Oct 1, 2015 | News
The ICJ today welcomed the adoption by the UN Human Rights Council of a further resolution on promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka.
The resolution, co-sponsored for the first time by the Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL), is a historic step towards post-war justice, accountability and reconciliation.
The ICJ at the same time called on the GOSL to take genuine and prompt steps to deliver on the commitments and obligations reflected in the resolution, which was adopted by the UN Human Rights Council by consensus.
“Today’s resolution is a significant step towards achieving justice, accountability and reconciliation for the victims of Sri Lanka’s long and bloody civil war,” said Nikhil Narayan, ICJ’s senior legal adviser for South Asia.
“The shift in posture of the Sri Lankan Government in co-sponsoring the resolution marks a further welcome break from the Rajapakse regime. The Government must now demonstrate its political will by immediately launching concrete steps towards a genuine process of truth-seeking, justice and reconciliation,” he added.
The consensus resolution reflects certain key recommendations contained in the Report of the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) summarizing findings of the OHCHR Investigation on Sri Lanka (OISL), the ICJ notes.
The investigation and report was mandated by an earlier UN resolution on Sri Lanka, adopted in March 2014 over the strong objections of the Rajapakse government.
The report documents in vivid detail alleged serious violations and abuses of human rights and humanitarian law amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by both sides during the armed conflict in Sri Lanka, including extrajudicial killings, torture, enforced disappearances, forced recruitment, including of children, and sexual violence.
One of the most important recommendations of the High Commissioner for Human Rights called for an accountability process through a special judicial mechanism and prosecutor’s office that involves the full participation of international judges, prosecutors, lawyers and investigators.
Responding in part to this call, the resolution affirms the importance of participation of foreign judges, defence lawyers, prosecutors and investigators in an independent and impartial judicial mechanism to hold individuals accountable for human rights and humanitarian law violations, including those documented in the report.
The resolution also mandates further monitoring and reporting back to the Council on implementation of the accountability and other measures.
“The international community, through the UN Human Rights Council, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and Special Procedures, and other UN member states, must as the High Commissioner himself recommended, remain engaged through continued and sustained monitoring, assistance, support and fully integrated involvement of the international community to ensure full implementation of the resolution,” said Narayan.
Background:
The ICJ has worked with judiciaries, governments, civil society and victims around the world for decades to address impunity and victims’ right to remedy for violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, including in situations of transition.
In Sri Lanka, the ICJ has been documenting and reporting on a gradual erosion of judicial independence, impartiality and integrity under successive governments, and the resulting culture of impunity, for over thirty years.
The ICJ considers the International Criminal Court (ICC) to be the preferred mechanism for individual accountability where national authorities and courts lack the capacity or the willingness to genuinely investigate and prosecute all war crimes and crimes against humanity. In the absence of an ICC process, the ICJ’s extensive experience in Sri Lanka and elsewhere demonstrates that any credible and effective accountability process in Sri Lanka must involve, at a minimum, a majority of international judges, prosecutors and investigators.
The ICJ therefore advocated for and welcomed the resolution’s recognition of the need for international participation.
Since January 2015, when a new president was elected, the GOSL has undertaken a number of important steps to reverse the slide towards authoritarianism and the erosion of the rule of law and the culture of impunity experienced under the Rajapakse government, and restore democratic governance and build confidence towards reconciliation among Sri Lanka’s ethnic minorities, including by restoring the Constitutional Council through the passage of the 19th amendment to the Sri Lankan Constitution, and returning some tracts of military-occupied lands in the North and East.
However, after decades of war and distrust, and a history of promises undelivered, much work remains to be done to deliver justice to victims and their families, and to rebuild trust and confidence among Sri Lanka’s fractured ethnic minorities. Continued and sustained monitoring and engagement by the international community in ensuring the progress of the implementation of this resolution will be essential.
Equally importantly, today’s consensus resolution also reaffirmed the OHCHR’s recommendations on: the mandate and resources of the accountability mechanisms; legislating retroactive recognition of international crimes under national law; justice and security sector reform; repealing the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA); strengthening the Witness and Victim Protection Act; accession to the International Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances (CED), the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Convention, and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court; and continued monitoring of and technical support for implementation through the OHCHR and by the Council.
Contact
Nikhil Narayan, ICJ’s senior legal adviser for South Asia; t: +41 79 730 09 27; e: nikhil.narayan(a)icj.org
Oct 1, 2015 | News
The ICJ is alarmed at the arrest of Buzurgmehr Yorov, a lawyer practicing in Tajikistan.
Mr Yorov’s arrest may be related to his representation of thirteen leaders of the Islamic Renaissance Party of Tajikistan (IRPT).
This is the third recent case of arrest of a lawyer in Tajikistan, and this pattern of arrests raises serious concerns for protection of human rights and compliance with international standards on the role of lawyers.
On 28 September, at 10.00, police officers appeared at the “Sipar” Collegia of lawyers, which is headed by Buzurgmehr Yorov, and seized documents related to the case of the members of the IRPT who Mr Yorov represents. At around 14.00, other police officers apprehended the lawyer at his office, claiming he needed to answer certain questions. The lawyer later made a phone call to say that he had been arrested and detained.
On 29 September, the Ministry of Interior of Tajikistan, in its Press Release, said that Buzurgmehr Yorov “by way of fraud” appropriated “a large amount of money”.
According to the Ministry of the Interior, a resident of Istaravshan named Komiljhon Bozorov paid USD 4000 to help with the case of his son, who was charged with an attempted murder. Mr Bozorov is reported to claim that the lawyer failed to provide legal aid and “abused his trust and his difficult situation”.
Mr Yorov is also charged with forging documents about the technical condition of a car.
The ICJ fears that the decision to arrest lawyer Buzurgmehr Yorov was in fact connected with his representation of members of the IRPT.
The ICJ recalls that according to the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, “Lawyers shall not be identified with their clients or their clients’ causes as a result of discharging their functions”; they must be able “to perform all their profession functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference”; and lawyers “shall not suffer, or be threatened with, prosecution or administrative, economic or other sanctions for any action taken in accordance with recognized professional duties, standards or ethics”.
The ICJ’s concerns in this case are based in part on the particularly worrying pattern of arrests of lawyers , who represent clients in “high profile” cases, that has emerged in the recent past in the Republic of Tajikistan.
It should be recalled that it is lawyers’ role to defend persons charged with alleged crimes. The justice system cannot function in accordance with international standards if lawyers are not able to represent their clients’ interests.
For the right to a fair trial as guaranteed under international human rights law to be protected, defendants must have access to a lawyer who can represent their interests effectively, without harassment or interference.
The ICJ calls on the authorities of Tajikistan to ensure that all lawyers are able to conduct their work without fear of threats or harassment, including arbitrary arrest or prosecution.
It calls on the investigating authorities to ensure that Burzurgmehr Yorov is not prosecuted as a means of harassment or reprisal for his representation of a client, and that any proceedings against him are conducted in accordance with international human rights law, including the right to a fair hearing, and taking into account international standards on the role of lawyers.
Whether or not his arrest is in reality based on his representation of IRPT, or on the basis of the allegations of fraud, Mr Yorov should be immediately released.
Even if the arrest was in fact based on the allegations of fraud, the ICJ is unaware of any evidence or reasons in Mr Yorov’s case that would justify his continued pre-trial detention, under international standards on the right to liberty and the prohibition of arbitrary arrest and detention.
Background information:
Thirteen persons, represented by Burzurgmehr Yorov, were arrested on 16-17 September 2015, following armed attacks earlier this year in Dushanbe and Vakhdat.
Members of the group are accused of “establishment of a criminal community/organization in order to commit grave or particularly grave crimes”, as foreseen under Article 187(1) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Tajikistan.
The arrest and detention of Mr Yorov is the third case in the last two years of prosecution of a lawyer representing clients in a high profile case in Tajikistan. On 13 January 2015, lawyer Shukhrat Kudratov was convicted to 9 years in prison on charges of fraud and bribery.
In 2014, another lawyer, Fakhriddin Zokirov, was arrested and tried on charges of fraud in banking transactions. He was released as a part of an act of amnesty in November 2014.
Tajikistan-Lawyer Yorov statement-News-web stories-2015-RUS (full text in Russian, PDF)
For further infromation see previous ICJ statements:
Tajikistan: ICJ concerned at conviction of lawyer Shukhrat Kudratov
Tajikistan: Arrest of lawzer is a threat to the independence of the profession
Aug 28, 2015 | News
The Africa Regional Programme of the ICJ co-hosted the Southern African Chief Justices’ Forum Annual Conference in Zimbabwe, held on 27-28 August 2015 under the theme “Guaranteeing the Right to a Fair Trial in Africa; Show casing Best Practice”.
The meeting was organized in conjunction with the Southern Africa Chief Justices’ Forum (SACJF) and the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) of Zimbabwe.
This year it congregated 13 Chief Justices and 120 senior judges from East and Southern Africa.
The overall objective of the conference was to provide space for judiciaries in East and Southern Africa region to share achievements, best practices and innovations in justice delivery.
To this end, the conference sought to create a platform for judiciaries that had excelled in a variety of areas to showcase their achievements.
The programme was divided into three sub-themes, all of which had a direct relationship with the underlying theme of Fair Trial Rights in the Region.
The three sub thematic areas discussed were Appointment procedures, Judicial Training and Judicial Reform Each of the sessions was chaired by one of the Chief Justices, whose role it was to moderate the discussions and the speakers.
The panels had a presentation by a chief justice and experiences from another jurisdiction presented by a senior judge.
The presentations were then considered by discussants who were eminent academics.
Download the final declaration here:
Zimbabwe-SACJF ANNUAL CONFERENCE Declaration-Advocacy-2015-ENG (full text in PDF)
Aug 14, 2015 | News
Today, on the second anniversary of the killing by the armed and security forces of more than 1,000 individuals during the dispersal of the Rabaa’ Al-Adawyia and Al Nahda Square sit-ins, the ICJ calls on the Egyptian authorities to end its policy of impunity for serious human rights violations.
The authorities must conduct thorough, effective, independent and impartial investigations into protestor deaths with a view to holding to account all those responsible for unlawful killings and other human rights violations committed in the course of the demonstrations, the ICJ says.
“It is a measure of the total disregard for victims’ rights and the absolute impunity of the armed and security services that in the two years that have passed, no effective investigations in line with international standards have taken place and not a single person has been brought to justice for the mass killings of protestors,” said Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa Programme.
“The victims of human rights violations and their family members have been left without any effective remedies or reparation, including an acknowledgment by the Egyptian authorities of their responsibility for the hundreds of killings and injuries that day,” he added.
Although fact-finding initiatives were conducted by Egypt’s quasi-governmental National Human Rights Council and by a government-appointed commission, the ICJ considers these investigations to be deeply flawed and ineffective.
The ICJ says both had inadequate access to first hand or physical evidence from the scene, because they did not begin their work until weeks or months after the events took place; lacked the ability to compel State authorities to testify and provide evidence; failed to document the full extent of human rights violations that took place; and neither led to any form of criminal investigation, much less prosecution of those responsible for these violations.
Further, while the government-appointed commission found that over 700 people had been killed during the Rabaa’ and Nahda dispersals, the shambolic report it issued dedicated just 9 pages to these two dispersals, concluding summarily and without substantiation that the police had been justified in violently dispersing the protest and blaming primarily the organizers of the sit-ins as well as the protestors for the high death toll.
There are credible allegations that in dispersing these demonstrations the armed and security forces unlawfully resorted to excessive and disproportionate use of force, the ICJ adds.
“By turning a blind eye to gross human rights violations committed by the armed and security forces, and by shielding their members from any form of criminal accountability, the Egyptian authorities are fostering the structural impunity that prevails in Egypt instead of combatting it,” said Benarbia.
“To meet their obligations under international law, the authorities must dismantle such policies and practices and establish the truth about the sit-ins’ dispersal,” he added.
Under international law lethal force may never be used unless strictly necessary to protect life.
States are obliged to provide access to an effective remedy and reparation to victims of human right violations.
They are also required to conduct prompt, thorough and impartial investigations, with a view to holding criminally accountable persons responsible for serious human rights violations, particularly those involving a denial of the right to life.
Contact:
Alice Goodenough, Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +44 7815 570 834; e: alice.goodenough(a)icj.org
Nader Diab, Associate Legal Adviser of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, t: +41 229 793 804; e: nader.diab(a)icj.org
Egypt-Impunity Rabaa Sq-News-Press releases-2015-ARA (full text in pdf, ARABIC)
Aug 7, 2015 | News
The SC’s decision to uphold the possibility of trial before military courts of individuals accused of committing terrorism related offences and belonging to “any terrorist group or organization using the name of religion or a sect” is a blow to human rights and the rule of law, said the ICJ.
In a split decision on the validity of the 21st amendment to the country’s Constitution, delivered on Wednesday, nine judges of the Supreme Court held that the trial of suspected terrorists, including civilians, by military courts was within the constitutional framework of the country and met principles of criminal justice.
The judges also ruled that individuals who claim to, or are known to belong to “any terrorist group or organization using the name of religion or a sect” constituted a valid classification allowing for differential treatment under the constitution.
Six dissenting judges expressed the view that the 21st constitutional amendment was incompatible with the right to a fair trial and independence of the judiciary. Two judges did not give an opinion on the merits, but suggested that the Supreme Court did not have the jurisdiction to review constitutional amendments.
The 902-page judgment also responds to challenges to the 18th amendment to the Constitution, including the procedure for judicial appointments.
“This judgment squarely puts Pakistan at odds with its international obligations and weakens the Supreme Court’s hard won reputation as the last resort for protecting the rights of Pakistani people,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia Director. “The Court has missed an important opportunity to reverse the militarization of justice in progress under the guise of combatting terrorism and to reinforce independence of the judiciary in the country.”
The trial of civilians in military courts for terrorism-related offences is incompatible with international standards, which require that those accused of any criminal offence are guaranteed a fair trial by an independent, impartial and competent tribunal.
ICJ’s briefing paper, published in April, provides a detailed assessment of the incompatibility of military trials in Pakistan with its international law obligations.
The Supreme Court, however, did not engage with international standards of fair trial and independence of the judiciary.
At least eight judges of the Supreme Court were of the opinion that it is for the Federal Government alone to ensure that their conduct “does not offend against the Public International Law or any International Commitment made by the State”.
“It is very disappointing that the Supreme Court has abdicated its primary role in acting with the other branches of the State to implement its obligations under international law,” added Zarifi. “International law is clear -all organs of the State, including the judiciary, must respect international human rights commitments, which include the right to a fair trial. Indeed, it is a core judicial responsibility to state what the law provides, whether the source of the law is international or domestic.”
The majority judgment also goes against previous Supreme Court rulings on military courts. In the past, the Court had reasoned that military courts do not meet the requirements of independence and impartiality; the establishment of military courts for trial of civilians amounts to creating a “parallel judicial system”; and that impeding the right to a fair trial cannot be justified on the basis of the public emergency or the “doctrine of necessity.
Military courts in Pakistan also have the power to award death sentences. On 2 April 2015, military courts convicted seven people of undisclosed offences in secret trials.
Of them, six were sentenced to death and one was sentenced to life in prison. The Supreme Court’s judgment has cleared the way for their execution.
Contact
Sam Zarifi, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), t: +66 807819002; email: sam.zarifi(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Advisor for South Asia (Lahore), t: +923214968434; email: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Read also:
ICJ denounces law permitting military trials of civilians
Trials of civilians before military tribunals a subversion of justice
HRCP, ICJ demand clarification on juveniles’ trial by military courts
Additional information
In a significant development, by a 13-4 majority the Supreme Court held it has jurisdiction to review constitutional amendments passed by Parliament on the touchstone of the “salient features” and the preamble of the Constitution. What those salient features are, however, was left unaddressed.
On 6 January 2015, less than a month after a terrorist attack on an army public school in Peshawar that killed nearly 150 people, most of them children, the Pakistani Parliament unanimously voted to amend the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, and the Army Act, 1952, to allow military courts to try civilians for offences related to terrorism.
Military courts in Pakistan are not independent or impartial. Trials before military courts in Pakistan fall far short of national and international fair trial standards.
Pakistan has resumed executions since December 2014, in response to a spate of terrorist attacks in the country. At least 196 people on death row have already been executed. According to available data, only a small fraction – less than 10 pecent – of those executed were convicted of terrorist offences.
ICJ opposes capital punishment in all cases without exception. The death penalty constitutes a violation of the right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.
