Mar 22, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ has joined with ten other leading human rights organisations to highlight the key outcomes of the 40th regular session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, at its conclusion on 22 March 2019.
The joint NGO statement, delivered at the end of the session, reads as follows:
“We welcome the positive step the Council has taken in the direction to effectively protect environmental human rights defenders (EHRDs) from the grave reality they face every day. By adopting the resolution by consensus, the Council has collectively and explicitly recognized the vital role of EHRDS, including in attaining the SDGs sustainable development goals and ensuring that no-one is left behind, and called for their protection. We also welcome the call on States to provide a safe and empowering context for initiatives organised by young people and children to defend human rights relating to the environment. We, however, regret that the resolution does not squarely address the obligations of international financial institutions and investors.
We welcome South Africa’s leadership to put on the Council’s agenda emerging human rights issues, in bringing attention to the multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination that women and girls face in the field of sports, especially on the basis of race and gender.
The Council has ensured its continued attention to grave rights violations across the globe.
While we welcome the extension of Council attention on Sri Lanka for another two years, a concrete, transparent, and time-bound action plan is urgently needed to implement its commitments under resolution 30/1 in collaboration with OHCHR. Given the lack of progress and political will to implement these commitments, in the absence of immediate progress, the Council should consider additional measures or mechanisms for ensuring victims’ rights to truth, justice and reparations. Individual States need not wait to exercise universal jurisdiction.
We welcome the resolution on Myanmar and its strong focus on ending impunity and ensuring accountability, and we call for the swift operationalisation of the Independent Investigative Mechanism (IIM). We welcome steps taken to review the UN’s involvement in Myanmar. We urge the UN Secretary-General to ensure that it is independent and transparent, and present the findings and recommendations at the Council’s 43rd session.
We welcome the renewal of the mandate of the Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan, a vital mechanism for human rights reporting and evidence gathering. It sends the right message to the government and all parties to the conflict: There can be no lasting peace without justice.
The Council continued this session to initiate action on country situations based on objective criteria through resolutions and joint statements.
By adopting a resolution on Nicaragua, the Council sent a signal to victims of the current crisis that the international community will not allow impunity for the serious ongoing violations to prevail. We look forward to robust reporting from the OHCHR and we urge the Nicaraguan government to fully engage with the Office to ensure the victims’ rights to truth, justice and reparation.
The Council sent a strong message of support to human rights defenders in Saudi Arabia through the joint statement by 36 States, led by Iceland, calling for the release of detained women human rights defenders and called on the Saudi government to fully cooperate with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions in her investigation into the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. We urge the Saudi authorities to respond fully to these calls, and States to follow up with a resolution at the June session to maintain attention to the situation until meaningful progress, including the release of defenders, is made.
LGBT people in Chechnya are being abducted, locked up in secret detention sites, tortured and sometimes killed purely because of their sexual orientation. We welcome the joint statement on Chechnya delivered by more than 30 States and join the call on the Russian authorities for the persecution to stop: for the immediate and unconditional release of all detained for their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity, and for swift, thorough, and impartial investigations.
We welcome the Cameroon joint statement which advances both Council membership standards and its prevention mandate, and urge the Council to keep the matter under scrutiny.
While we have welcomed the Council’s attention to several situations of gross rights violations, we remain concerned about the lack of consistent and principled leadership by States, in particular by Council members.
We are disappointed that even though the demands of several EU and WEOG States to move the resolution on accountability for crimes committed in the Occupied Palestinian Territories from item 7 to item 2 was met, they still failed to support the resolution. This suggests that no matter the item number, some WEOG members continue in failing to protect the human rights of Palestinians, effectively shielding Israel from accountability.
We regret that States have yet again failed to initiate Council action on the Philippines amidst continued unlawful killings in the government’s so-called war on drugs, and increased targeting of independent media, civil society organisations, and human rights defenders. We reiterate our call on the Council to take action to mandate an independent investigation to establish the facts of human rights violations including extrajudicial executions and attacks against media and civil society, address impunity, and take steps towards justice and reparations for the victims and their families, and hope action will be taken in this regard at the next Council session.
We are deeply disappointed that the resolution adopted on Libya again lacks any meaningful accountability mechanism or mandate, despite the impunity for the widespread and systematic violations of international humanitarian and human rights law that prevail there.
We deplore that despite credible reports of the detention of up to 1 million Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in western China, the Council has yet again given a pass to China, permitting impunity for widespread and severe human rights violations. The efforts China has made to keep States silent, exemplified by intimidation and threats on the one hand and whitewashing the situation on the other, demonstrate the degree to which Council action could have had meaningful results if States had instead called clearly and collectively for an independent, unrestricted fact-finding mission.
On the resolution on the rights of the child, we regret the Council’s inability to emphasize the empowerment, autonomy and capacity of children with disabilities, and including to ensure that their sexual and reproductive health and rights must be respected, protected and fulfilled.
We applaud Mexico and other States’ resolve to safeguard the independence of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism and to resist any attempts to dilute, distract or distort its essential focus, ensuring that the Rapporteur can continue to have positive impacts both in preventing and responding to human rights violations committed in the name of countering terrorism and in relation to the human rights of victims of terrorism. We urge States to remain vigilant to resist future attempts to undermine the Special Procedures system- the eyes and ears of the Council.
We welcome the Council’s renewal of the mandates of the Special Rapporteur on Iran and the Commission of Inquiry on Syria, so that both can continue to perform their vital work fulfilling their respective mandates and addressing the dire human rights situations in both countries. We urge the Iranian and Syrian authorities to change their posture of noncooperation with the respective mandate .
Several of our organisations have urged the UN High Commissioner to publish the database on businesses in Israeli settlements and were alarmed at its further delay. We urge the High Commissioner to release the database with all due haste.
We welcome the renewal of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief mandate, and the maintenance of consensus on the Council resolution 16/18 framework for addressing religious intolerance . Rising intolerance and hate is a global concern, and States must move beyond rhetoric to action in implementing these standards.
The High Commissioner’s update on Venezuela during this session reflected the dire human rights situation in Venezuela. We urge all States to consider what more the Council can do to address the worsening human rights crisis in the country and to support all victims.
We note the highly disturbing report by the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing concerning grave reprisals by the Egyptian government against those who cooperated with her during her recent visit to the country and urge this Council to take action to address these attacks.
We welcome the passage of the resolution on Georgia and the continued attention devoted to the importance of full and unimpeded access for the Office of the High Commissioner and international and regional human rights mechanisms.”
Signatories:
- Amnesty International
- ARTICLE 19
- Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
- DefendDefenders (East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project)
- Center for Reproductive Rights
- CIVICUS
- Human Rights House Foundation
- Human Rights Watch
- International Commission of Jurists
- International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
- International Service for Human Rights
Mar 13, 2019 | Advocacy
This important blog by ICJ Senior Legal Adviser Kingsley Abbott was first posted to Opinio Juris. It has been translated into Burmese language as a resource for individuals, institutions and organizations in the country.
Documenting criminal human rights violations in the Myanmar is critical, so we must be careful not to create problems for future efforts at establishing criminal responsibility.
In his article, Kingsley Abbott, discusses the important role of the documentation of serious human rights violations in Myanmar by civil society, UN bodies and journalists.
This effort has played a critical role in raising awareness of the situation inside and outside the country and in getting responses from the international community.
Read the article in English
Read the article in Burmese
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser for Global Redress & Accountability e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Mar 12, 2019 | Events, News
The ICJ convened a two-day workshop from 9th to 10th March 2019 in Dhaka, Bangladesh to discuss applicable international legal mechanisms designed to achieve accountability for serious human rights violations in Asia.
Bangladesh-based non-government organizations the Centre for Peace and Justice and Naripokkho co-hosted the event with the ICJ, with a representative of AJAR (Asia Justice and Rights) also joining. Twenty Bangladeshi lawyers, activists and academics attended the event.
Legal advisers from the ICJ provided an overview of the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar (IIMM), currently being established following a UN Human Rights Council resolution in September 2018.
They also discussed the structure and procedures of the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose prosecutors are currently conducting a preliminary examination into the deportation of Rohingyas from Myanmar into Bangladesh. Unlike Myanmar, Bangladesh is a State Party to the Rome Statute of the ICC, and its pre-trial chamber has indicated the Court has jurisdiction over crimes listed in the Rome Stature were one element, or part of a crime, was committed inside the territory of Bangladesh.
AJAR’s co-founder provided an overview of transitional justice processes, drawing upon international and regional experiences of truth-seeking, prosecutions, reparations and reforms to guarantee non-repetition of human rights violations.
Two of the ICJ’s legal advisers also travelled to Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, where they met relevant stakeholders to discuss the situation of Rohingya refugees from Myanmar, and to share information about accountability mechanisms, including about expected timelines, outcomes and limitations.
The activity is part of the ICJ’s global work on promoting accountability and redress for gross human rights violations to facilitate justice and deter repetition.
Contact: Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior Legal Advisor for Global Redress and Accountability e: kingsley.abbott@icj.org
Mar 11, 2019 | Advocacy
The “Independent Commission of Enquiry” (ICOE) on Rakhine State, announced by the Government of Myanmar in May 2018 and established in July, has not demonstrated any reasonable prospect of meeting international standards of independence, impartiality or effectively contributing to justice or accountability for human rights violations constituting crimes under international law.
The ICOE is not transparent about how its information gathering will, if at all, shed light on the truth, or contribute to accountability and redress, while protecting individuals it comes into contact with. It is also yet to fulfill conditions called for by the UN Human Rights Council in its September 2018 resolution 39/2.
Any move to shift reference in the Council resolution currently under discussion, to include more positive recognition of the ICOE, would be wholly unjustified.
Furthermore, the government continues its unwillingness to address credible allegations of crimes under international law, including in its report to the CEDAW Committee in February in which rape allegations were dismissed as “wild claims.”
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), in response to a “Call for Submissions” on 12 December 2018, inviting “individuals, groups, witnesses and alleged victims to submit their complaints or accounts, with supporting data and evidence,” wrote to the ICOE Chairperson with four questions, summarised as:
- Are any measures in place to protect complainants and witnesses against threats of violence, legal action or other forms of reprisals for providing information to the ICOE? What specific measures have been taken to ensure the confidentiality of any materials submitted, and to protect the identities and wellbeing of witnesses?
- Given statements by commissioners that accountability is not part of their mandate, as the ICOE is seeking submissions of data and evidence from victims and witnesses, please clarify the ICOE’s position on how these submissions will be utilized – including for possible criminal investigations.
- Can you provide information on any measures taken to deal with real or perceived conflicts of interests that may affect the public’s trust in the ICOE’s impartiality and independence, including victims and witnesses and others who may submit materials in response to your call?
- The recommendations of past Commissions of Inquiry have not been fully implemented. Given the sensitive nature of the ICOE’s mandate, what considerations have been taken into account to increase the likelihood that recommendations will be more effectively implemented than in the past?
The ICOE did not respond to these questions, despite having formally acknowledged receipt of the letter. The deadline for public submissions to the ICOE has now passed. Its silence in this instance illustrates a broader failure to demonstrate independence or transparency and underlines protection concerns.
The ICJ is unaware of efforts by the ICOE to genuinely seek cooperation with the UN Independent International Fact Finding Mission or the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, as has been called for by the Council.
Based on extensive experience and research in Myanmar and globally, and recalling a 5-page legal assessment of the ICOE published in September 2018, the ICJ remains of the view that the ICOE, like previous government-backed inquires, cannot effectively contribute to or deliver justice or accountability.
Myanmar-Inquiry Rakhine-Advocacy-2019-BUR (Burmese version, in PDF)
Mar 7, 2019 | Advocacy, News
The ICJ joined a list of 77 civil society organizations to call on relevant authorities in Myanmar to drop spurious charges against journalist Ko Swe Win, to decriminalize defamation, and to release human rights defenders currently imprisoned under repressive criminal defamation laws.
The statement reads:
On the second anniversary of the defamation charges brought upon Ko Swe Win, editor at online newspaper Myanmar Now, we, the undersigned 77 civil society organisations, call on the relevant authorities to drop the case against him. Spurious defamation charges under Article 66(d) of the Telecommunications Law were filed against him on 7 March 2017 by ultranationalists intent on suppressing free speech. The Government of Myanmar must take concrete steps in parliament to decriminalise defamation, repeal Article 66(d) of the Telecommunications Law and drop the charges and release all activists and human rights defenders currently in prison and being charged under this repressive legislation.
Article 66(d) of the Telecommunications Law of 2013 was amended in 2017, but notably, defamation is still criminalised and carries a punishment of up to two years of imprisonment or a fine of up to one million kyat or both. The law is still frequently used to stifle free speech in Myanmar and silence critics. To date, a reported 173 cases have been filed under Article 66(d) since its enactment.
The UN Human Rights Committee has called on all states to decriminalise defamation, indicating that imprisonment for defamation is a penalty that can never be appropriate or compatible with the right to freedom of expression. In addition, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression has stated that defamation should be treated as a matter of civil rather than criminal law, stressing that criminal prosecution for defamation inevitably becomes a mechanism of political censorship, which contradicts freedom of expression and of the press. In the case of Article 66(d), Myanmar law allows for agents of the offended party to file charges for defamation and initiate criminal proceedings on their behalf. In effect, this means that powerful organisations and individuals can operate via proxies to target those that they consider disturbing, a form of judicial harassment with severe implications for the individuals who are accused.
Ko Swe Win was charged with defamation under Article 66(d) of the Telecommunications Law for sharing a story by Myanmar Now on Facebook. The story quoted a senior monk who said that well-known ultranationalist monk U Wirathu’s actions could be cause for him to be expelled from the monkhood as they violated the tenets of Buddhism. U Wirathu, notorious for using Facebook to agitate against Muslims, had previously expressed support for and thanked U Kyi Lin – the recently convicted gunman who shot and killed prominent lawyer U Ko Ni in January 2017. U Ko Ni was an expert on constitutional law and was working to change the military-drafted 2008 Constitution. The plaintiff, a follower of U Wirathu, brought the charges in March 2017 and the court proceedings started in July 2017.
Since then, Ko Swe Win has had to travel regularly to the courthouse in Mandalay, where the charge was filed, from his home in Yangon and back – a distance of over 1,200 kilometres. The court hearings, now totaling 55, have been ongoing for almost two years, but the court has still only heard the plaintiff’s side, which has consistently been stalling the process. On some occasions, Ko Swe Win has travelled from Yangon only to find that the plaintiff or witnesses have failed to appear in court and that the proceedings have been postponed. The plaintiff himself was arrested in August 2017 and has since been detained, which has caused significant delays to the process.
U Wirathu has been summoned twice but failed to appear. On the first occasion, his lawyer informed the court that U Wirathu could not make the hearing because he was attending a donation ceremony. On the second occasion, U Wirathu’s lawyer requested that the hearing be held at his monastery compound. That request was denied by the township court, but U Wirathu appealed to the higher district court, which also denied the request. While the district court considered the request, no hearings could be held in the township court. Ko Swe Win however, was still required to make an appearance every two weeks before the township court judge just to be informed of the next date he was due to appear in court. This procedure, which required him to travel from Yangon to Mandalay, was typically over in a matter of minutes.
The many irregularities of this case highlight the lack of independence of the Myanmar judiciary. It appears that the authorities are determined to target those that are working to expose troubling truths and terrible crimes, rather than those who commit them. Those responsible for spreading dangerous speech and inciting violence face no consequences, while those who criticise such dangerous actions continue to be prosecuted. In a recent parallel case, also fraught with controversies, two Reuters reporters – Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo – were convicted to seven years in prison for exposing a mass killing of Rohingya men and boys carried out by the Myanmar military in northern Rakhine State.
In Myanmar, high-ranking military commanders, some of whom are accused by UN investigators for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and even genocide, remain at large, while journalists who expose the truth and report on human rights violations in the country are charged under repressive laws. This inverted idea of justice needs to come to an end if Myanmar is to continue its path towards democracy.
As long as Article 66(d) remains, people in Myanmar, especially those who criticise powerful individuals, officials and government policies online, will be at risk of being imprisoned for their peaceful exercise of the right to freedom of expression.
In light of the above, we call on the Government of Myanmar and its relevant authorities to:
- Drop the defamation charges under Article 66(d) of the Telecommunications Law against Ko Swe Win and other activists and human rights defenders and release those currently imprisoned under this repressive legislation;
- Repeal Article 66(d) of the Telecommunications Law, or at a very minimum, amend it to ensure that:
- defamation is no longer criminalised by deleting references to “defamation” as well as vague language such as “disturbing”;
- only a government prosecutor can file a criminal complaint under Article 66(d);
- where recognisably criminal acts such as “extortion” and “threats” occur in the law they are clearly and narrowly defined in line with international human rights law, to ensure it is not used to criminalise the peaceful expression of views.
Download
Myanmar-statement on defamation-Advocacy-2019-ENG (full statement in English, PDF)
Myanmar-statement on defamation-Advocacy-2019-BUR (full statement in Burmese, PDF)
