Sep 28, 2017 | Advocacy, Uncategorized
The ICJ today called on the UN Human Rights Committee and a group of UN Special Procedure mandates to take urgent follow up action on Venezuela in light of the grave and ever deteriorating human rights situation in the country.
In a letter to the UN Human Rights Committee, the treaty body responsible for monitoring implementation by States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the ICJ called for urgent action by the Committee, either through its established follow-up procedure and/or through requesting a special interim report. The Committee’s follow-up procedure was referenced in the Committee’s Concluding Observations on Venezuela’s fourth periodic report under the ICCPR. Special interim reports may be requested by the Committee under Article 40(1)(b) of the ICCPR.
The ICJ also called for urgent action to be taken by the following UN Special Procedure mandates: the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of assembly and of association, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers and the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. This group of Special Procedure mandates had on 4 August 2017 issued a joint statement on the human rights situation in Venezuela.
The ICJ’s letters draw attention to several critical areas of concern:
- The rapidly deteriorating human rights situation;
- The lack of accountability of perpetrators of human rights violations;
- The lack of effective remedies and reparation for victims of human rights violations;
- The lack of independence of the judiciary;
- The institutional crisis arising from decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice;
- The unconstitutional election of the new National Constituent Assembly;
- The dismissal of the former Attorney General;
- The recent establishment of a ‘Truth Commission’;
- The intended revision of Venezuela’s Constitution; and
- Venezuela’s failure to notify its state of emergency under the ICCPR.
ICJ-Correspondence-VenezuelaFollowUp-HRCttee-2017-09-28 (download letter to the Human Rights Committee, in PDF)
ICJ-Correspondence-VenezuelaFollowUp-SPs-2017-09-28 (download letter to the Special Procedure mandates, in PDF)
ICJ reports:
Venezuela: the Supreme Court of Justice has become an arm of an authoritarian executive
Venezuela: rule of law and impunity crisis deepens
Venezuela: dismissal of Attorney General a further blow to the rule of law and accountability
Venezuela: Human rights and Rule of Law in deep crisis
Strengthening the Rule of Law in Venezuela
Sep 27, 2017 | News
The ICJ has welcomed the recent decision of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) on a recent decision found the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) responsible for the massacre of 70 people in Kilwa in 2004.
In its decision, the Commission not only urges the DRC State to pay 2.5 million US dollars compensation to eight victims and their families but also urges the DRC to prosecute Anvil Mining’s personnel involved in the massacre.
The African Commission also acknowledged the involvement of mining company Anvil Mining, an Australian-Canadian company (later bought by the Chinese company MinMetals) operating a copper and silver mine in Dikulushi, located 50 kilometers from Kilwa, that would
have provided logistical support to soldiers who bombarded civilians.
This decision sheds light on the corporate legal responsibility for human rights abuses, particularly in the extractive
industry sector, and suggests legal avenues for action against Anvil for alleged abuses.
Universal-KilwaMassacre-News-2017-ENG (full pdf ENG)
Sep 25, 2017 | News
Guatemala’s Congress should immediately remove obstacles to investigation and accountability of President Jimmy Morales (photo) and other public officials for alleged violations of campaign finance rules and corruption, the ICJ said today.
The ICJ also called on President Morales to cease efforts to impede the effective functioning of the United Nations mandated International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG).
“Guatemala’s president and some members of Congress are obstructing justice by abusing their authority to avoid investigations for corruption and block the important work carried out by the Attorney General, with CICIG’s assistance,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Secretary General, just returned from a visit to the country.
“Guatemala, with CICIG’s assistance, has witnessed important progress in the fight against corruption and impunity in recent years, and Congress should be making sure that this trend continues,” he added.
The Congress voted on September 21 to reject the request by Attorney General Thelma Aldana and Ivan Velasquez, Commissioner of CICIG, to strip President Morales of Constitutional immunity he enjoys as president, in connection to allegations that his political party failed to report more than $800,000 in campaign financing.
But the Congressional vote fell short of the threshold of 105 votes needed to reach the necessary two-thirds of Congress needed to reach a final decision and thus can be reconsidered.
On September 13, Congress voted to revise the country’s criminal code by removing Secretary Generals of political parties from accountability for violations of electoral laws (instead limiting accountability to accountants) and to commute the sentences of those already convicted of a number of serious crimes, including corruption, trafficking of persons, and sexual abuse.
The legislators rescinded the vote after two days of nationwide public demonstrations and a decision of the country’s Constitutional Court to suspend the law’s application.
The Guatemalan Constitutional Court suspended the revisions in response to a writ of amparo and characterized Congress’ revisions to the criminal code as “a threat that, in case of being implemented, could cause irreparable damage to the judicial system”.
“The Constitutional Court’s speedy action avoided a massive blow to the fight for accountability in Guatemala, because if the law had gone into effect for even one hour, it would have provided a legal basis for politicians convicted on corruption charges to demand release or commutation of their sentences,” Zarifi said.
Congress’s actions followed an attempt by President Morales to expel CICIG’s Commissioner Velasquez, as persona non grata and to revise CICIG’s mandate, in an apparent bid to block investigations into his alleged wrongdoing.
“Since CICIG was formed in December 2006 at the request of the Guatemalan government, it has worked closely with the country’s Attorney General to improve accountability, and its impact has been undeniably positive,” Zarifi said.
“This is a model of international support for national accountability mechanisms that should be studied and emulated around the world; its continued operation is therefore of interest not just to Guatemala and the region but to global efforts to combat impunity,” he added.
The ICJ called on the Guatemalan government to comply with its international legal obligations as a State party to the 2004 United Nations Convention Against Corruption and the 1996 Inter-American Convention Against Corruption.
Background
Article 30(2) of the UN Convention Against Corruption calls on State Party to strike “an appropriate balance between any immunities or jurisdictional privileges accorded to its public officials for the performance of their functions and the possibility, when necessary, of effectively investigating, prosecuting and adjudicating offences established in accordance with this Convention.”
Article 30(3) demands States “to ensure that any discretionary legal powers under its domestic law relating to the prosecution of persons for offences established in accordance with this Convention are exercised to maximize the effectiveness of law enforcement measures in respect of those offences and with due regard to the need to deter the commission of such offences.”
Contact:
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Secretary General, t: +41 79 726 44 15 ; e: sam.zarifi@icj.org
Aug 30, 2017 | News
On 30 August, the ICJ co-hosted an event in Bangkok, Thailand, named “International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearance: Human Rights Defenders & the Disappeared Justice”.
The event began with opening remarks by South-East Asia’s Regional Representative of the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) Cynthia Veliko.
Thereafter, Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser, spoke in a panel discussion about enforced disappearances in Thailand, highlighting the need for Thailand to comply with its human rights obligations under international law.
This panel discussion also included Ms. Oranuch Phonpinyo, Community Representative, forensics expert Dr. Pornthip Rojanasunan and former National Human Rights Commissioner Dr. Niran Pitakwatchara.
In a second panel discussion held during the event, speakers included Ms. Phinnapha Phrueksaphan, Victim Representative, Ms. Angkhana Neelapaijit, National Human Rights Commissioner and Victim Representative, Ms. Nareeluc Pairchaiyapoom from Thailand’s Ministry of Justice and prominent human rights lawyer Mr. Somchai Homlaor.
The event focused on the lack of progress in Thailand with regard to investigating cases of apparent enforced disappearance and called for the Royal Thai government to amend and pass legislation criminalizing torture, ill-treatment and enforced disappearance without further delay.
Thailand is a State party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) and has signed, but not yet ratified, the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED).
The other organizers of the event were OHCHR’s South-East Asia Regional Office, the Cross Cultural Foundation (CrCF), Human Rights Lawyers Association (HRLA), the Esaan Land Reform Network, Amnesty International Thailand, Thailand’s Ministry of Justice and the Association for the Prevention of Torture (APT).
Copies of an open letter sent by the ICJ and other human rights groups to the Royal Thai government on 30 August were distributed to the event’s participants.
Contact
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
See the full open letter here in English and Thai
Read also
Ten Years Without Truth: Somchai Neelapaijit and Enforced Disappearances in Thailand
Aug 29, 2017 | News, Publications, Reports, Thematic reports
South Asian states can only address the tens of thousands of cases of enforced disappearances by recognizing enforced disappearance as a serious crime in domestic law, said the ICJ today.
On the eve of the International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances, the ICJ 58-page report No more ‘missing persons’: the criminalization of enforced disappearance in South Asia analyzes States’ obligations to ensure that enforced disappearance constitutes a distinct, autonomous crime under national law.
It also provides an overview of the practice of enforced disappearance, focusing specifically on the status of the criminalization of the practice, in five South Asian countries: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal.
For each State, the report briefly examines the national context in which enforced disappearances are reported, the existing legal framework, the role of the courts; and the international commitments and responses to recommendations concerning criminalization.
“It is alarming that despite the region having some of the highest numbers of reported cases of disappearances in the world, enforced disappearance is not presently a distinct crime in any South Asian country,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Director.
“This shows the lack of political will to hold perpetrators to account and complete apathy towards victims and their right to truth, justice and reparation,” he added.
In Nepal and Sri Lanka, draft legislation to criminalize enforced disappearance is under consideration.
Though the initiatives are welcome, the draft bills in both countries are flawed and require substantial improvements to meet international standards.
In the absence of a clear national legal framework specifically criminalizing enforced disappearance, unacknowledged detentions by law enforcement agencies are often treated by national authorities as “missing persons” cases.
On the rare occasions where criminal complaints are registered against alleged perpetrators, complainants are forced to categorize the crime as “abduction”, “kidnapping” or “unlawful confinement”.
These categories do not recognize the complexity and the particularly serious nature of enforced disappearance, and often do not provide for penalties commensurate to the gravity of the crime.
They also fail to recognize as victims relatives of the “disappeared” person and others suffering harm as a result of the enforced disappearance, as required under international law.
“Like torture and extrajudicial execution, enforced disappearance is a gross human rights violation and a crime under international law,” said Rawski.
“South Asian States must recognize that they have an obligation to criminalize the practice with penalties commensurate with the seriousness of the crime–filing “missing” person” complaints in cases of disappearance is not enough, and in fact, it trivializes the gravity of the crime,” he added.
Other barriers to bringing perpetrators to account are also similar across South Asian countries: military and intelligence agencies have extensive and unaccountable powers, including for arrest and detention, often in the name of “national security”; members of law enforcement and security forces enjoy broad legal immunities, shielding them from prosecution; and military courts have jurisdiction over crimes committed by members of the military, even where these crimes are human rights violations, and proceedings before such courts are compromised by their lack of independence and impartiality.
Victims’ groups, lawyers, and activists who work on enforced disappearance also face security risks including attacks, harassment, surveillance, and intimidation.
A comprehensive set of reforms, both in law and policy, is required to end the entrenched impunity for enforced disappearances in the region – criminalizing the practice would be a significant first step, said the ICJ.
Contacts:
Frederick Rawski (Bangkok), ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director, e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Advisor (South Asia) t: +923214968434; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Thyagi Ruwanpathirana, ICJ National Legal Advisor (Sri Lanka), e: thyagi.ruwanpathirana(a)icj.org
Background
Under international law, an enforced disappearance is the arrest, abduction or detention by State agents, or by people acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the detention or by concealing the fate or whereabouts of the “disappeared” person which places the person outside the protection of the law.
The UN General Assembly has repeatedly described enforced disappearance as “an offence to human dignity”.
South Asia-Enforced Disappearance-Publications-Reports-Thematic Reports-2017-ENG (full report in PDF)
