Jun 25, 2019 | News, Publications, Reports
Colombia’s transitional justice tribunal, the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP in its Spanish acronym) has made progress in fighting impunity, but can do more to address the needs and demands of victims of the country’s long civil war, the ICJ said in a report released in Bogota today.
The report Jurisdicción Especial para la Paz: análisis a un año de su entrada en funcionamiento (available only in Spanish) will be presented by a high-level mission composed of the President of the ICJ, Prof Robert Goldman (former President of Inter-American Commission on Human Rights), the Vice President of the ICJ, Carlos Ayala (former President of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights), and ICJ Commissioner Philippe Texier, former judge of the Court of Cassation of France.
The commissioners will meet with different Colombian authorities including the President of Colombia, Iván Duque Márquez, and the President of the JEP, Patricia Linares Prieto.
They will also meet with victims and other members of civil society.
The JEP is charged with prosecuting and punishing gross violations of human rights and serious violations of international humanitarian law committed during the country’s civil war.
The JEP was established by the Peace Agreement entered into between the Colombian government and the former armed group FARC-EP, on November 24 of 2016.
“The JEP has made progress in guaranteeing victims’ rights and fighting impunity for gross violations of human rights and serious violations of international humanitarian law,” said Prof Robert Goldman, ICJ’s President.
“But the JEP must do more to strengthen the effective participation of victims in its procedures, as well as to guarantee victims’ rights to justice and full reparation in compliance with international standards,” he added.
Accordingly, the report identifies ways by which the JEP can achieve these goals.
The ICJ also expresses concern about security threats faced by human rights defenders and victims and witnesses appearing before the JEP. The ICJ urges the JEP and other Colombian public authorities to adopt effective measures to guarantee their safety.
The ICJ also considers it is necessary to ensure respect for the judicial independence of the JEP against external pressures to ensure the proper performance of its functions.
The report describes the findings of a mission carried out by ICJ Commissioners Carlos Ayala, Wilder Tayler and Philippe Texier in January 2019. The report includes an analysis of the main actions and decisions taken by the JEP as well as relevant decisions of other public authorities. It reflects developments up to June 7, 2019.
Jun 25, 2019 | News
Myanmar’s 1982 Citizenship Law, which has fueled widespread discrimination against various ethnic minority groups, is irreconcilable with core rule of law principles and the State’s obligations under international human rights law, the ICJ said today in a briefing paper.
The briefing paper Citizenship Law and Human Rights in Myanmar: Why Law Reform is Urgent and Possible (available in English and Burmese) analyses the legal framework for citizenship in Myanmar, and assesses certain provisions of the 2008 Constitution relevant to citizenship as well as the 1982 Citizenship Law.
This law embedded the current narrow definition of citizenship, which generally links citizenship acquisition to membership of a prescribed “national race.”
The resulting system enables and legitimizes discrimination against various groups, particularly against persons of South Asian or Chinese descent, members of whole ethnic groups, such as the Rohingya, and also the children of single mothers.
“Enacted by unelected military governments, Myanmar’s citizenship laws fuel widespread discrimination throughout the country,” said Sean Bain, Legal Adviser for the ICJ.
“The government must act immediately to dismantle this discriminatory system and to protect in law the human rights of all persons,” he added.
The intentionally discriminatory character of this law, and its equally discriminatory implementation, largely explain why many long-term residents of Myanmar lack a legal identity (more than 25 percent of persons enumerated in the 2014 Census).
The ICJ recommends three immediately achievable, concrete areas of law reform to the Government: 1) legislative reform, including most urgently of the 1982 Citizenship Law and the Child Rights Bill now being considered by the parliament; 2) Constitutional reform, to protect the right of citizens to full political participation; and 3) to institute interim measures to address discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity.
A review of the 1982 Law was recommended in 2017 by the Government’s advisory commission chaired by the late United Nations Secretary-General Mr Kofi Annan, but the Government has not yet demonstrated any tangible progress on this.
“The government has the means at hand to get rid of this discriminatory system, which has undermined the rule of law and blocked the development of a pluralistic democracy. The government can and must implement the recommendations of its own advisory commission. The pervasiveness of discrimination cannot continue to go unaddressed, and there are no reasonable legal grounds for further delay in initiating pathways to reform,” Bain said.
UN Member States, as well as International Finance Institutions and UN agencies, must also ensure that assistance to the Government of Myanmar enables necessary reforms, and does not, in any way, entrench the existing discriminatory system.
Coinciding with the launch of this report, yesterday the ICJ hosted an event in Yangon where a panel of Myanmar legal scholars and researchers discussed the impact of current legal arrangements for citizenship on human rights, and why law reform is both urgent and possible. Representatives including from diplomatic missions, UN agencies, the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission, a multilateral donor and Non-Government Organizations attended the event.
Background
“Citizenship” is a legal concept describing an individual’s relationship to the State. In contrast, “statelessness” is when somebody does not have citizenship of any State. Terms such as “nationality,” “race” or “ethnicity” are generally culturally embedded concepts, understood differently by different people and in different contexts.
In many countries, particularly those with diverse populations, the right to citizenship is defined broadly to include persons with different ethnicities and even nationalities. In post-independence Myanmar, the concept of being a “national” or “indigenous” had a generally broad definition, allowing persons of different backgrounds to become citizens, including but not limited to the descendants of persons who had immigrated to Myanmar.
The 1982 Citizenship Law embedded in legislation the concept of “national races,” and introduced a hierarchy of citizenship categories that effectively institutes first-class and second-class citizens. Under this system, many life-long residents of Myanmar have effectively been rendered stateless, including members of entire ethnic groups, and children of mixed ancestry.
This discriminatory system has fostered an environment where crimes against humanity have taken place with absolute impunity.
Although section 347 of Myanmar’s 2008 Constitution guarantees “any person to enjoy equal rights” and protections before the law, other constitutional provisions restrict “fundamental rights” to citizens, including the rights to health and to education. Even for citizens, political rights are limited if a parent, child or spouse is not a citizen of Myanmar – the most infamous example of this is Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, who is constitutionally barred from the Presidency because her sons are foreign citizens.
The formation in February of this year of a Constitutional Amendment Committee also presents opportunities to expand the narrow definition of “fundamental rights,” to ensure their compliance with the constitutional guarantee of equality and protection before the law for “any person” (section 347), and with the State’s international human rights law obligations.
The Child Rights Bill, currently under consideration by the parliament, also offers opportunities to ensure that Myanmar’s laws comply with its treaty obligations, for example, under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, including with respect to the right of a child to acquire a nationality (citizenship), and the State’s related obligation to prevent statelessness.
See also
ICJ convenes workshop on reforming 1982 Citizenship law
ICJ materials on human rights law in Myanmar
Download
Myanmar-Citizenship law reform-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2019-ENG (full report in English)
Myanmar-Citizenship law reform-Advocacy-Analysis Brief-2019-BUR (full report in Burmese)
Myanmar-Citizenship law reform-News-web story-2019-BUR (full story in Burmese)
Contact
Sean Bain, ICJ Legal Adviser, sean.bain(a)icj.org
Jun 24, 2019 | News
The ICJ convened a half-day panel discussion today in Yangon, Myanmar, to discuss national laws governing citizenship, and outline how, throughout the country, they have a discriminatory impact on people’s enjoyment of their human rights.
The event also provided the opportunity to introduce the ICJ’s new legal briefing Citizenship and Human Rights in Myanmar: Why Law Reform is Urgent and Possible
ICJ legal researcher Ja Seng Ing and legal adviser Sean Bain kicked off the event by noting that Myanmar’s legal framework for citizenship – enacted by unelected military governments – fuels widespread discrimination against members of ethnic minority groups throughout the country.
Bain highlighted the incompatibility of the domestic legal framework governing citizenship in Myanmar with core rule of law principles and with the State’s obligations under international human rights law, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
He presented the ICJ’s practical recommendations for law reform, outlined in the ICJ’s new legal briefing, including with respect to the 1982 Citizenship Law and the 2008 Constitution, and to the Child Rights Bill currently under consideration by Myanmar’s national parliament.
Senior Advocate U Ohn Maung, a lawyer with decades of experience supporting access for members of minority groups to the official documentation often necessary to obtain even basic services, emphasized that citizenship in Myanmar should be a more inclusive concept, reflective of its pluralistic, multi-ethnic demography.
Daw Zarchi Oo and Daw Su Chit shared the findings of independent civil society research.
They highlighted various groups including: migrants and migrant workers; individuals belonging to sexual and/or gender minorities; single mothers; the children of fathers who are foreign nationals or who are estranged from their fathers; and people living with disabilities, who are all adversely impacted by current legal arrangements for citizenship and by their discriminatory implementation.
Daw Zarchi Oo also spoke about her own past experience of being stateless, and Daw Su Chit elaborated on her work with civil society and others to develop a gendered analysis of the impact of discriminatory citizenship laws in Myanmar.
Around 60 participants, including from domestic civil society, the legal community, international non-government organizations, the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission, the diplomatic community and others joined this event, and participated in the discussions.
The 1982 Citizenship Law embedded the current narrow definition of citizenship, which generally links its acquisition to membership of a prescribed “national race.”
Many of the 2008 Constitution’s provisions on “fundamental rights” are restricted to citizens only, with a result being that the State generally does not recognize the human rights of persons who do not qualify as citizens under domestic law, or are otherwise excluded due to the laws’ discriminatory implementation.
The intentionally discriminatory character of the 1982 Law, and its discriminatory implementation, largely explains why many long-term residents of Myanmar lack a legal identity (more than 25 percent of persons enumerated in the 2014 Census).
The situation of Rohingya people, who the State generally does not recognize as citizens, is the most egregious example of the human rights violations associated with this system.
This event is part of the ICJ’s broader support to promote and protect human rights in Myanmar through research, analysis, advocacy and creating spaces for discussion.
See also:
ICJ convenes workshop on reforming 1982 Citizenship law
Jun 13, 2019 | News
Today, the ICJ called on the authorities in Tajikistan to immediately release a prominent lawyer who is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment of 28 years on dubious charges.
The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) published a decision in Mr Yorov’s case on (date), finding that “the trials of Mr. Yorov were carried out in total disregard for the guarantees encapsulated in article 14 of the Covenant, being of such gravity as to give the deprivation of liberty of Mr Yorov an arbitrary character […].”
The Working Group recommended that the government remedy the situation of Yorov without delay and to this end “release Mr. Yorov immediately and accord him an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law”.
The ICJ has previously expressed concern that Buzurgmehr Yorov’s conviction may constitute a reprisal for his defense work in high-profile political trials in connection with his representation of thirteen leaders of the Islamic Renaissance Party of Tajikistan (IRPT).
The ICJ earlier expressed concerns at the conviction of the lawyer to a 28 year sentence in prison, which is based on clearly improper charges related to the defense of his clients.
The ICJ welcomes the decision of the WGAD and calls on the Tajikistan authorities to fully implement the decision and to take all necessary measures to protect lawyer Yorov, his family and his lawyers against any threats to their security, or any intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference with their performance of their professional functions as lawyers.
In this regard, the ICJ notes recent protests by dozens of individuals who took part in a rally against Yorov in front of the representative offices of the United Nations and the European Union in Tajikistan, soon after the decision of the WGAD.
Posters of the demonstrators called on the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights to “take her hands off Tajikistan” and named organisations that had defended Mr Yorov or brought the petition on behalf of Yorov to the UN WGAD.
In this context, it is imperative that the Tajikistan government immediately publicly affirm the legitimacy of the decision of the WGAD and make clear its commitment to complying with it, the ICJ underlined.
Background
Buzurgmekhr Yorov was arrested two years ago on 28 September 2015, on charges of “fraud” and “forgery of documents.” Later, he was accused of violating three more articles of the Criminal Code, including in relation to alleged “public calls for extremist activity.”
On 6 October 2016, The Dushanbe City Court sentenced Yorov to 23 years imprisonment in a strict regime prison.
In March 2017, Yorov was sentenced to an additional two years’ deprivation of liberty for “contempt of court and insulting the representative of power.” In August 2017, he received a further three years sentence on charges of “insulting the president.”
The ICJ has, on a number of occasions, expressed its serious concerns over the arrest and conviction of Buzurgmehr Yorov and other lawyers in Tajikistan.
On 24 May 2019, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, a group of independent experts established in 1991 whose members are appointed by the UN Human Rights Council, published an Opinion finding a number of violations of human rights of Yorov protected under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and recommended as a remedy his immediate release, payment of compensation or other reparation and conducting an investigation into the violation of Yorov’s rights.
The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers require that the Governments ensure that lawyers “are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference ”. Under these Principles “where the security of lawyers is threatened as a result of discharging their functions, they shall be adequately safeguarded by the authorities.” The right to “offer and provide professionally qualified legal assistance or other relevant advice and assistance in defending human rights and fundamental freedoms” is guaranteed by the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Article 9.3(c)).
Jun 7, 2019 | News
The ICJ today condemned the impending moves to subject three prominent Saudi clerics to an inevitably unfair trial on dubious charges that might result in sentences of death and arbitrary execution.
According to credible media reports citing Saudi government sources, Salman al-Odah, Ali Al-Omari and Awad al-Qarni, three prominent Saudi clerics, will almost certainly be convicted, sentenced to death and executed soon after Ramadan.
The media reports follow last April’s mass executions of 37 people, and the crucifixion of one them, following their conviction and sentencing to death for similar “terrorism” related charges.
The ICJ calls for the clerics’ release unless they can be charged with a recognizable criminal offence consistent with the rule of law, and tried before a competent, independent, and impartial court that ensures fair trial rights.
“Saudi Arabia is abusively resorting to terrorism related charges, unfair trials, and sentences of death followed by arbitrary execution to permanently silence perceived critical voices,” said Said Benarbia, the ICJ’s MENA Programme Director.
“Instead of perpetuating egregious violations of the right to life, Saudi authorities must administer justice fairly and in accordance with international law and standards,” he added.
One of the defendants, Salman al-Odah, was charged by prosecutors in September 2018 with 37 offences, including “belonging to a terrorist group: the Muslim Brotherhood,” “stirring public discord and inciting people against the ruler,” “calling for change in government,” “supporting Arab revolutions,” “possessing banned books” and “describing the Saudi government as a tyranny.”
The ICJ fears that Salman al-Odah may be subject to these charges simply for exercising his protected right to freedom of expression.
Together with the other two clerics, Salman al-Odah faces trial before the specialized criminal court, an exceptional court that fails to ensure respect of fair trial rights and that has been used to try those suspected of committing terrorism related offences, political activists, and human rights defenders.
The ICJ is concerned that since their arrest in September 2017, the clerics have allegedly been subject to incommunicado detention and prolonged solitary confinement for months. Such treatment amounts to torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, prohibited under international law.
Carrying out executions following proceedings that fail to scrupulously observe international fair trial standards always amounts to an arbitrary deprivation of life.
The ICJ opposes the use of the death penalty in all circumstances as a violation of the right to life and a form of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.
The ICJ underscores that the United Nations General Assembly, by an overwhelming majority, has repeated called on States that retain the death penalty to impose an immediate moratorium on executions with a view to abolition.
The ICJ calls on the Saudi authorities to immediately move toward abolishing the death penalty and impose an immediate moratorium on executions.
Background
The clerics’ detention and ongoing trial are part of a broader crackdown on activists and dissidents since September 2017, including through politicized judicial proceedings and trumped up charges under the 2014 Royal Decree.
The Decree criminalizes as terrorism offences acts that do not involve serious violence, including acts that aim to suspend the enforcement of the Constitution or some of its articles, as well as any acts that undermine the State’s prestige and standing.
Such broad definitions have effectively been used to criminalize the legitimate and peaceful exercise of human rights, including the rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly, and the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs.
The 2014 Royal Decree also allows the Minister of Interior to order the arrest of any person suspected of committing terrorism related offences, and for those arrested to remain in pre-trial detention for up to six months and to be prohibited from communicating with their family members for up to three months. Those arrested cannot be released pending trial without the authorization of the Minister of Interior or someone authorized by him.
Such conditions contravene international standards on the rights to liberty and to a fair trial.
Saudi Arabia-Death penalty-News-2019-ARA (Arabic version, in PDF)
