Mar 1, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today delivered a joint oral statement to the UN Human Rights Council, addressing the abuse of counter-terrorism measures to repress human rights defenders and other civil society actors, and highlighting deep concerns about possible moves to allow Egypt a significant role over the UN’s independent expert on human rights and counter-terrorism.
The statement was delivered in an interactive dialogue with the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism. The ICJ made the statement jointly on behalf of Amnesty International, Article 19, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, CIVICUS, Human Rights Watch, International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), and Privacy International.
The organisations had earlier sent a joint letter to all States’ delegations to the Council in Geneva, highlighting Egypts appalling record of abuse of counter-terrorism measures, and urging States to strongly oppose any attempts to weaken the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, whether by diluting or distorting it by importing the flawed Egyptian-led approach into the Mexican-led resolution for its renewal, or any moves by longstanding leader Mexico to share co-leadership of the mandate renewal resolution with Egypt or other States with such an appalling record in relation to the very issues the mandate is to address.
The joint oral statement to the Council read as follows (check against delivery):
“Madame Special Rapporteur,
Our organizations welcome your report on the impacts of counter-terrorism and counter-extremism measures against civil society and human rights defenders (A/HRC/40/52).
We strongly concur with your findings regarding the deliberate and targeted abuse of overly broad and vague definitions of terrorism and violent extremism to criminalize and otherwise suppress human rights defenders and other civil society actors. We also appreciate your highlighting the need to prevent indirect impacts on civil society.
Among those States with a particularly appalling record of deliberate and targeted abuse, Egypt, which is mentioned in your report (paras 53 and 56), is a prominent example. As Human Rights Watch recently stated: “Using counterterrorism as a guise to crush all forms of dissent could be Egypt’s hallmark of 2018… There’s simply not much room left to peacefully challenge the government without being detained and unfairly prosecuted as a ‘terrorist’.”[1] Other examples from the reports before the Council include Turkey (para 53), Saudi Arabia (A/HRC/40/52/Add.2 paras 21-29), and China particularly as regards Uyghurs and Kazakhs (paras 55 and 57).
We share your concern about the elements lost from the previous Human Rights Council and General Assembly resolutions on “protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism” in their March 2018 merger with the deeply flawed Egyptian-led initiative on “effects of terrorism” (para 29). We reiterate our call from March 2018 for future versions of the resolution to address the relevant issues exclusively and comprehensively from the perspective of the effective protection of human rights.[2] We strongly oppose any attempts to dilute your mandate, including by importing the flawed Egyptian-led approach into the resolution for its renewal, or any sharing of co-leadership of the mandate renewal resolution with States that have such an appalling record in relation to the very issues the mandate is to address.
Madame Rapporteur, beyond the particular cases mentioned in your report (para 53), what are your views on the broader situation within Egypt in terms of abuse of counter-terrorism measures and what can States, the United Nations, civil society, and other stakeholders do to stop such abuses in the name of counter-terrorism in Egypt and other egregious situations?
Thank you.
[1] https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/01/17/egypt-new-moves-crush-dissent (17 January 2019). See also among others: Human Rights Watch World Report 2019, https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/egypt; EuroMed Rights, Egypt – Finding Scapegoats: Crackdown on Human Rights Defenders and Freedoms in the Name of Counter-terrorism and Security (Feb 2018) https://euromedrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/EuroMed-Rights-Report-on-Counter-terrorism-and-Human-Rights.pdf; Joint NGO Statement, Egypt: Civil society faces existential threat (23 June 2016) https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Egypt-Advocacy-JointNGOStatement-2016.pdf.
[2] Joint NGO end-of-session statement (23 March 2018) https://www.icj.org/hrc37-endofsession/.”
The statement can be downloaded in PDF format here: HRC40-JointOralStatement-SRCTHR-2019-EN
For more information email un(a)icj.org.
Mar 1, 2019 | News
On 28 February and 1 March, the ICJ met with senior officials of the Myanmar Police Force (MPF) and the Union Attorney General’s Office (UAGO) in Nay Pyi Taw.
The purpose of these talks was to promote the conduct of effective investigations into potentially unlawful deaths and enforced disappearance in accordance with international human rights law and standards, particularly the Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Deaths (“Minnesota Protocol”).
Under customary international law, the right to life, and the right to be free from torture and other ill treatment, is not to be restricted even during an armed conflict or declared public emergency. All States are obliged to investigate, prosecute and punish acts that constitute violations of the right to life, and to provide effective remedies and reparations to victims.
Published by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Minnesota Protocol provides guidance to authorities on investigating acts amounting to human rights violations, including when State actors may have been involved. Drawing upon international law and standards, including in relation to the rights of victims and their families, the Protocol includes detailed guidelines on crime scene investigation, interviews, exhumations and autopsies.
Since December 2017, the ICJ has co-hosted four regional workshops in Thailand focused on this topic. Attendees have included lawyers, academics and State authorities from Thailand, Cambodia, Nepal, India and Myanmar.
Frederick Rawski, Director for Asia and the Pacific, Sean Bain, Legal Adviser, and Ja Seng Ing, Legal Researcher, composed the ICJ delegation in Myanmar’s capital.
Frederick Rawski proposed opportunities to continue these discussions on international standards into investigative procedures and processes. The ICJ Team also provided updates about related activities undertaken regionally and in Myanmar.
The ICJ has worked with the UAGO since 2014 to provide assistance on prosecutorial independence and human rights in the context of Myanmar’s broader democratic and legal reforms. This was the third meeting with the MPF over the last twelve months to discuss the conduct of investigations inline with international human rights law and standards.
Members of UAGO and MPF received copies of the Minnesota Protocol and indicated these would be shared with officials involved in the conduct of investigations or in setting the standards for them under national law in Myanmar.
Feb 28, 2019 | Events, News
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)
Feb 28, 2019 | Advocacy, News
The ICJ made a submission to Mr. Léo Heller, the United Nations Special Rapporteur (Special Rapporteur) on the human rights to water and sanitation, in response to a call for submission in advance of the Special Rapporteur’s 2019 Human Rights Council Report on the human rights to water and sanitation in spheres of life beyond the households, in particular in public spaces.
The ICJ’s submission focuses on the status and the impact of inadequate access to water and sanitation on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer individuals (LGBTQ), and more specifically on transgender persons and non-binary persons, in India.
ICJ’s submission draws on its ongoing work on the human rights of LGBTQ persons in India, where from 2017 to date, the ICJ has studied LGBTQ persons’ access to and enjoyment of economic, social, and cultural rights, focusing on access to adequate housing, decent work, and public spaces and services including water and sanitation. The goal is to reveal, address, and reduce discriminatory treatment against LBGTQ persons in accessing economic, social and cultural rights as a result of discriminatory laws and practice through advocacy with the Indian State and with the United Nations.
Read the full submission here.
Feb 15, 2019 | News
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
