Aug 24, 2017 | News
On the one-year anniversary of the enactment of a law establishing the Office on Missing Persons (OMP), the ICJ called on the Sri Lankan Government to swiftly operationalize the Office.
The ICJ also urged the Government to set up other transitional justice mechanisms it committed to in the context of a key 2015 UN Human Rights Council resolution, without further delay.
On 23 August 2016, the OMP Act received the Speaker’s assent and became law. Even after one year, however, the Office has not been operationalized.
Organizations have reportedly made the claim that the President has unconstitutionally allocated the subject of the OMP to himself.
The Government’s failure to follow Constitutional provisions when setting up an important office such as the OMP, which has a permanent mandate to search and trace the whereabouts of “missing persons”, leaves the office exposed to future uncertainty- a move that affected communities can ill afford after a long and unjustifiable delay in setting up the OMP, the ICJ notes.
“The delay has already resulted in affected communities losing hope and faith in the Government’s transitional justice agenda, as is evident by continuous protests in the North,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia and Pacific Director.
The ICJ noted that in September 2015, the Government of Sri Lanka made a promise to the people of Sri Lanka and the international community, to initiate a process of reconciliation which “involves addressing the broad areas of truth seeking, justice, reparations and non-recurrence and for non-recurrence to become truly meaningful, the necessity of reaching a political settlement that addresses the grievances of the Tamil people”.
In the context of UN Human Rights Council resolution 30/1, adopted 1 October 2015, the Government of Sri Lanka made a commitment to establish four main transitional justice mechanisms, a Commission for Truth, Justice, Reconciliation and Non-recurrence, an Office on Missing Persons, an Office for Reparations and a Judicial Mechanism with a Special Counsel, amongst numerous other reforms.
Almost two years since these promises were made, only one mechanism, the OMP, has been established by law.
In March 2017, the need for implementation of these commitments related to reconciliation, accountability and human rights were reaffirmed, and a comprehensive report, followed by a discussion on the implementation of Council resolution 30/1, is due at the Human Rights Council’s 40th session in March 2019.
The Consultation Task Force on Reconciliation Mechanisms (CTF), a panel of 11 independent eminent persons appointed by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, publicly released its final report on 3 January 2017.
The report already outlines structures and recommendations for the promised mechanisms based on country-wide consultations.
The ICJ called on the government of Sri Lanka to implement Task Force recommendations to deliver justice for victims of human rights abuse.
“The Government of Sri Lanka should make public its plans and drafts for the proposed mechanisms based on consultations, as well as a timeline for when it hopes to establish them, in order to stop further erosion of faith by the affected communities,” Rawski added.
In February, President Sirisena affirmed that he will prioritize Constitutional Reform over Transitional Justice-related reforms adding that there is a need to foster support for Transitional Justice amongst all communities.
The linkages between the two reform processes are many and one process cannot be seen independent of the other.
There is, however, very little progress on either front or a broad-based campaign to garner support for transitional justice, the ICJ said.
Two years into its tenure, the Government of Sri Lanka must take stock of its commitments and forge ahead with its reform agenda before the increasingly negative perception of the Government compromises the change it pledged and incumbency fatigue sets in, the ICJ added.
“The Government must act, and act now, to stop the disconnect between the hopes of affected communities and the lack of substantive progress of the transitional justice agenda from growing further, and deliver on its commitments before the opportunity for progressive reform is lost for good,” Rawski added.
Contact:
Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Thyagi Ruwanpathirana, ICJ’s National Legal Advisor (Sri Lanka), e: thyagi.ruwanpathirana(a)icj.org
Aug 22, 2017 | News, Publications, Reports, Thematic reports, Video clips
The institutional political crisis in Venezuela has brought the rule of law to near collapse and severely obstructed accountability for those responsible for gross human rights violations, the ICJ concluded in a report released today.
The ICJ’s report Achieving Justice for Gross Human Rights Violations in Venezuela found that the authorities led by President Nicolás Maduro have undertaken a sustained campaign to take control of the Supreme Court of Justice and, with the Supreme Court’s support, suspend the constitutional powers of the former National Assembly and subvert efforts to hold the executive to account within a rule of law framework.
“Rule of law in Venezuela has been replaced by rule of arbitrary executive power,” said Alex Conte, ICJ’s Global Accountability coordinator.
“The Constitution is disregarded, the judiciary cannot exercise its independent function, and the separation of powers is non-existent,” he added.
The ICJ’s report concludes that the human rights situation in Venezuela has deteriorated rapidly in recent years, particularly since 2014.
Extrajudicial and arbitrary executions, the practices of torture and ill-treatment, arbitrary detention, the trial of civilians by military courts and the criminalization and prosecution of political and social dissent have only increased.
“The political context of extreme polarization and the breakdown of the rule of law, along with the judiciary’s lack of independence, have severely obstructed accountability for those responsible for gross human rights violations,” said Conte.
“Victims and their families are left without justice.”
This situation has been further exacerbated by the recent dismissal of Venezuela’s Attorney General, described by the ICJ as a politically motivated act that violates international standards and removes one of the last institutional checks on executive authority and destroys one of the few glimmers of hope for an end to impunity for human rights violations.
Also troubling is the establishment by the new Consituent National Assembly of a ‘Truth Commission’, which the ICJ fears will be a politically manipulated instrument aimed at entrenching impunity for the executive and, when combined with President Maduro’s declaration that legal immunity will be stripped from National Assembly members that have opposed him, a tool to silence Government opposition, rather than to help discharge Venezuela’s duty to promptly, independently and effectively investigate allegations of gross human rights violations.
“Venezuela’s situation of entrenched impunity cannot be resolved without the establishment of an independent judicial authority that can address human rights violations, deter further violations and help bring back the rule of law,” Conte added.
Contact:
Alex Conte, ICJ Global Redress and Accountability Initiative, t: +41 79 957 27 33; e: alex.conte(a)icj.org
Federico Andreu Guzman, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, Americas, e: Federico.andreu(a)icj.org
Venezuela-GRA Baseline Study-Publications-Reports-Thematic reports-2017-ENG (full report, PDF)
Read also:
ICJ Position Paper on the Dismissal of the Attorney General of Venezuela (August 2017)
ICJ Report, Venezuela: The Sunset of the Rule of Law (October 2015)
ICJ Report, Strengthening the Rule of Law in Venezuela (November 2014)
Jul 30, 2017 | News
Indian authorities must ensure full compliance with the Supreme Court’s historic judgment directing independent investigations into alleged extrajudicial killings by the police and security forces in Manipur from 1979 to 2012, the ICJ said today.
The ICJ is calling for independent, impartial and thorough investigations into all cases, in line with international standards.
It is further calling on Indian authorities to ensure all accused are brought to justice in fair trials in ordinary civilian courts, and that the families of victims are accorded access to an effective remedy and reparation for any human rights violations.
“Through this judgment, the Indian Supreme Court has given fresh hopes to the victims of human rights violations in India who seek justice,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Pacific Programme Director.
“This bold and principled decision should finally end the cynical attempts by Indian security forces and law enforcement agencies to shield themselves from criminal accountability,” he added.
On 14 July 2017, the Supreme Court ordered the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigations (CBI) to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) within two weeks to go through the records of at least 85 cases of alleged extrajudicial killings that took place in Manipur between 1979 and 2012, lodge First Information Reports (FIRs), and complete investigations where required.
The Court also directed that the investigations must be completed by 31 December 2017.
The Court noted that the Manipur Police had not registered any FIR at the instance of the family members of the deceased.
It also held that the Manipur Police could not be expected to carry out impartial investigations as some of its own personnel were said to be involved in the “fake encounters”.
India has a legal obligation under Articles 2(3) and 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which it is party, to investigate allegations of violations of the right to life promptly, thoroughly and effectively through independent and impartial bodies and to ensure that those responsible are brought to justice.
On 27 July 2017, the CBI constituted a five-member Special Investigating Team in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directions.
“The CBI’s compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions through the prompt constitution of an investigation team is a welcome step,” added Rawski. “It must now ensure that investigations are thorough, independent, impartial and in line with international standards, including the ICCPR.”
The ICJ urged the State of Manipur and the Union of India to extend full cooperation and assistance to the Special Investigating Team to complete the investigations without any hurdles or delays.
Other allegations of human rights violations in the petition must also be investigated in line with international standards, the ICJ said.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Background
Extrajudicial Execution Victim Families Association, Manipur (EEVFAM) and Human Rights Alert filed a petition in the Supreme Court of India in 2012, alleging that from 1979 to 2012 over 1,528 cases of fake “encounter killings” had taken place in Manipur.
They further alleged that the State government had not conducted proper investigations into the allegations of excessive use of force by the security forces and the police and requested the Court to constitute a special investigation team, comprising police officers from outside the state of Manipur, to conduct a probe into the alleged unlawful killings.
In July 2016, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for accountability for human rights violations by security forces, including under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), and directed the petitioners to present detailed documentation in support of their allegations.
In April 2017, the Supreme Court dismissed the Central Government’s curative petition requesting the Court to reconsider its July 2016 judgment on the ground that it hampered the security force’s ability to respond to insurgent and terrorist situations.
The killings mentioned in the petition all took place in areas considered “disturbed” under AFSPA. Once an area is declared “disturbed”, armed forces are given a range of “special powers”, which include the power to arrest without warrant, to enter and search any premises, and in certain circumstances, use lethal force.
AFSPA has facilitated gross human rights violations by the armed forces in the areas in which it is operational.
Human rights organizations, including the ICJ, and several UN human rights bodies have recommended that the AFSPA be repealed or significantly amended.
Jun 22, 2017 | News
Pakistani authorities need to ensure a prompt, impartial and effective investigation into a barrage of assaults and threats against lawyers in the premises of the Lahore High Court, the ICJ, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International said today.
The Government needs to defend the rule of law and prosecute those responsible for any criminal conduct.
On 20 June, during proceedings of a case involving the alleged abduction and subsequent “disappearance” of a 26-year old woman and her two-year old son, supporters of the accused, a prominent lawyer, physically assaulted the complainant’s counsel Shabbir Hussain and Usama Malik, and made abusive remarks and threats against another member of the complainant’s legal team, Noor Ejaz Chaudhry.
The attackers were mostly lawyers and members of the local bar association.
The attackers also made abusive and threatening remarks against Asma Jahangir (photo), a notable human rights lawyer, Honorary Commissioner of the ICJ, and former President of the Supreme Court Bar Association.
Asma Jahangir was not present in the court but was represented by her legal team comprising of Shabbir Hussain, Usama Malik, Mian Liaquat Ali and Noor Ejaz Chaudhry.
“The legal profession is one of the pillars of the administration of justice. It is deeply worrying that instead of discharging their responsibility to uphold the rule of law, certain lawyers would resort to threats and violence in a clear attempt to obstruct justice,” said Ian Seiderman, ICJ’s Legal and Policy Director.
Under international standards, including the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, Pakistan has an obligation to ensure that lawyers are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference.
Where lawyers are threatened as a result of discharging their functions, authorities must ensure they are adequately safeguarded.
“Lawyers must be able to go to court without fearing violent assaults and abuse,” Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch said. “That such assaults take place with increasing frequency in Pakistan and without accountability represents a serious failure of the Pakistani authorities to ensure rule of law.”
It is the responsibility of the bar councils and associations to ensure that allegations of professional misconduct against their members are promptly, independently and impartially investigated, and if lawyers are found in breach of their codes of conduct after a fair hearing, disciplinary action is taken against them.
Any disciplinary action must be subject to an independent judicial review.
Threatening and assaulting opposing counsel is not just against the law, but also in breach of lawyers’ professional code of ethics,” said David Griffiths, Amnesty International’s Senior Adviser on South Asia. “The respective Bar Councils must take notice of the allegations, and use this condemnable incident as an opportunity to tackle the culture of impunity which impacts even the legal profession in Pakistan.”
Background
In May 2017, Bilquis Zareena filed a habeas corpus petition in the Lahore High Court for the recovery of her daughter Ayesha and grandson Alyan Ali, who have allegedly been missing since November 2016.
According to Bilquis Zareena, her daughter had secretly been married to Maqsood Buttar, a prominent lawyer and member of the Pakistan Bar Council, the highest regulatory body for lawyers in the country.
Bilquis Zareena claims her daughter and grandson’s lives could be in danger as Maqsood Buttar had previously threatened and even attempted to kill Ayesha.
The next hearing in the case is on Friday, 23 June 2017.
Contact:
Ian Seiderman, ICJ Legal and Policy Director, e: ian.seiderman(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser (South Asia), e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Jun 5, 2017 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ has made a submission to the UN Human Rights Committee in advance of its forthcoming examination of Pakistan’s initial report under International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
In its submission, the ICJ has brought to the Committee’s attention concerns in relation to the following issues:
- The compliance of Pakistan’s counter-terrorism laws with the State’s obligations under Articles 6, 9 and 14 of the Covenant, particularly in the context of its “military justice” system;
- Shortcomings in the legal framework relevant to torture and other ill-treatment;
- The continuing practice of enforced disappearances and, in this context, the ongoing impunity of law enforcement and military agencies;
- The compliance of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws with Articles 14, 18, and 19 of the Covenant; and
- The compatibility of Pakistan’s “International Non-Governmental Organizations Policy” with the State’s obligations under Article 22 of the Covenant.
The Human Rights Committee will examine Pakistan’s initial report during its 120th session, which will be held in Geneva from 3-28 July 2017.
Following the review, the Committee will adopt Concluding Observations setting out recommendations to the Pakistani Government.
Pakistan -ICCPR submission-Advocacy-non legal submission-2017-ENG (full text in PDF)
