick Rawski, the ICJ’s Director for Asia and the Pacific.
Despite an official investigation and reports of more than 100 court hearings, nobody has been held accountable for U Ko Ni’s death – criminally or otherwise – and the circumstances have not yet been satisfactorily explained.
“Myanmar simply cannot satisfy its international law obligations without conducting an impartial and independent investigation that is free of military influence. Such an investigation is a pre-requisite for conducting an effective prosecution in a fair trial setting,” added Rawski.
U Ko Ni was well known as a vocal advocate for human rights and democratic reform in Myanmar. As an adviser to the National Legal of Democracy party, he was involved in creating the position of State Counselor, which formalized a leadership role for Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, despite a constitutional provision barring her from the Presidency.
At the time of his death, it is understood that U Ko Ni was working on proposals to replace Myanmar’s 2008 Constitution, the source of law underpinning military power.
“A credible justice process is required not only for U Ko Ni and his family, but to demonstrate the State will protect the right to life of all people including democracy advocates,” said Sean Bain, legal adviser for the ICJ.
“A crime of this nature stifles participation in the democratic process and so an effective justice process is imperative to deter its repetition,” Bain added.
Myanmar has a particular obligation to ensure that lawyers and others acting as human rights defenders are protected in carrying out their work.
Any justice process must be timely, effective and shed light on the facts.
The investigation into U Ko Ni’s killing has been beset by obstacles, including the unknown whereabouts of a primary suspect, the incorrect identification of a deceased individual as a suspect and the arrest of a person with the same name, and reported military involvement in the police investigation. Lines of inquiry related to the political motivations for the killing, particularly considering the military links of many suspects, do not appear to have been pursued satisfactorily, nor impartially, given military involvement in the investigation.
Criminal proceedings in Yangon’s Northern District Court, and related proceedings in the Yangon High Court, have been sluggish. Observing lawyers and individuals including from the ICJ have noted multiple instances of admission into evidence of testimony that appears to be irrelevant, failures of key witnesses to appear, and the long drawn out process of court proceedings whereby weeklong delays are common while continuances over successive days are rare.
These issues are emblematic of challenges in Myanmar’s justice system previously identified by the ICJ in which police, prosecutors and courts generally lack the independence and or will to effectively administer justice, particularly in politically sensitive cases.
“Two years is an incredibly long time to get to the position we are in now, and in our experience this highlights broader problems with the administration of justice in Myanmar,” added Bain.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Region Director, e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Sean Bain, ICJ Legal Adviser, e: sean.bain(a)icj.org
Download:
Myanmar-Ko Ni Statement-News-web stories-2019-ENG (full story with background information, PDF)
Myanmar-Ko Ni Statement-News-web stories-2019-BUR (full text in Burmese, PDF)
Read also:
Myanmar: reverse laws and practices that perpetuate military impunity – new ICJ report
Killing of lawyer U Ko Ni must be promptly and impartially investigated
Jan 3, 2019 | Advocacy, News, Non-legal submissions
On 30 December 2018, the ICJ and the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) jointly submitted a communication to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW Committee) directed against Thailand.
They did this as a State Party to the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (the CEDAW Convention) on behalf and with the consent of Angkhana Neelapaijit, regarding the alleged enforced disappearance of her husband, Somchai Neelapaijit.
Somchai Neelapaijit, a prominent lawyer and human rights defender, disappeared after being stopped on a road in Bangkok on 12 March 2004 and pulled from his car by a group of men. He has not been seen since. More than 14 years after his alleged enforced disappearance, Somchai’s fate and whereabouts remain unknown.
Prior to his disappearance, Somchai had been defending clients from Thailand’s southern border provinces and had been doing extensive work to advocate for the rights of persons accused of terrorism, and to highlight the treatment of Malay-Muslims in the region.
The joint communication by ICJ and ISHR to the CEDAW Committee submits that Thailand has breached Articles 2(b)(c)(f), 5(a)(b), 15(1) and 16(1)(c)(d) of the CEDAW Convention, which relate to the rights of women to substantive equality and protection from all forms of discrimination, including in all matters relating to marriage and family relations, as well as to their right to an effective remedy for violations of the abovementioned provisions.
The communication further highlights the impact of enforced disappearance on family members of a disappeared person, noting its disproportionate impact on wives and female relatives, as most cases of enforced disappearance in Thailand involve male victims.
In addition to the CEDAW Convention and its Optional Protocol, Thailand is a party to a number of other international human rights instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. In January 2012, Thailand also signed the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED), thereby committing itself to refrain from acts that would defeat the object and purpose of that treaty, namely the prevention and prohibition of the crime of enforced disappearance.
The ICJ has consistently called upon the Thai authorities to comply with their obligations under international human rights law to independently, impartially and effectively investigate the case of Somchai Neelapaijit and all other reported cases of enforced disappearance, and provide the families of the victims in such cases with access to effective remedies and reparations, including regular updates on the status of the investigations.
The ICJ has also submitted recommendations to the Thai authorities on the current Draft Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearances Act, highlighting the crucial need for a domestic law to define and criminalize enforced disappearance and torture in line with Thailand’s international obligations.
Thailand-Communication to CEDAW-Advocacy-2019-ENG (full submission, in PDF)
Contact
Livio Zilli, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser & UN Representative, email: livio.zilli(a)icj.org
Read also
Thailand: ICJ submits recommendations on draft law on torture and enforced disappearance amendments
Thailand: ICJ marks 14th year anniversary of the enforced disappearance of Somchai Neelapaijit’
Thailand: ICJ, Amnesty advise changes to proposed legislation on torture and enforced disappearances
Thailand: pass legislation criminalizing enforced disappearance, torture without further delay
On the 10th anniversary of Somchai Neelapaijit’s alleged disappearance, the ICJ released a report ‘Ten Years Without Truth: Somchai Neelapaijit and Enforced Disappearances in Thailand’ documenting the legal history of the case.
Dec 28, 2018 | Multimedia items, News, Video clips
During a week of training and practical experience of UN human rights mechanisms in Geneva, women lawyers spoke of the ways in which civil society actors can use these mechanisms to strengthen advocacy efforts.
As part of a project supported by the German Mission to the United Nations in Geneva the ICJ invited two groups of women lawyers to Geneva to attend training workshops that took place during the course of the June and September ordinary sessions of the UN Human Rights Council.
Participants spoke about their experiences with the interplay between UN mechanisms and domestic changes.
Lebanese lawyer Nina Abdallah noted the limitations of these mechanisms when States do not accept mechanisms that allow for individual complaint. As Lebanon has not yet become party to the Optional Protocol of the CEDAW Convention this means that individuals cannot access the CEDAW Committee to seek a remedy for violations and against that State’s failure to meet obligations under the Convention.
However, she explained that although this limits the accessibility of certain mechanisms, civil society can still play an important role in raising rights issues, calling for removal of reservations and acceptance of complaint procedures for specific Conventions through other mechanisms, such as the Universal Periodic Review reporting process.
Maria Sol Taule, a lawyer from the Philippines working for human rights NGO Karapatan, noted that it is difficult for UN mechanisms to address individual cases when there are so many issues to deal with. However, she said that these mechanisms do still serve as an “effective tool to use as a platform to drumbeat our issues that haven’t been heard by our respective governments.”
Civil society participation in the Human Rights Council, State reporting processes for Committees and the UPR provide an occasion to highlight the human rights difficulties faced within specific countries. Ms Taule said this kind of engagement also offers the opportunity to enhance international solidarity with other organizations from other countries that are dealing with similar rights issues.
Dec 19, 2018 | News
The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2018 fails to protect the human rights of transgender people as guaranteed under the Indian constitution and international law and standards and must not be passed in its present form by the Rajya Sabha.
The Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha (Lower House of Indian Parliament) on 17 December, 2018. The next step in order for the Bill to progress is for the Rajya Sabha (Upper House of Indian Parliament) to pass it.
The ICJ considers this Bill to be a missed opportunity to address the serious problem of discrimination against transgender people in India. The ICJ calls for the rejection of its problematic parts by the Rajya Sabha and for the elaboration of a revised Bill in line with rights upheld by the Indian Supreme Court and India’s obligations under international law.
The 2018 Bill, if adopted, would effectively deny to most transgender people their right to self-identification, by providing an overly complex bureaucratic procedure requiring an individual’s application for a transgender certificate to be approved by two different sets of authorities, despite earlier widespread condemnation of this process by the transgender community.
“As the ICJ reported in 2017, the transgender community is continually harassed, stigmatized, and abused by the police, judges, their family and society. This Bill, if it becomes law would further serve to facilitate and compound human rights violations against people from a marginalized community”, said Ian Seiderman, Legal and Policy Director at the ICJ.
The Bill has also introduced mandatory sex reassignment surgery for those transgender people who seek to identify their gender within the binary (male/female) framework. This requirement would be in contravention of the Supreme Court’s judgment in NALSA v. UOI, which guarantees the right to self-identification without the need for medical intervention.
Further, the Bill would collapse all offences against transgender people into one provision which includes offences ranging from “sexual abuse” and “physical abuse”, to “compel[ing] or entice[ing] a transgender person to indulge in the act of begging” among others. These crimes have not been defined in the Bill.
It also would provide for the same six-month to two-year sentence for all offences against transgender people. In some cases, this could be a significantly lighter sentence than when the same crime is committed against others, including discriminated groups such as cis-gendered women, under the general criminal law. In addition, the identification of “beggary” as an offence under the Bill is problematic since for many transgender people in the country, it remains one of the limited livelihood opportunities.
Further, the Bill does not address the question of reservations in employment and education despite specific directions by the Supreme Court in NALSA v. UOI.
Lastly, while the proposed law guarantees the right to non-discrimination to transgender people against persons, state and private sector bodies, it does not provide a definition of discrimination, nor does it provide an enforcement mechanism for ensuring transgender people’s right to non-discrimination.
The ICJ calls on the Rajya Sabha to substantially revise the problematic provisions of the Bill before resubmitting it for parliamentary consideration.
Background
The provisions identified above do not accord with protection of the rights of transgender people to equality, non-discrimination, equal protection of the law, enshrined in the Constitution and international law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which India ratified in 1979. Further, they are incompatible with international standards such as the Yogyakarta Principles on the application of international human rights law in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity.
The ICJ, as part of SAATHII Vistaara Coalition, earlier this year drafted a Briefing Paper on India: Legal and Jurisprudential Developments on Transgender Rights, SAATHII Vistaara Coalition. The paper analyses in detail the domestic judicial developments on transgender rights as well as the legislative process undertaken until the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2018 was passed on 17 December 2018.
Additional Reading Material
- ICJ Briefing Paper on The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2016, analyzes the 2016 Bill, its shortcomings, and India’s international obligations, as it is the basis of the 2018 Bill.
- ICJ Briefing Paper on Implementation of NALSA Judgment discusses the 2014 April NALSA decision that affirmed that transgender people have the right to decide their self-identified gender. The paper analyses the responsibilities placed on Indian authorities, gaps in implementation, and India’s relevant international law obligations.
Contact
Maitreyi Gupta (Delhi), ICJ International Legal Advisor for India
e: maitreyi.gupta(a)icj.org, t: +91 7756028369
