Reconciliation, Accountability & Human Rights in Sri Lanka (UN event)

Reconciliation, Accountability & Human Rights in Sri Lanka (UN event)

This event will address progress in implementing Human Rights Council resolution 30/1 and required steps, in the format of presentations from human rights defenders from Sri Lanka and testimonies.

Date: Thursday, 28 February 2019

Time: 13.30 – 14.30

Venue: Room XXVII, Palais des Nations

Chair: Mr. Budi Tjahjono, Franciscans International

Speakers:

  • Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA)
  • Ms. Shyamala Gomez, Centre for Equality and Justice (CEJ)
  • Mr. Senaka Perera, Committee for Protecting Rights of Prisoners
  • Representative of the North East Coordinating Committee (NECC)

Testimonies:

  • Ms. Sandya Eknaligoda, Wife of the disappeared journalist
  • Dr. Kasipillai Manoharan, Father of the victim of ‘Trinco 5’ killings

Sponsors:

  • Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
  • Amnesty International
  • CIVICUS
  • Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI)
  • Franciscans International
  • Human Rights Watch (HRW)
  • International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
  • International Movement Against all forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR)
  • International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
India’s dispute with Pakistan on upholding the right of detainees to consular access to be heard at International Court of justice

India’s dispute with Pakistan on upholding the right of detainees to consular access to be heard at International Court of justice

The International Court of Justice will hold public oral hearings in India v. Pakistan (Jadhav case) from 18 to 21 February 2019. Before they commence, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) has published a briefing paper to clarify the key issues and relevant laws raised in the case in a Question and Answer format.

The case concerns Pakistan’s failure to allow for consular access to an Indian national, Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav, detained and convicted by a Pakistani military court on charges of “espionage and sabotage activities against Pakistan.”

India has alleged that denial of consular access breaches Pakistan’s obligations under Article 36(1) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR), to which both States are parties.

Pakistan has argued, among other things, that the VCCR is not applicable to spies or “terrorists” due to the inherent nature of the offences of espionage and terrorism, and that a bilateral agreement on consular access, signed by India and Pakistan in 2008, overrides the obligations under the VCCR.

ICJ’s Q&A discusses the relevant facts and international standards related to the case, including: India’s allegations against Pakistan; Pakistan’s response to the allegations; the applicable laws; and the relief the International Court of Justice can order in such cases.

Contact:

Frederick Rawski (Bangkok), ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director, e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org

Reema Omer (London), ICJ International Legal Adviser, South Asia t: +447889565691; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org

Additional information

 While the case at issue is limited to denial of consular access under the VCCR, it engages other critical fair trial concerns that arise in military trials in Pakistan.

The International Commission of Jurists has documented how Pakistani military courts are not independent and the proceedings before them fall far short of national and international fair trial standards. Judges of military courts are part of the executive branch of the State and continue to be subjected to military command; the right to appeal to civilian courts is not available; the right to a public hearing is not guaranteed; and a duly reasoned, written judgment, including the essential findings, evidence and legal reasoning, is denied.

The case also underscores one of inherent problems of the death penalty: that fair trial violations that lead to the execution of a person are inherently irreparable.

Download the Q&A:

Pakistan-Jadhav case Q&A-Advocacy-Analysis brief-2019-ENG

 

 

 

 

Martin Ennals Award for human rights defenders:  Abdul Aziz Muhamat (Sudan/Papua New Guinea) is the 2019 laureate

Martin Ennals Award for human rights defenders: Abdul Aziz Muhamat (Sudan/Papua New Guinea) is the 2019 laureate

Sudanese refugee activist Abdul Aziz Muhamat is the 2019 Martin Ennals Award Laureate. He was among three finalists, selected last October by a jury of ten of the world’s leading human rights organizations, including the ICJ, together with Marino Cordoba Berrio (Colombia) and Eren Keskin (Turkey).

“This award sheds light on the very cruel refugee policy of the Australian Government. It also brings international attention to the dangers and ill-treatment faced by refugees all over the world, including in countries that claim they uphold the Refugee Convention,” said Abdul Aziz Muhamat.

The 2019 laureate was fleeing war in Darfour. In October 2013, he was forcibly transferred to the island of Manus (Papua New Guinea), as part of Australia’s “offshore” refugee policy, when the boat he was on was intercepted by the authorities.

More than five years on, he is still stranded on the island, like hundreds of refugees and asylum seekers, and subject to deprivation, harassment, humiliation and violence.

“This young man was only 20 when he first arrived on Manus island. Since then, he never stopped raising his voice for those who have been stripped of their most basic rights together with him. He showed extraordinary tenacity and courage, always resisting peacefully even after a police officer shot him in the leg,” said Dick Oosting, Chair of the Martin Ennals Foundation.

“The Australian Government must meet its international obligations and put an end to these inhumane practices,” he added.

Living conditions on Manus island have been denounced by human rights organizations.

“Men are dying, notably for lack of appropriate medical care. Some of them, including children, committed suicide. We need safety, we need freedom, we need hope. Opposing this cruel system helps preserve my self-esteem and my human dignity,” Abdul Aziz Muhamat said.

“I will continue to fight until all of us are safe and free,” he added.

The two other finalists of the 2019 Martin Ennals Award are Eren Kerskin (Turkey) and Marino Cordoba Berrio (Colombia).

A lawyer who has been engaged for over 30 years in advancing the rights of women, Kurds and LGBTI+ notably, Eren Kerskin was recently sentenced to twelve and a half years in prison for supporting the shuttered pro-Kurdish newspaper Özgür Gündem.

She has been accused of denigrating the Nation and insulting the President in her chronicles.

“Freedom of expression and freedom of thought are severely punished in Turkey nowadays. The government tolerates no dissenting voices. I know that by resisting we can change the world. Thank you for not forgetting us. Your solidarity and support give me the courage to continue the struggle,” she said.

Marino Cordoba Berrio is a leading figure within the Afro-Colombian community, which has been repeatedly stripped of its rights and lands.

For two decades, he has been struggling for the rights of his ethnic and other marginalized groups, at the risk of his own life in a country where more than 400 social leaders and human rights defenders have been killed in the past two years.

“Historically, we have suffered from political, economic and social exclusion. To seek and obtain justice for my people is crucial for our survival,” he said.

“Under the peace agreement and thanks to our efforts, ethnic groups’ rights are recognized and so is the need to protect them. It’s high time for the government of Colombia to meet its commitments and put an end to the escalating violence affecting our communities,” he added.

The Martin Ennals Award for human rights defenders is given out since 1994. It honours individuals who have shown outstanding commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights, despite the risks involved.

This award aims at shedding light on their situation and their work. It provides them with international recognition and protection, as well as financial support to pursue their activities.

The three finalists were honoured today during a ceremony organized by the City of Geneva.

The jury of the Martin Ennals Award comprises ten of the world’s leading human rights organizations: the ICJ, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, FIDH, Human Rights First, International Service For Human Rights, Brot für die Welt, Front Line Defenders, the World Organization Against Torture and HURIDOCS.

Contact:

Olivier van Bogaert, Director Media & Communications, ICJ representative in the MEA Jury, t: +41 22 979 38 08 ; e: olivier.vanbogaert(a)icj.org

Watch video of MEA Laureate 2019:

Watch the whole MEA 2019 Ceremony in Geneva:

ICJ deeply concerned by President Sirisena’s resolve to resume executions in Sri Lanka

ICJ deeply concerned by President Sirisena’s resolve to resume executions in Sri Lanka

The ICJ has called on Sri Lanka’s President, Maithripala Sirisena, to retract his recent pronouncement that executions would resume in the country notwithstanding a moratorium on capital punishment that has lasted 43 years. The last execution was carried out in Sri Lanka in 1976.

“Resuming executions would be an egregious violation of Sri Lanka’s obligations under international human rights law, a serious threat to human rights in the country, and it would be inconsistent with the global trend towards the abolition of the death penalty,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia-Pacific Director.

Speaking in Parliament last week, President Sirisena vowed to resume executions of those convicted of “drug offences” as early as within the next two months.

The ICJ considers any resumption of executions in Sri Lanka as constituting a violation of international law and an appalling disregard for the international human rights system as a whole.

“At least 150 countries have now either abolished the death penalty or instituted an official or unofficial moratorium. There is a growing understanding around the world that the death penalty is an unacceptable assault on rights and dignity,” Fredrick Rawski added.

The ICJ opposes the death penalty in all circumstances – as it constitutes a violation of the right to life and its imposition constitutes per se cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment.

The Human Rights Committee, the Treaty Body supervising the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), by which Sri Lanka is bound, has recently made clear in its General Comment 36 on Right to life that, “it is contrary to the object and purpose of Article 6 [of the ICCPR, which enshrines the right to life] for States parties to take steps to increase de facto the rate and extent in which they resort to the death penalty”, and that, “States parties that are not yet totally abolitionist should be on an irrevocable path towards complete eradication of the death penalty, de facto and de jure, in the foreseeable future. The death penalty cannot be reconciled with full respect for the right to life, and abolition of the death penalty is both desirable and necessary for the enhancement of human dignity and progressive development of human rights.”

Moreover, the UN Human Rights Committee has made it clear that the imposition of the death penalty for “drug offenses” is incompatible with the Covenant.

The UN General Assembly has adopted repeated resolutions, most recently in December 2018, by overwhelming majority in calling for all retentionist States to observe a an immediate moratorium with a view to abolition.

It must be noted that Sri Lanka voted in favor of a moratorium on the use of the death penalty in the 2018 UN GA Resolution. This commitment should not be reversed, but upheld in practice instead, the ICJ says.

The ICJ calls on the Government of Sri Lanka to reject the resumption of executions and to do away with the death penalty once and for all. Instead of planning on resuming executions, the Sri Lankan authorities should focus on effective, evidence-based approaches to crime prevention in manners that conform to international human rights law and standards, such as formulating policies and legislation that address the underlying social and economic causes of criminality, which are also vital to ensuring stability and the rule of law.

The ICJ also urges Sri Lanka to immediately ratify the 2nd Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which obligates State Parties to take all necessary measures to abolish the death penalty.

Translate »