May 25, 2018 | News
The ICJ today called on the Tunisian Parliament to reverse its decision of 26 March 2018 and allow the Truth and Dignity Commission (IVD) to carry out its mandate for at least another year.
The IVD should be in the position to finalize its investigations of past serious human rights violations in the country and, when appropriate, refer cases to the Specialized Criminal Chambers (SCC), the ICJ added.
Since its decision, the Parliament has not considered or adopted any measures to address the legal and practical consequences, including how incomplete investigations by the IVD will be handled, how other investigations will be transferred to the SCC and by whom, how evidence will be preserved and protected, how the documents and the material gathered by the IVD will properly be archived, and what would happen if the IVD were unable to complete the drafting of the final report.
The initial four-year term of the IVD ends on 31 May 2018.
“It’s absolutely irresponsible for the Tunisian Parliament to thwart the whole transitional justice process and curtail the work of the IVD without providing any path forward,” said Said Benarbia, ICJ MENA Director.
“As one of the three branches of government, the Parliament must abide by Tunisia’s obligations under international law to establish the truth about past human rights violations, bring the perpetrators to account, and provide victims with effective remedies and reparation,” he added.
The March decision runs counter to all these obligations.
It denies the rights of victims, and broader society, to know the truth, including about the circumstances and reasons that led to decades of serious human rights violations in the country.
The IVD has not been able to finalize its investigations or produce its final report.
It also shields those responsible from criminal accountability. Only eight cases have so far been referred by the IVD to the SCC.
The fate of cases that have been investigated but are not referred before 31 May 2018 remains unclear. The IVD reportedly received some 62’712 complaints.
“The Parliament is abdicating its responsibility to respect and protect victims’ rights,” Benarbia said.
“Instead of playing cynical political games that can only foster impunity, the Parliament should reverse its decision and remove all the obstacles that might impede the IVD’s work in ensuring accountability for past abuses, ” he added.
Contact
Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41798783546, e: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Background
Under the 2013 law on transitional justice, the IVD initially had a four-year term, with the possibility of renewal for a single additional year, on the basis of a reasoned decision by the IVD.
The 2013 law provided that the IVD’s decision on renewal should be submitted to the Parliament.
The law is however silent as to whether the submission of the IVD decision was simply a matter of notification, or required approval of Parliament to be effective.
In any event, 68 members of the Parliament voted on 26 March against extending the term of the IVD for another year.
Under its bylaws, for decisions of Parliament to be valid they must be adopted by at least 72 of its members.
The apparent lack of quorum for the Parliament’s 26 March decision has only introduced more uncertainty and confusion, further complicating the position for the IVD and others, including most notably the victims themselves.
On 24 May 2018, the IVD and the Minister in charge of relations with constitutional bodies, civil society and human rights issued a joint statement reiterating Tunisia’s commitments to the transitional justice process as provided by the Constitution.
In the statement, the IVD was requested to transfer all cases concerning serious human rights violations to the SCC, to establish criteria on the basis of which reparation for victims will be provided, to establish compensation criteria for the Victims Fund, and to send the final report to the President of the Republic, the President of the Parliament and the President of the Government.
Tunisia-IVD Parliament-News-2018-ARA (full story in Arabic, PDF)
May 24, 2018 | News, Publications, Reports, Thematic reports
The widespread occurrence of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) in Swaziland requires prompt action to enact the Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Bill, says the ICJ in a report released today.
The ICJ’s report found that discriminatory practices based on customary laws and traditional beliefs undermine equality between men and women and contribute to an environment in which SGBV is at crisis point in the country.
“As the Senate of Swaziland deliberates over the Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Bill, it must recall that enactment of the Bill is an essential step in complying with recommendations of the UN Human Rights Committee and CEDAW Committee and as a means of discharging the commitments made by His Majesty’s Government during the 2016 Universal Periodic Review,” said Arnold Tsunga, Director of the ICJ Africa Regional Programme.
In earlier submissions to the Senate of Swaziland, the ICJ noted that enactment of the Bill is a matter required of the Kingdom of Swaziland pursuant to its international human rights law obligations, including those arising from the Africa region, to criminalize and sanction the perpetrators of SGBV.
His Majesty’s Vision 2022, the aims and targets of the Deputy Prime Minister’s Office and Swaziland’s consensus in the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development reinforce compliance with those obligations.
The Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Bill 2015, first drafted over ten years ago, has still not been passed into law, including because there is a perception that some of its provisions will infringe Swazi law and custom.
“Legislative and policy reform is needed as is the enhanced technical capacity and commitment of justice actors and policy makers to combat domestic and sexual violence,” Tsunga added.
Contact
Arnold Tsunga, Director, ICJ Africa Regional Programme, t: +27.73.131.8411; e: arnold.tsunga(a)icj.org
Alex Conte, ICJ Global Redress and Accountability Initiative, t: +41.79.957.2733; e: alex.conte(a)icj.org
Download
Swaziland-GRABaselineStudy-Publications-Reports-Thematic reports-2018-ENG (full report in PDF)
May 9, 2018 | News
The ICJ said today that Gina Haspel, nominated by Donald Trump to be Director of the CIA, should be subject to a full criminal investigation for her alleged involvement torture and other serious crimes, rather than elevated to serve as the country’s highest intelligence office.
The ICJ statement came as the United States Senate Intelligence was poised to beginning hearings on her confirmation to the position.
“If Gina Haspel becomes CIA Director, the United States will be sending a signal to the world that it has dropped the pretence of caring about even the most serious human rights violations,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ Secretary General.
“It will show that torturing and disappearing people by US officials will not only be met with impunity, but will be no bar to career advancement.”
Following the terror attacks against the United States of 11 September 2001 until 2007, the CIA held at least 119 terror suspects or persons it suspected to have intelligence value in places of secret detention outside of US territory.
The black sites were situated in several countries, including Afghanistan, Lithuania, Poland Romania, and Thailand.
The detainees, who had no contact with the outside world, were placed beyond the protection of the law and subjected to torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
The torture included near drowning (“waterboarding”), prolonged sleep deprivation, placement in painful stress positions for extended periods, forced rectal feedings, and slamming against walls.
Gina Hapel oversaw at least one “black site” detention centre in Thailand in 2002, while detainee Abd al-Rahim al Nashiri was being tortured there.
She is credibly alleged to have played a significant role in destroying video evidence of interrogations that were carried out under torture.
“The European Court of Human Rights has already condemned Poland for violating the rights of Abd al-Rahim al Nashiri, after he was transferred to secret CIA detention facility in Poland, yet nobody directly responsible CIA has ever been held accountable for these serious crimes,” said Sam Zarifi.
Contact
Ian Seiderman, ICJ Legal and Policy Director, t +41 22 979 3837 ; e: ian.seiderman(a)icj.org
May 3, 2018 | Feature articles, News
On 3 and 4 May 2018, the ICJ supported by UNAIDS and OHCHR convened an expert meeting on global principles addressing criminalization’s detrimental impact in the areas of sexuality, reproduction, drug use and HIV.
The expert meeting of leading jurists from around the globe aimed at laying the foundations for a set of principles to address the misuse and abuse of the criminal law and its detrimental impact on health, equality and human rights.
The expert group focused on the criminalization of conduct relating to four principal areas: sexuality, reproduction, personal drug use, and the overly broad criminalization of HIV exposure, transmission and non-disclosure.
In these areas, international human rights authorities, as well as domestic courts, have regularly found criminal law provisions to be contrary to international law and standards, and to have a deleterious effect on public health.
“We need to understand why the blunt instrument of the criminal law is used against and affects real people, and why the criminal law ought not to apply in our four areas of concern. Where the criminal law is misused, that is a betrayal of the rule of law. The rule of law must be our guiding compass,” said Justice Cameron, Constitutional Court of South Africa.
“The principles we hope to develop must facilitate the availability of tools which can impact key populations where they are in conflict with the law. They are often at risk of blackmail, stigma and discrimination. It falls on courts to make the difficult decisions. Judges can then consider legality, legitimate purpose and questions of necessity and proportionality in light of a broader understanding of the human rights principles at stake and the relevant scientific evidence,” said Judge Mbaru, Industrial Court of Kenya.
“The law is required to guarantee rights but at same time it can impose arbitrary restrictions. Often those restrictions in the form of the criminal law purport to be necessary in order to ‘protect’ people. That purported purpose ought to be closely scrutinised,” said Justice Ortiz, Constitutional Court of Columbia.
Sam Zarifi, Secretary General of the ICJ, stated: “The misuse of the criminal law affects the most marginalized groups of people and, in particular, the dispossessed and disenfranchised.”
“The centrality of the rule of law at a time when it is under threat globally, and our crucial obligation to stand against laws that are arbitrary, unequal and discriminatory,” he added.
Tim Martineau, Acting Deputy Executive Director of UNAIDS said: “The application of human rights principles to criminal law is key in order to address the detrimental impact of such laws in the areas of sexuality, reproduction, drug use and HIV.”
“While there was significant progress in HIV prevention, treatment and care, there was a big discrepancy in HIV prevention in relation to key populations who are more vulnerable to HIV infection in many respects because of a lack of legal protection, and the unjust criminalization of their behaviour,” he added.
Kate Gilmore, Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, stated that the criminal law can readily become a tool of repression or oppression. She said: “Wrongful deployment of criminal law betrays universal human rights standards. By eroding rather than protecting physical and mental integrity specifically in the contexts of sexuality, reproduction and gender identity, misuse of criminal law seeks a wrongful “regulation” of the body of women in particular, with devastating consequences for women’s and girls’ autonomy, health and well being.”
She emphasized that “the criminal law plays an essential role in the recognition, protection and enforcement of rights including by tackling impunity for violations for those rights.”
ICJ, UNAIDS and OHCHR consider that the envisaged principles will help legislators, judges and advocates in the development and review of criminal laws that have adverse consequences on health, equality and human rights particularly where they relate to key populations.
Apr 29, 2018 | News
Between 28 and 29 April 2018, the ICJ co-hosted a Seminar for judges and prosecutors from Tunisia and Libya on the international law and standards that apply to the investigation and prosecution of gross human rights violations.
The participants included more than 30 judges and prosecutors from different regions in Tunisia and Libya.
The Seminar was co-hosted with the Associations des Magistrats Tunisiens (AMT) and the Libyan Network for Legal Aid.
The event commenced with opening remarks by ICJ Commissioner, Justice Kalthoum Kennou of Tunisia.
Kingsley Abbott, Senior Legal Adviser at the ICJ, delivered a comprehensive overview of the international human rights law and standards that apply to the duty to investigate gross human rights violations.
He noted in particular that investigations of potentially unlawful deaths play a key role in accountability by upholding the right to life, which is guaranteed by Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
He then introduced the revised Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016), which sets out a common standard of performance in investigating potentially unlawful deaths or suspected enforced disappearance and a shared set of principles and guidelines for States, as well as for institutions and individuals who play a role in the investigation.
The revised Minnesota Protocol formed part of the core materials referred to at the Seminar, together with the ICJ Practitioners Guide No 9 – Enforced Disappearance and Extrajudicial Execution: Investigation and Sanction (2015).
The Seminar also covered the collection of evidence, the duty to prosecute, and fair trial rights.
Other speakers at the event included Vito Todeschini, Associate Legal Adviser at the ICJ; Aonghus Kelly, Senior Legal Adviser, EU Border Assistance Mission in Libya (EUBAM); and Martin Hackett, Senior Trial Counsel at the Special Tribunal for Lebanon in the Hague.
Contact
Said Benarbia: said.benarbia(a)icj.org
Kingsley Abbott: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
