Feb 8, 2021 | News
The ICJ welcomes the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) decision establishing that the Court can assert its jurisdiction over serious crimes alleged to have occurred in the State of Palestine since 13 June 2014.
On 5 February 2021, the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I held by majority that: (i) Palestine has correctly acceded to the Rome Statute and has thus become a State party to it; and (ii) the ICC’s territorial jurisdiction extends to “the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, namely Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.”
“The ruling is a first step towards breaking the cycle of impunity for crimes under international law committed by all parties to the conflict in Palestine,” said Said Benarbia, the ICJ’s MENA Programme Director. “The Prosecutor should immediately open an investigation with a view to establishing the facts about such crimes, and identifying and prosecuting those most responsible.”
The decision was prompted by a request of the ICC Office of the Prosecutor seeking confirmation of the Court’s territorial jurisdiction.
The Prosecutor had previously concluded that there is a reasonable basis to believe that “war crimes have been or are being committed in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.”
On 16 March 2020, the ICJ submitted amicus curiae observations in support of the Court’s jurisdiction, arguing that:
- Palestine has successfully acceded, and is a State Party, to the Rome Statute. The Court should accordingly exercise its jurisdiction over Palestine as it does in respect of any other State Party;
- The Palestinian Territory over which the Court should exercise jurisdiction comprises the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza; and
- Palestine is a State under international law, satisfying recognized international law criteria for statehood, displaying State activity and engaging in diplomatic relations with other sovereign States. The decades-long belligerent occupation of Palestine by itself has no decisive legal effect on the validity of its claim to sovereignty and statehood.
The Pre-Trial Chamber decision confirmed the first two of these observations, without considering the status of Palestine’s statehood under general international law.
Contact
Said Benarbia, Director, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme; t: +41 22 979 3817 e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Vito Todeschini, Legal Adviser, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme; t: +216 53 334 679 e: vito.todeschini(a)icj.org
Jul 24, 2020 | News
The ICJ urges Israel to repeal or amend the “Great Coronavirus Law” adopted on 23 July. In the context of concerns about the emergency measures taken in recent months, the Law restricts parliamentary oversight of measures to address the COVID-19 pandemic in a manner that could undermine human rights protection and the rule of law.
The Law would enter into force on 10 August, replacing a “placeholder” law adopted by the Knesset (Israel’s parliament) earlier in July that currently gives even wider powers to the executive government but will expire on that date.
Under the new Law, the executive government has authority to declare COVID-19-related states of emergency for 60 days at a time until 30 June 2021, although the Knesset retains the power to revoke any such state of emergency.
Once a state of emergency is in place, the Law accords the Government the power to adopt “emergency regulations” for renewable periods of 28 or 14 days, depending on the type of restrictions envisaged.
The ability of Knesset committees to reverse such “emergency regulations” is significantly restricted under the Law.
As the ICJ highlighted in a briefing paper, “emergency regulations” already adopted since March 2020, and continued under the “placeholder” law, have failed in many respects to comply with international law and standards on the declaration of a state of emergency and related formal and substantive requirements under article 4 of the the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); the protection of the right to privacy with regard to the “tracking programme” of Israeli citizens; and respect for detainees’ rights to independent legal counsel and to family visits.
“The emergency powers legislation significantly weakens the ordinary role of the Parliament and risks paving the way for further arbitrary restrictions on human rights beyond those already seen in the regulations adopted to date,” said Said Benarbia, the ICJ’s MENA Programme Director.
“The Law should be repealed or amended to ensure effective oversight by Parliament over all emergency measures.”
Since March 2020, the Israeli Government has adopted a number of “emergency regulations” with the purported aim of tackling the COVID-19 pandemic.
“Respecting international law while tackling the COVID-19 pandemic is not optional, Israel must handle the pandemic in a way that guarantees the full enjoyment of human rights,” Benarbia added.
Contact
Said Benarbia, Director, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3817; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Jul 17, 2020 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today joined other NGOs in highlighting the achievements and omissions of the 44th regular session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, 30 June – 17 July 2020.
The following statement was delivered, at the closing of the session, by the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), on behalf of the group of leading human rights NGOs:
“Madame President,
The 44th session of the UN Human Rights Council began with China’s imposition of legislation severely undermining rights and freedoms in Hong Kong. Within days, there were reports of hundreds of arrests, some for crimes that didn’t even exist previously. We welcome efforts this session by a growing number of States to collectively address China’s sweeping rights abuses, but more is needed. An unprecedented 50 Special Procedures recently expressed concerns at China’s mass violations in Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Tibet, suppression of information in the context of Covid-19, and targeting of human rights defenders across the country. The Council should heed the call of these UN experts to hold a Special Session and create a mechanism to monitor and document rights violations in the country. No state is beyond international scrutiny. China’s turn has come.
The 44th session also marked an important opportunity to enable those affected directly by human rights violations to speak to the Council through NGO video statements.
Amnesty’s Laith Abu Zeyad addressed the Council remotely from the occupied West Bank where he has been trapped by a punitive travel ban imposed by Israel since October 2019. We call on the Israeli authorities to end all punitive or arbitrary travel bans.
During the interactive dialogue with the Commission of Inquiry on Syria, victims’ associations and families of victims highlighted the human rights violations occurring in detention centers in Syria. We welcome the efforts by some States to underline their demands and welcome the adoption of the Syria resolution on detainees and urge the Syrian government to take all feasible measures to release detainees and provide truth to the families, noting the important pressure needed by Member States to further call for accountability measures for crimes committed in Syria.
Collette Flanagan, Founder of Mothers against Police Brutality, also delivered a powerful video statement at the Council explaining the reality of racist policing in the United States of America. We fully support victims’ families’ appeals to the Council for accountability.
We hope that the High Commissioner’s report on systemic racism, police violence and government responses to antiracism peaceful protests will be the first step in a series of meaningful international accountability measures to fully and independently investigate police killings, to protect and facilitate Black Lives Matter and other protests, and to provide effective remedy and compensation to victims and their families in the United States of America and around the world.
We appreciate the efforts made by the Council Presidency and OHCHR to overcome the challenges of resuming the Council’s work while taking seriously health risks associated with COVID-19, including by increasing remote and online participation. We recommend that remote civil society participation continue and be strengthened for all future sessions of the Council.
Despite these efforts, delays in finalising the session dates and modalities, and subsequent changes in the programme of work, reduced the time CSOs had to prepare and engage meaningfully. This has a disproportionate impact on CSOs not based in Geneva, those based in different time zones and those with less capacity to monitor the live proceedings. Other barriers to civil society participation this session included difficulties to meet the strict technical requirements for uploading video statements, to access resolution drafts and follow informal negotiations remotely, especially from other time zones, as well as a decrease in the overall number of speaking slots available for NGO statements due to the cancellation of general debates this session as an ‘efficiency measure.’
We welcome the joint statement led by the core group on civil society space and endorsed by cross regional States and civil society, which calls on the High Commissioner to ensure that the essential role of civil society, and States’ efforts to protect and promote civil society space, are reflected in the report on impact of the COVID-19 pandemic presented to the 46th Session of the HRC. We urge all States at this Council to recognise and protect the key role that those who defend human rights play.
These last two years have seen unlawful use of force perpetrated by law enforcement against peaceful protesters, protest monitors, journalists worldwide, from the United States of America to Hong Kong, to Chile to France , Kenya to Iraq to Algeria, to India to Lebanon with impunity.
We therefore welcome that the resolution “the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of peaceful protests” was adopted by consensus, and that the Council stood strongly against some proposed amendments which would have weakened it. We also welcome the inclusion in the resolution of a panel during the 48th session to discuss such events and how States can strengthen protections. We urge States to ensure full accountability for such human rights violations as an essential element of the protection of human rights in the context of protests. The current context has accelerated the urgency of protecting online assembly, and we welcome that the resolution reaffirms that peaceful assembly rights guaranteed offline are also guaranteed online. In particular, we also commend the resolution for calling on States to refrain from internet shutdowns and website blocking during protests, while incorporating language on the effects of new and emerging technologies, particularly tools such as facial recognition, international mobile subscriber identity-catchers (“stingrays”) and closed-circuit television.
We welcome that the resolution on “freedom of opinion and expression” contains positive language including on obligations surrounding the right to information, emphasising the importance of measures for encryption and anonymity, and strongly condemning the use of internet shutdowns.. Following the High Commissioner’s statement raising alarm at the abuse of ‘false news’ laws to crackdown on free expression during the COVID-19 pandemic, we also welcome that the resolution stresses that responses to the spread of disinformation and misinformation must be grounded in international human rights law, including the principles of lawfulness, legitimacy, necessity and proportionality. At the same time, we are concerned by the last minute addition of language which focuses on restrictions to freedom of expression, detracting from the purpose of the resolution to promote and protect the right. As we look to the future, it is important that the core group builds on commitments contained in the resolution and elaborate on pressing freedom of expression concerns of the day, particularly for the digital age, such as the issue of surveillance or internet intermediary liability, while refocusing elements of the text.
The current context has not only accelerated the urgency of protecting assembly and access to information, but also the global recognition of the right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment. We welcome the timely discussions on ”realizing children’s right to a healthy environment” and the concrete suggestions for action from panelists, States, and civil society. The COVID-19 crisis, brought about by animal-to-human viral transmission, has clarified the interlinkages between the health of the planet and the health of all people. We therefore support the UN Secretary General’s call to action on human rights, as well as the High Commissioner’s statement advocating for the global recognition of the human right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment – already widely reflected at national and regional levels – and ask that the Council adopts a resolution in that sense. We also support the calls made by the Marshall Islands, Climate Vulnerable Forum, and other States of the Pacific particularly affected and threatened by climate change. We now urge the Council to strengthen its role in tackling the climate crisis and its adverse impacts on the realization of human rights by establishing a Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Climate Change, which will help address the urgency of the situation and amplify the voices of affected communities.
The COVID crisis has also exacerbated discrimination against women and girls. We welcome the adoption by the Council of a strong resolution on multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination against women and girls, which are exacerbated in times of a global pandemic. The text, inter alia, reaffirms the rights to sexual and reproductive health and to bodily autonomy, and emphasizes legal obligations of States to review their legislative frameworks through an intersectional approach. We regret that such a timely topic has been questioned by certain States and that several amendments were put forward on previously agreed language.
The Council discussed several country-specific situations, and renewed the mandates in some situations.
We welcome the renewal of the Special Rapporteur’s mandate and ongoing scrutiny on Belarus. The unprecedented crackdown on human rights defenders, journalists, bloggers and members of the political opposition in recent weeks ahead of the Presidential election in August provide a clear justification for the continued focus, and the need to ensure accountability for Belarus’ actions. With concerns that the violations may increase further over the next few weeks, it is essential that the Council members and observers maintain scrutiny and pressure even after the session has finished.
We welcome the extension of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Eritrea. We urge the government to engage, in line with its Council membership obligations, as the Special Rapporteur’s ‘benchmarks for progress’ form a road map for human rights reform in the country.
We welcome the High Commissioner report on the human rights situation in the Philippines which concluded, among other things, that the ongoing killings appear to be widespread and systematic and that “the practical obstacles to accessing justice in the country are almost insurmountable.” We regret that even during this Council session, President Duterte signed an Anti Terrorism Law with broad and vague definition of terrorism and terrorists and other problematic provisions for human rights and rule of law, which we fear will be used to stifle and curtail the rights to freedom of opinion and expression, to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. Also during this session, in a further attack on press freedom, Philippine Congress rejected the franchise renewal of independent media network ABS-CBN, while prominent journalist Maria Ressa and her news website Rappler continue to face court proceedings and attacks from President Duterte after Ressa’s cyber libel conviction in mid-June. We support the call from a group of Special Procedures to the Council to establish an independent, impartial investigation into human rights violations in the Philippines and urge the Council to establish it at the next session.
The two reports presented to the Council on Venezuela this session further document how lack of judicial independence and other factors perpetuate impunity and prevent access to justice for a wide range of violations of civil, cultural, economic, political, and social rights in the country. We also urge the Council to stand ready to extend, enhance and expand the mandate of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission when it reports in September.
We also welcome the report of the Special rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967 and reiterate his call for States to ensure Israel puts an end to all forms of collective punishment. We also reiterate his call to ensure that the UN database of businesses involved with Israeli settlements becomes a living tool, through sufficient resourcing and annual updating.
We regret, however, that several States have escaped collective scrutiny this session.
We reiterate the UN Special Rapporteur Agnes Callamard’s call to pressure Saudi Arabia to release prisoners of conscience and women human rights defenders and call on all States to sustain the Council’s scrutiny over the situation at the September session.
Despite calls by the High Commissioner for prisoners’ release, Egypt has arrested defenders, journalists, doctors and medical workers for criticizing the government’s COVID-19 response. We recall that all of the defenders that the Special Procedures and the High Commissioner called for their release since September 2019 are still in pre-trial detention. The Supreme State Security Prosecution and ‘Terrorism Circuit courts’ in Egypt, are enabling pre-trial detention as a form of punishment including against human rights defenders and journalists and political opponents, such as Ibrahim Metwally, Mohamed El-Baqer and Esraa Abdel Fattah, Ramy Kamel, Alaa Abdel-Fattah, Patrick Zaky, Ramy Shaat, Eman Al-Helw, Solafa Magdy and Hossam El-Sayed. Once the terrorism circuit courts resumed after they were suspended due to COVID-19, they renewed their detention retroactively without their presence in court. It’s high time the Council holds Egypt accountable.
As highlighted in a joint statement of Special Procedures, we call on the Indian authorities to immediately release HRDs, who include students, activists and protest leaders, arrested for protesting against changes to India’s citizenship laws. Also eleven prominent HRDs continue to be imprisoned under false charges in the Bhima Koregaon case. These activists face unfounded terror charges under draconian laws such as sedition and under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. While we welcome that Safoora Zargar was granted bail on humanitarian grounds, the others remain at high risk during a COVID-19 pandemic in prisons with not only inadequate sanitary conditions but also limited to no access to legal counsel and family members. A number of activists have tested positive in prison, including Akhil Gogoi and 80-year-old activist Varavara Rao amid a larger wave of infections that have affected many more prisoners across the country. Such charges against protestors, who were exercising their rights to freedom of peaceful assembly must be dropped. We call on this Council to strengthen their demands to the government of India for accountability over the excessive use of force by the police and other State authorities against the demonstrators.
In Algeria, between 30 March and 16 April 2020, the Special rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, human rights defenders, issued three urgent appeals in relation to cases involving arbitrary and violent arrests, unfair trials and reprisals against human rights defenders and peaceful activists Olaya Saadi, Karim Tabbou and Slimane Hamitouche. Yet, the Council has been silent with no mention of the crackdown on Algerian civil society, including journalists.
To conclude on a positive note, we welcome the progress in the establishment of the OHCHR country office in Sudan, and call on the international community to continue to provide support where needed to the transitional authorities. While also welcoming their latest reform announcements, we urge the transitional authorities to speed up the transitional process, including reforms within the judiciary and security sectors, in order to answer the renewed calls from protesters for the enjoyment of “freedom, peace and justice” of all in Sudan. We call on the Council to ensure continued monitoring and reporting on Sudan.”
Endorsements:
- International Service for Human Rights
- DefendDefenders (East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project)
- Center for Reproductive Rights
- Franciscans International
- The Syrian Legal Development Programme
- Egyptian Front for Human Rights (EFHR)
- CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
- International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR)
- International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA World)
- Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (CELS)
- Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
- Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI)
- ARTICLE 19
- International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
- Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)
- IFEX
- Association for Progressive Communications
- International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
- Amnesty International
(an abbreviated version of the statement was read aloud at the Council session, due to the limited time available)
Jan 30, 2020 | News
The “Peace to Prosperity” plan proposed by the United States, and developed in the absence of any meaningful engagement with Palestinian representatives, is not a serious means to solve the conflict between Israel and Palestinian, and all actors in the international community should reject it, the ICJ said today.
As presented, the Plan would pave the way for Israel to annex large portions of the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and deny the Palestinians the internationally protected right to self-determination as well as the right to return of Palestinians. In addition, it seeks to legitimize the acquisition of land by force, all in violation of international law and the UN Charter.
On 28 January 2020, US President Donald Trump publicly announced the plan at the Whitehouse in Washington, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at his side.
“The US plan is a political stunt that patently disregards international law and how the rights of Palestinians are recognized and protected under international law,” said Said Benarbia, the ICJ’s MENA Programme Director.
The ICJ emphasized that any claims of sovereignty by Israel over parts of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, based on this plan would be null, void and of no effect.
The text of the US plan inaccurately asserts that Israel has “valid legal and historical claims over the West Bank” and notes that “[t]he State of Israel and the United States do not believe the State of Israel is legally bound to provide the Palestinians with 100 percent of pre-1967 territory.”
This position runs counter to numerous applicable UN Security Council Resolutions, including Resolution 242, which required Israel’s complete withdrawal from the territory occupied in 1967.
“Any settlement to the conflict between Israel and Palestine must be consistent with international law, including international human rights law and international humanitarian law,” Benarbia added. “This requires negotiations on an equal footing between the parties, optimally with broad international engagement, not simply an intervention by a single State.”
Israeli settlements are established in violation of article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits the Occupying Power from transferring its own population into the occupied territory.
Their eventual incorporation into Israel would amount to unlawful annexation, in contravention of the prohibition of territorial acquisition by force established by the UN Charter and international law.
The US plan posits that “Jerusalem will remain the sovereign capital of the State of Israel,” apportioning to the State of Palestine the areas of the city beyond the separation barrier. It also denies the right to return of Palestinian refugees.
Effectively making Israel’s occupation of parts of the West Bank permanent, the US plan further provides that Israel will maintain “overriding security responsibility for the State of Palestine” and that the West Bank and Gaza should be fully demilitarized.
Contact
Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41-22-979-3817; e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Nov 5, 2019 | News
Today, the ICJ called on the Israeli Government to reverse its decision to deport Omar Shakir, the Human Rights Watch (HRW) Israel and Palestine Director, and ensure that he, HRW, and other human rights defenders are able to carry out their human rights work without intimidation.
The ICJ fears that the decision will have a chilling effect on human rights defenders in the country, who the Israeli authorities are bound to protect and not intimidate or persecute.
The deportation decision is based on a 2017 amendment to the “Entry into Israel Law”, which allows authorities to deny foreigners a permit for entry to and residence in Israel “if he or she, or the organization or the body for which he or she operates, has knowingly published a public call to engage in a boycott against the State of Israel or has made a commitment to participate in such a boycott.”
An appeal against the deportation decision was rejected by the Jerusalem District Court in April 2019, and by Israel’s Supreme Court today.
Israel’s Supreme Court seems to have accepted the Government’s claim that Shakir’s work at HRW, which entailed calling on businesses to cease operating in Israeli settlements in the West Bank, as required by international law, constitutes a call for the boycott of Israel.
The ICJ noted that the move to deport Omar Shakir constitutes an unjustifiable infringement on his right to freedom of expression, guaranteed by article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As a State party to the Covenant, Israel has an obligation to respect and protect this right.
The Human Rights Committee already expressed its concern with regard to Israel’s anti-boycott legislation and called on the Israeli authorities to “ensure that individuals fully enjoy their rights to freedom of expression and association and that any restrictions on the exercise of such rights comply with the strict requirements of article 19.”
The deportation would also contravene the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, which affirms the duty of States to promote and facilitate the work of human rights defenders, while scrupulously protecting their fundamental freedoms.
