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)
May 27, 2017 | News
On 24 May 2017, States at the UN reached an agreement to prepare an “international regulatory framework” to protect human rights and ensure accountability for violations and abuses relating to the activities of private military and private security companies (PMSCs).
The agreement, reached at Working Group level, has still to be ratified by the full UN Human Rights Council.
It would be the first universal international instrument on human rights and private security companies negotiated and adopted at the UN.
This could pave the way to further developments towards increased monitoring and accountability of the private security industry.
The agreement constitutes a landmark achievement. The intergovernmental Working Group over the past six years have been mired in circular debates as to whether or not it is desirable to develop a legally binding instrument on PMSCs.
Last’s week agreement leaves aside for the moment the decision about the nature of the instrument and will instead allow for a constructive focus on the contents of the future instrument.
Activities of private and military security companies became the object of heightened international scrutiny particularly after events in the context of the armed conflict in Iraq over the past decade.
These include unlawful killings at Nisoor Square and torture and ill-treatment at Abu Graib prison.
A Working Group of experts on mercenary activity appointed by the UN Human Rights Council started to look at the issues in 2007, generating proposals for international instruments to fill perceived regulatory gaps.
Many States have now accepted that the absence of an international regulatory framework combined with limited or non-existent regulation at national level offers a “breeding ground” for human rights abuses committed by PMSCs.
The main clients of these companies are governments that contract them to carry out specific functions, including some that many believe should remain firmly in the hands of public officials.
One key issue that the future instrument should address is the circumstances under which PMSCs can be considered to act on behalf of the State when they are contracted to perform functions that are typically State functions.
International law already governs some aspects of PMSC activity. International human rights law provides for a general obligation of States to protect against the adverse consequences of PMSC activity.
There has also been other international regulatory activity outside of UN auspices in this area.
In 2008 a select group of mostly Western States led by the Government of Switzerland and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) elaborated the Montreux Document on pertinent obligations for States regarding PMSCs.
Other initiatives such as a Code of Conduct for the PMSCs themselves followed suit. But many States and civil society organizations regard these initiatives as insufficient and lacking the universality afforded by UN processes.
One notable weakness in current approaches is the dearth of standards and mechanisms squarely addressing accountability of private security industry and to ensure access to remedy for those victims of abuse.
Experience shows that States legal frameworks have limited effectiveness when abuses occur at the cross-border level, involving more than one company in more than one jurisdiction, especially in conflict or post-conflict environments.
The prospective international regulatory framework should surely build on existing initiatives, research and findings.
To that end, broad participation by all stakeholders should be ensured.
In this regard, participation of civil society and NGOs specialized in human rights has not been optimal so far.
States leading this new process should make all and every effort to fill that gap, ensuring that international and national civil society receive timely information and facilities for meaningful participation.
May 8, 2017 | Advocacy
The following document updates a report issued by the ICJ on 29 May 2012 as part of an on-going trial observation mission concerning the trial of Suriname President Desiré Delano Bouterse, accused of crimes involving unlawful killings.
Download the update below:
Suriname-Justice delayed Bouterse case-Advocacy-2017-ENG (in PDF)
