Jan 29, 2019 | News
On the second anniversary of the killing of prominent lawyer U Ko Ni, in public view at Yangon International Airport, the ICJ repeats its calls for a thorough and impartial investigation with a view to establish the facts, to deliver justice and to deter the repetition of similar crimes.
“This brazen killing of a prominent democracy advocate demands a rigorous State response to show this type of crime will be fully punished,” said Frederick Rawski, the ICJ’s Director for Asia and the Pacific.
Despite an official investigation and reports of more than 100 court hearings, nobody has been held accountable for U Ko Ni’s death – criminally or otherwise – and the circumstances have not yet been satisfactorily explained.
“Myanmar simply cannot satisfy its international law obligations without conducting an impartial and independent investigation that is free of military influence. Such an investigation is a pre-requisite for conducting an effective prosecution in a fair trial setting,” added Rawski.
U Ko Ni was well known as a vocal advocate for human rights and democratic reform in Myanmar. As an adviser to the National Legal of Democracy party, he was involved in creating the position of State Counselor, which formalized a leadership role for Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, despite a constitutional provision barring her from the Presidency.
At the time of his death, it is understood that U Ko Ni was working on proposals to replace Myanmar’s 2008 Constitution, the source of law underpinning military power.
“A credible justice process is required not only for U Ko Ni and his family, but to demonstrate the State will protect the right to life of all people including democracy advocates,” said Sean Bain, legal adviser for the ICJ.
“A crime of this nature stifles participation in the democratic process and so an effective justice process is imperative to deter its repetition,” Bain added.
Myanmar has a particular obligation to ensure that lawyers and others acting as human rights defenders are protected in carrying out their work.
Any justice process must be timely, effective and shed light on the facts.
The investigation into U Ko Ni’s killing has been beset by obstacles, including the unknown whereabouts of a primary suspect, the incorrect identification of a deceased individual as a suspect and the arrest of a person with the same name, and reported military involvement in the police investigation. Lines of inquiry related to the political motivations for the killing, particularly considering the military links of many suspects, do not appear to have been pursued satisfactorily, nor impartially, given military involvement in the investigation.
Criminal proceedings in Yangon’s Northern District Court, and related proceedings in the Yangon High Court, have been sluggish. Observing lawyers and individuals including from the ICJ have noted multiple instances of admission into evidence of testimony that appears to be irrelevant, failures of key witnesses to appear, and the long drawn out process of court proceedings whereby weeklong delays are common while continuances over successive days are rare.
These issues are emblematic of challenges in Myanmar’s justice system previously identified by the ICJ in which police, prosecutors and courts generally lack the independence and or will to effectively administer justice, particularly in politically sensitive cases.
“Two years is an incredibly long time to get to the position we are in now, and in our experience this highlights broader problems with the administration of justice in Myanmar,” added Bain.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Region Director, e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Sean Bain, ICJ Legal Adviser, e: sean.bain(a)icj.org
Download:
Myanmar-Ko Ni Statement-News-web stories-2019-ENG (full story with background information, PDF)
Myanmar-Ko Ni Statement-News-web stories-2019-BUR (full text in Burmese, PDF)
Read also:
Myanmar: reverse laws and practices that perpetuate military impunity – new ICJ report
Killing of lawyer U Ko Ni must be promptly and impartially investigated
Nov 26, 2018 | News
The ICJ convened a Forum of international legal experts and Myanmar civil society actors in Yangon from the 24 to 25 November 2018 on Myanmar’s obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
Representing each of Myanmar’s 14 States and Regions, more than 130 civil society members attended the event, which was co-hosted with the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission in collaboration with Dan Church Aid, Norwegian Church Aid, Equality Myanmar and the Local Resource Center.
The ICJ’s Asia Pacific Regional Director, Frederick Rawski, introduced the Forum objectives which were to raise awareness of the rights, obligations and reporting processes associated with Myanmar’s ratification of the ICESCR on 6 October 2017.
As a State Party to the ICESCR, Myanmar is obliged to respect, protect and fulfill a variety of human rights including the rights to: decent work, an adequate standard of living, adequate housing, food, water and sanitation, social security, health, and education.
The Chairperson of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Virginia Brás Gomes, discussed the vital role civil society plays in documenting and providing information about human rights challenges, and advocating for law to be enforced and interpreted in compliance with the State’s international law obligations.
Virginia B. Dandan of the Philippines, a former Chairperson of the Committee, described the rights protected under ICESCR and highlighted the universality of human rights and the indivisibility of economic, social and cultural rights from other human rights including protection from discrimination.
Visiting Myanmar from the ICJ’s Southern Africa Office, legal adviser Timothy Fish Hodgson, ICJ Legal Adviser in the ICJ Africa Programme, discussed from a comparative perspective the justiciability of ESC rights in South Africa, and the roles lawyers and other civil society actors have played in progressing rights protections.
Legal advisers from the ICJ’s Myanmar Team moderated a series of panel discussions where civil society representatives discussed challenges and opportunities related to the realization of ESC rights in Myanmar.
Separate to this initiative, the visiting international experts also travelled to Nay Pyi Taw to engage with government. Myanmar’s first State report to the ESCR Committee is due in late 2019, also opening opportunities for civil society engagement.
This event was part of the ICJ’s ongoing effort to convene civil society actors to discuss the promotion and protection of human rights through legal mechanisms.
Nov 5, 2018 | News
The ICJ convened a two-day workshop from 3rd to 4th November 2018 in Yangon, to enhance understanding of legal protections of the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief in Myanmar.
Freedom of thought, conscience and belief, often referred to as the right to freedom of religion of belief (FoRB) is considered by many to be one of the foundations of a democratic society.
The workshop was aimed at discussing State regulation of religion or belief in Myanmar and included some 40 human rights defenders, lawyers and members of religious groups, from across the country.
ICJ legal adviser Sean Bain introduced the right to FoRB under international law and standards – particularly Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Mr Bain also discussed the complementarity of these articles with other rights, such as the right to freedom of expression, and highlighted the limitation clauses in the international treaties which provide a framework for resolving some of the tensions that can arise in specific cases.
Michelle Yesudas, a Malaysian human rights lawyer, shared good practices and lesson learned from application of strategic litigation in FoRB related cases in Malaysian context and spoke about potential approaches and strategies that could be adapted in Myanmar context to push the legislative reform and enforcement of the law.
The ICJ’s legal researcher Dr. Ja Seng Ing and national legal Adviser Advocate Daw Hnin Win Aung jointly facilitated two panel discussions on challenges in free practice of religion or belief specifically focusing on the worship places and Freedom of Expression.
Based on their own independent research, senior legal scholars and human rights defenders from Myanmar also provided their perspectives on national challenges, particularly the absence of the State fulfilling its responsibilities to protect FoRB in Myanmar. Advocate Daw Zar Li Aye discussed available legal remedies and encouraged legal advocacy strategies to ensure protections under the law in Myanmar.
The participants raised a number of notable issues on addressing identified obstacles to the free practice of religion or belief included the need for annulling discriminatory notifications restricting the rights to practice religion freely, the need for safe space to continue the dialogue between FoRB activists, other human rights defenders and lawyers on strategic litigation.
Participants at the conference also recognized the opportunity presented before them in advancing freedom of religion or belief in Myanmar and committed to working collectively to enhance this right.
This event is part of the ICJ’s ongoing effort to convene civil society actors including lawyers to discuss critical human rights issues in Myanmar with a view to advancing the protection of human rights in the country.
Sep 28, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ joined other civil society organisations in addressing the UN Human Rights Council, on the successes and failures of its 39th session, concluding today.
The statement, read by International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), was as follows:
“This session, the Council adopted landmark resolutions on several country situations, further enhancing its contribution to the protection of human rights.
On Myanmar, we welcome the creation of the independent investigative mechanism, which is an important step towards accountability for the horrific crimes committed in Myanmar, as elaborated in the FFM’s report to this session. The overwhelming support for the resolution, notwithstanding China’s shameful blocking of consensus, was a clear message to victims and survivors that the international community stands with them in their fight for justice.
On Yemen, the Council demonstrated that principled action is possible, and has sent a strong message to victims of human rights violations in Yemen that accountability is a priority for the international community, by voting in favour of renewing the mandate of the Group of Eminent Experts to continue international investigations into violations committed by all parties to the conflict.
Furthermore, we welcome the leadership by a group of States on the landmark resolution on Venezuela, and consider it as an important step for the Council applying objective criteria to address country situations that warrant its attention. The resolution, adopted with support from all UN regions, sends a strong message of support to the Venezuelan people. By opening up a space for dialogue at the Council, the resolution brings scrutiny to the tragic human rights and humanitarian crisis unfolding in the country.
While we welcome the renewal of the mandate of the Commission of Inquiry (CoI) on Burundi, to continue its critical investigation and work towards accountability, however we regret that the Council failed to respond more strongly to Burundi’s record of non-cooperation and attacks against the UN human rights system.
We also welcome the Council’s adoption of the resolution on Syria, which among other things condemns all violations and abuses of international human rights law and all violations of international humanitarian law committed by all parties to the conflict.
However, on other country situations including China, Sudan, Cambodia and the Philippines, the Council failed to take appropriate action.
On Sudan, we are deeply concerned about the weak resolution that envisions an end to the Independent Expert’s mandate once an OHCHR office is set up; a “deal” Sudan has already indicated it does not feel bound by, and which is an abdication of the Council’s responsibility to human rights victims in Sudan while grave violations are ongoing. At a minimum, States should ensure the planned country office monitors and publicly reports on the human rights situation across Sudan, and that the High Commissioner is mandated to report to the Council on the Office’s findings.
We also regret the lack of concerted Council action on the Philippines, in spite of the need to establish independent international and national investigations into extrajudicial killings in the government’s ‘war on drugs’, and to monitor and respond to the government’s moves toward authoritarianism.
In addition, we regret the Council’s weak response to the deepening human rights and the rule of law crisis in Cambodia, failing to change its approach even when faced with clear findings by the Special Rapporteur demonstrating that the exclusive focus on technical assistance and capacity building in the country is failing.
We share the concerns that many raised during the session, including the High Commissioner, about China’s own human rights record, specifically noting serious violations of the rights of Uyghurs and other predominantly Muslim minorities in Xinjiang province. It is regrettable that States did not make a concrete and collective call for action by China to cease the internment of estimates ranging up to 1 million individuals from these communities.
On thematic resolutions, we welcome the adoption of the resolution on equal participation in political and public affairs but would have preferred a stronger endorsement and implementation of the Guidelines.
The resolution on safety of journalists, adopted by consensus, sets out a clear roadmap of practical actions to end impunity for attacks. Journalism is not a crime – yet too many States in this room simply imprison those that criticize them. This must end, starting with the implementation of this resolution.
We welcome the adoption by consensus of the resolution on preventable maternal mortality and morbidity and human rights in humanitarian settings. Women and girls affected by conflict have been denied accountability for too long. The implementation of this resolution will ensure that their rights, including their sexual and reproductive health and rights, are respected, protected and fulfilled.
Finally, the Council’s first interactive dialogue on reprisals was an important step to ensure accountability for this shameful practice, and we urge more States to have the courage and conviction to stand up for defenders and call out countries that attack and intimidate them.”
Signatories:
- The African Centre for Democracy and Human Rights Studies (ACDHRS)
- Amnesty International
- Article 19
- Center for Reproductive Rights
- CIVICUS
- DefendDefenders
- FIDH
- Forum Asia
- Human Rights House Foundation (HRHF)
- Human Rights Watch
- International Commission of Jurists
- International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
Sep 27, 2018 | News
Today’s decision by the UN Human Rights Council to create an ‘independent mechanism’ to collect evidence of crimes in Myanmar, is a significant step toward accountability for gross human rights violations, the ICJ said.
“The creation of this evidence-gathering mechanism is a welcome concrete step towards justice,” said Matt Pollard, Senior Legal Adviser for the ICJ.
“But this is a stopgap measure, effectively creating a prosecutor without a court, that only underscores the urgent need for the Security Council to refer the entire situation to the International Criminal Court, which was created for precisely such circumstances,” he added.
The Council’s decision follows on conclusions and recommendations by the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar (FFM).
The FFM’s 444-page full report described large-scale patterns of grave human rights violations against minority groups in the country, particularly in Rakhine, Kachin and Shan States.
It also highlighted the need for criminal investigations and prosecutions for crimes under international law, something the FFM concluded that national courts and commissions within Myanmar could not deliver.
“National justice institutions within Myanmar lack the independence, capacity and often also the will to hold perpetrators of human rights violations to account, particularly when members of security forces are involved. The latest government-established inquiry in Rakhine State also seems designed to deter and delay justice,” Pollard said.
The Human Rights Council resolution did not create a new international court or tribunal.
Evidence held by the independent mechanism could be made available to international or national proceedings, whether at the International Criminal Court (ICC) or another ad hoc international tribunal, or to national prosecutors asserting jurisdiction over the crimes under universal jurisdiction or other grounds.
While there is no realistic prospect of effective national prosecutions within Myanmar in the near future, evidence held by the mechanism could also be available in future should national institutions eventually become sufficiently impartial, independent, competent, and capable to do so.
A preliminary examination of the situation of Rohingyas, being conducted by the ICC, may also lead to criminal proceedings but will likely be limited to those crimes that have partially occurred within Bangladesh, such as the crime against humanity of deportation.
Bangladesh is a State Party to the Rome Statute of the ICC whilst Myanmar is not.
The Security Council also has authority to refer the entire situation to the International Criminal Court.
“The Myanmar government should stop denying the truth and should work with the international community, and particularly the United Nations, to improve the horrific conditions facing the Rohingya and other ethnic minorities whose rights have been violated so brutally by the security forces, as documented by the Fact Finding Mission,” Pollard said.
“Myanmar’s international partners, including neighbours like India, China, and members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), should exercise their influence to help ensure that Myanmar addresses this serious threat to the stability of the country and the region, by ensuring respect, protection and fulfillment of the full range of civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights of the affected minorities,” he added.
The Council resolution makes several other substantive recommendations, including a call on the Government of Myanmar to review the 1982 Citizenship Law, and a recommendation for the United Nations to conduct an inquiry into its involvement in Myanmar since 2011.
Contact:
Matt Pollard, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser (Geneva), e: matt.pollard@icj.org, +41 79 246 54 75.
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), e: frederick.rawski@icj.org
Read also:
Why an IIIM and Security Council referral are needed despite the ICC ruling relating to Bangladesh (13 September 2018)
Government’s Commission of Inquiry cannot deliver justice or accountability (7 September 2018)
ICJ releases Q & A on crime of genocide (27 August 2018)
Myanmar: reverse laws and practices that perpetuate military impunity (16 January 2018)
Summary report of the Fact Finding Mission (12 September 2018)
Full report of the Fact Finding Mission (published 18 September 2018)
Text of the Resolution (unofficial version tabled in advance of the vote)
Myanmar-IIIM statement-Advocacy-2018-BUR (Full story in Burmese)
