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
Dec 18, 2018 | Multimedia items, News, Video clips
Lawyers from a diverse range of countries, including Egypt, Lebanon, Nepal, the Philippines, Tunisia and Uzbekistan have identified the many barriers that women typically face in accessing justice in their countries.
Common trends and practices identified included socio-economic marginalization, gender stereotypes and patriarchal attitudes.
The observations came during two training workshops held in Geneva in June and September to coincide with sessions of the UN Human Right Council and UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. The workshops were part of a project on enhancing women’s access to justice through UN human rights mechanisms, supported by the Permanent Mission of the Federal Republic of Germany to the UN in Geneva.
A lawyer from Uzbekistan noted that domestic violence flourishes in states where common attitudes hold that this is an internal matter to be resolved within families.
A particular concern raised in respect of Lebanon was discrimination linked to transference of nationality, where Lebanese women married to a foreigner cannot pass their nationality to their children but Lebanese men married to a foreigner can.
Meera Maharjan, lawyer from Nepal, noted the cultural, educational and economic barriers that impede women from being able to take on decision-making roles and the impact this has on the exercise of their rights.
Malaysian lawyer Yvonne Lim explained that the women who are often in need of access to justice tend to be from the lower rungs of the socio-economic strata and lack the resources, support and basic awareness about their human rights and the remedies that may be available to them.
During the September training session the ICJ organized a side event to the 39th session of the Human Rights Council on ‘applying a women-centred approach to access to justice’ to further explore these issues.
Secretary-General Saman Zia-Zarifi moderated the event and panelists included:
• ICJ Commissioner Justice Sanji Monageng, former Vice-President of the International Criminal Court
• Lisa Gormley, Research Officer for the Centre for Women, Peace and Security at the London School of Economics
• Meera Maharjan, Nepalese lawyer and legal officer for Resilience for Sustainable Women Empowerment (RISE)
You can watch a recording of the event, and interviews with two of the workshop participants below.
https://www.facebook.com/ridhglobal/videos/565112000574216/UzpfSTQ3MTQ2NzA4NjIyMTM3MzoyMjEyNTUzNjc1NDQ2MDMw/
Dec 15, 2018 | Events, News
The ICJ convened the 9th annual “Geneva Forum” of Judges and Lawyers in Bangkok, Thailand, 13-14 December 2018, on the topic of indigenous and other traditional or customary justice systems in Asia.
Indigenous and other traditional or customary justice systems play a significant role in many societies around the world, in terms of access to justice for rural communities, indigenous peoples, minorities, and other marginalized populations. At the same time, such systems raise a series of questions in terms of their relationship to international fair trial and rule of law standards, and impacts on human rights including particularly those of women and children.
9th annual Geneva Forum of Judges & Lawyers, 13-14 December 2018, Bangkok, Thailand
Following discussions on these topics at the 2017 ICJ Geneva Forum (an annual global meeting of senior judges, lawyers, prosecutors and other legal and United Nations experts, convened by the ICJ with the support of the Canton and Republic of Geneva (Switzerland) and other partners), the ICJ decided that in order to better engage with customary justice systems, the Geneva Forum would be “on the road” in 2018 and 2019, convening for a regional consultation in the Asia-Pacific in 2018, and in Africa in 2019.
Additional consultations will take place in the Americas. The Forum will return to Geneva for an enlarged session in 2020 to adopt final conclusions and global guidance.
The ninth annual Geneva Forum in Bangkok brought together judges, lawyers, and others engaged with traditional justice systems in the Asia-Pacific region, and practitioners from ordinary justice systems in the region, together with UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples Ms. Victoria Tauli Corpuz, as well as ICJ and UN representatives from Geneva, to discuss and develop practical recommendations, in a private small-group setting.
Participants came from a number of countries across the region, including: Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Pakistan, Philippines, Thailand and Timor Leste.
The potential and the risks for equal and effective access to justice and human rights
Many participants re-affirmed that traditional and customary justice systems can make an important contribution to improving access to justice for indigenous, and other rural or otherwise marginalized populations, as a result of such factors as geographic proximity, lower cost, lesser cultural or linguistic barriers, and greater trust by local communities, relative to the official justice system.
Indeed, for these and other reasons, for some marginalized and disadvantaged rural populations, traditional and customary courts may in practical terms be the only form of access they have to any kind of justice.
Furthermore, article 34 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples affirms the right of indigenous peoples “have the right to promote, develop and maintain their institutional structures and their distinctive customs, spirituality, traditions, procedures, practices and, in the cases where they exist, juridical systems or customs, in accordance with international human rights standards”.
Furthermore, official recognition of traditional or customary courts in a country can more generally be a positive reflection of the cultural and other human rights of other ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities.
At the same time, the Forum discussions confirmed that, as with formal justice systems, certain characteristics and processes of some traditional and customary justice systems can conflict with international standards on fair trial and the administration of justice, and human rights, particularly of women and children.
Participants in the 2018 Forum discussed a variety of ways in which the relevant communities, their leaders, and decision-makers in indigenous or other traditional systems, together with government authorities, international actors, development agencies, and civil society, can cooperate and coordinate with a view to seeing both formal and traditional systems operate more consistently with international standards on human rights and the rule of law.
There was a range of views on which forms of engagement or intervention were most appropriate or effective. It was also emphasized that work should continue to build the accessibility and capacity of official justice systems to ensure that individuals seeking justice have a real choice.
The above conclusions were subject to the acknowledgement that traditional and customary justice systems take many different forms across the region, and that they exist in many different contexts.
A full report of the Forum discussions will be published by the ICJ in the first part of 2019.
Development of Guidance by the International Commission of Jurists
The ICJ’s global experience and expertise, together with research and global consultations with judges, lawyers and other relevant experts, including the 2017 Geneva Forum, the 2018 session in Bangkok, and subsequent regional consultations in Africa and the Americas, will provide a foundation for the publication by ICJ in 2020 of legal, policy and practical guidance on the role of traditional and customary justice systems in relation to access to justice, human rights and the rule of law.
The ICJ guidance will focus on the mechanisms and procedures of traditional and customary justice systems, as opposed to tackling all aspects of the substantive law.
The guidance will seek to assist all actors involved in implementation and assessment of relevant targets of Sustainable Development Goal 16 on access to justice for all and effective, accountable and inclusive institutions, as well as Goal 5 on gender equality, including: decision-makers and other participants in traditional and customary justice systems; judges, lawyers and prosecutors operating in official justice systems; other government officials; development agencies; United Nations and other inter-governmental organizations; and civil society.
The guidance will be published and disseminated through activities with ICJ’s regional programmes, and its national sections and affiliates, through a series of regional launch events and workshops, as well as at the global level at the United Nations and in other settings.
The guidance will provide the basis for ICJ strategic advocacy at the national level in the years following the conclusion of this initial phase of this work.
Background Materials
Available for download in PDF format:
A Compilation of selected international sources on traditional and customary courts, is available here.
The Final report of the 2018 Geneva Forum, on traditional and customary justice systems, is available here: Universal-Trad-Custom-Justice-GF-2018-Publications-Thematic-reports-2019-ENG
The Final report of the previous, 2017 Geneva Forum, on traditional and customary justice systems, is available here: Universal-Trad Custom Justice Gva Forum-Publications-Thematic reports-2018-ENG
For more information, please contact matt.pollard(a)icj.org.
