Jun 24, 2019 | News
The ICJ convened a half-day panel discussion today in Yangon, Myanmar, to discuss national laws governing citizenship, and outline how, throughout the country, they have a discriminatory impact on people’s enjoyment of their human rights.
The event also provided the opportunity to introduce the ICJ’s new legal briefing Citizenship and Human Rights in Myanmar: Why Law Reform is Urgent and Possible
ICJ legal researcher Ja Seng Ing and legal adviser Sean Bain kicked off the event by noting that Myanmar’s legal framework for citizenship – enacted by unelected military governments – fuels widespread discrimination against members of ethnic minority groups throughout the country.
Bain highlighted the incompatibility of the domestic legal framework governing citizenship in Myanmar with core rule of law principles and with the State’s obligations under international human rights law, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
He presented the ICJ’s practical recommendations for law reform, outlined in the ICJ’s new legal briefing, including with respect to the 1982 Citizenship Law and the 2008 Constitution, and to the Child Rights Bill currently under consideration by Myanmar’s national parliament.
Senior Advocate U Ohn Maung, a lawyer with decades of experience supporting access for members of minority groups to the official documentation often necessary to obtain even basic services, emphasized that citizenship in Myanmar should be a more inclusive concept, reflective of its pluralistic, multi-ethnic demography.
Daw Zarchi Oo and Daw Su Chit shared the findings of independent civil society research.
They highlighted various groups including: migrants and migrant workers; individuals belonging to sexual and/or gender minorities; single mothers; the children of fathers who are foreign nationals or who are estranged from their fathers; and people living with disabilities, who are all adversely impacted by current legal arrangements for citizenship and by their discriminatory implementation.
Daw Zarchi Oo also spoke about her own past experience of being stateless, and Daw Su Chit elaborated on her work with civil society and others to develop a gendered analysis of the impact of discriminatory citizenship laws in Myanmar.
Around 60 participants, including from domestic civil society, the legal community, international non-government organizations, the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission, the diplomatic community and others joined this event, and participated in the discussions.
The 1982 Citizenship Law embedded the current narrow definition of citizenship, which generally links its acquisition to membership of a prescribed “national race.”
Many of the 2008 Constitution’s provisions on “fundamental rights” are restricted to citizens only, with a result being that the State generally does not recognize the human rights of persons who do not qualify as citizens under domestic law, or are otherwise excluded due to the laws’ discriminatory implementation.
The intentionally discriminatory character of the 1982 Law, and its discriminatory implementation, largely explains why many long-term residents of Myanmar lack a legal identity (more than 25 percent of persons enumerated in the 2014 Census).
The situation of Rohingya people, who the State generally does not recognize as citizens, is the most egregious example of the human rights violations associated with this system.
This event is part of the ICJ’s broader support to promote and protect human rights in Myanmar through research, analysis, advocacy and creating spaces for discussion.
See also:
ICJ convenes workshop on reforming 1982 Citizenship law
May 30, 2019 | News
On May 29 2019, the ICJ facilitated a workshop with a number of justice sector officials and stakeholders who are active in the implementation of the Sexual Offenses and Domestic Violence Act (SODVA).
Building on previous engagements in 2018 and 2019, the participants decided on a clear plan of action for further coordination towards the eradication of sexual and gender based violence (SGBV) in Eswatini.
Participants in the meeting included representatives from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the police, correctional services, the judiciary and the Medical and Dental Association of Eswatini.
The meeting, was opened by ICJ Commissioner and Principal Judge of the High Court of Eswatini, Justice Qinisile Mabuza.
“For too many years, the clamour for this law has been loud; now that we have it, we have to interrogate how efficiently we are using it and check for the gaps that we need to address. Its implementation is in our hands, and we cannot allow ourselves to fail those that need our protection; we cannot fall foul of failing in our duty,” said Judge Mabuza.
A draft report, commissioned by the ICJ, was presented by Nonhlanhla Dlamini, the Director of Swaziland Action Group Against Abuse (SWAGAA).
The report, provided participants with a contextual analysis of challenges faced by survivors of SGBV in accessing the justice system in Eswatini.
ICJ Legal Adviser Timothy Fish Hodgson discussed key provisions of the SODV Act and the need for their interpretation and application consistently with the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women.
SWAGAA’s draft report revealed that despite the enactment of the SODV Act significant barriers to access to justice for survivors of SGBV remain.
These include:
- Underreporting of SGBV;
- Stereotyping and discrimination faced by survivors when reporting;
- Partial application of SODV Act due to lack of knowledge on the part of key justice sector actors;
- Under-resourcing, lack of infrastructure and services presupposed by SODV Act which prevents full implementation;
- Continued stereotype-driven assumptions made by courts despite the outlawing of such approaches in the SODV Act;
- Lack of due diligence in the collection of medical evidence;
- A perception on the part of survivors that perpetrators are better taken care of in the prosecution process than survivors; and
- A growing and inaccurate perception of the SODV Act and its purposes, which has been facilitated by misleading media reports.
Participants made practical recommendations of how challenges could be addressed in their particular environments. Stressing the need to ensure continued collaboration and momentum in the implementation of the SODV Act, ICJ Africa Director Arnold Tsunga observed that: “Whether this process actually builds towards better protection from SGBV for the marginalized in Eswatini and the SODV Act’s impact is dependent on how participants in this platform and other officials are able to adopt practical measures and implement them effectively.”
May 20, 2019 | Advocacy, News
The ICJ has made a submission to Ms. Karima Bennoune, the United Nations Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights (“Special Rapporteur”) in response to a call for submission, in advance of her forthcoming report to the General Assembly on how actors from across the cultural ecosystem access and use public spaces and the impact this has on their cultural rights.
ICJ’s submission draws on its ongoing work on the human rights of LGBTQ persons in India and includes findings from the ICJ’s forthcoming report on the rights of LGBTQ persons in the home, at work and in public spaces. The ICJ, concludes that LGBTQ persons’ rights to adequate housing, decent work, and equal access to public spaces are frequently violated throughout India.
The interviews conducted by the ICJ reveals that LGBTQ persons have challenges in accessing a variety of public spaces including streets, public transport, sanitation facilities, cultural and religious events, parks and shopping malls, challenges which are not faced by, or not faced in the same way by, non-LGBTQ persons. The ICJ submits that these findings are in contravention of Indian constitutional law and international human rights law.
Read the full submission here.
May 8, 2019 | News
The recommendations published today follow the Conference on the Independence of the Legal profession held by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), the Council of Europe (CoE) Office in Baku and the Azerbaijan Bar Association (ABA) in Baku, on 15-16 November 2018.
The Conference created much-needed space for a dialogue on the issue of independence of lawyers in Azerbaijan with both national and international stakeholders, as lawyers from Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, the Netherlands, the Russian Federation, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and Uzbekistan shared their experiences and good practices in addressing challenges to the independence of lawyers. Drawing on the discussions at the Conference, and taking into account key findings of the ICJ report of 2016 “Defenceless Defenders: Systemic Problems in the Legal Profession of Azerbaijan” as well as more recent legislative and administrative developments, the ICJ makes recommendations aimed at strengthening the role and independence of lawyers and improving access to justice in Azerbaijan. The recommendations are informed by international law and standards on the role of lawyers and cover four main aspects: adequacy of the number of lawyers to ensure access to justice; the examination procedure for qualification as a lawyer; professional ethics of lawyers and disciplinary proceedings against lawyers.
Click to read the recommendations
Apr 1, 2019 | News
As military courts in Pakistan once again cease to have jurisdiction over civilians for terrorism-related offences, the Government must bring reforms to strengthen the country’s criminal justice system, the ICJ said today.
Perpetrators of terrorist attacks and other serious crime must be brought to justice fair trials before competent, independent and impartial courts as required under international law, the ICJ added.
“The lapse of the jurisdiction of military courts over civilians is a step in the right direction, but unsurprisingly – even four years after military courts were empowered to try civilians – there is no sign of the promised reforms to strengthen the ordinary criminal justice system to effectively and fairly handle terrorism-related cases,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Director.
The 23rd Amendment and corresponding amendments to the Army Act, 1952, lapsed on 30 March 2019, as their respective two-year sunset clauses expired. So far, the Government has failed to get support from opposition parties for a constitutional amendment to once again extend the jurisdiction of military courts to conduct trials of civilians.
“The Government must not re-enact legislation to continue secret military trials of civilians, nor resort to more short-term, short-sighted security measures that are contrary to Pakistan’s obligations to protect human rights,” Rawski said.
“Instead, the Government should urgently invest in enhancing the capacity and security of judges, investigators and prosecutors to make the regular criminal justice system more effective in conducting fair, credible terrorism trials, and bringing perpetrators to account without imposing the death penalty.”
According to military sources and ICJ’s monitoring of military trials in Pakistan since January 2015, military courts have convicted 617 people for terrorism-related offences, out of which 346 people have been sentenced to death and 271 people have been given prison sentences. At least 56 people have been hanged. Only four people have been acquitted.
The ICJ has documented serious fair trials violations in the operation of military courts, including: denial of the right to counsel of choice; failure to disclose the charges against the accused; denial of a public hearing; failure to give convicts copies of a judgment with evidence and reasons for the verdict; and a very high number of convictions based on “confessions” without adequate safeguards against torture and ill treatment.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Pakistan (London), t: +447889565691; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Additional information
Military courts were first empowered to try civilians for certain terrorism-related offences in January 2015 through the 21st Amendment to the Constitution and amendments to the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, which were in operation for a period of two years.
The expansion of the jurisdiction of military tribunals was a key part of the Government’s 20-point National Action Plan, adopted following the attack on the Army Public School in Peshawar in December 2014. NAP envisioned military courts to be a short-term “solution” to try “terrorists”, to be operational only for a two-year period during which the government would bring about necessary “reforms in criminal courts system to strengthen the anti-terrorism institutions”.
Despite promises that military courts were only temporary, after the expiration of the 21st Amendment, on 31 March 2017, Parliament enacted the 23rd Amendment and amendments to the Army Act to renew military courts’ jurisdiction over civilians. The amendments were given retrospective effect from 7 January 2017, and were due to lapse two years after their date of “commencement”. The expanded jurisdiction of military courts lapsed on 30 March 2019 (even though earlier reports suggested the amendments would expire on 6 January 2019) — two years after the date of “operation” of the 23rd Amendment).
The ICJ opposes the death penalty in all circumstances as a form cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment and an arbitrary denial of the right to life. The ICJ recalls that the UN General Assembly has by overwhelming majorities repeatedly called on all states the retain the death penalty to place a moratorium on the practice with a view to abolition. Pakistan previously had such a moratorium from 2008 to 2014.
