Sep 5, 2018 | News
The ICJ today signed a joint statement with other international organizations based in Europe that cooperate on Guatemala condemning the decision of Jimmy Morales not to renew the mandate of the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG).
The statement also repudiates the subsequent decision by President Morales to bar the CICIG Commissioner Iván Velásquez from returning back to the country.
The CICIG has made a significant contribution to the work of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the strengthening of the rule of law and the fight against corruption networks.
The statement expresses grave concern that on 31 August 2018 the government used tanks and heavily armed policemen to intimidate CICIG personnel as well as Guatemalan citizens, while announcing the decision not to renew the mandate of the CICIG. “The image of President Jimmy Morales surrounded by the military and police at the press conference evokes the memory of the coup d’état and the military dictatorships during the dark years of the internal armed conflict,” the statement adds.
The organisations signing the statement call on the European Union and its Member States to demand that the state of Guatemala complies with its international obligations and guarantees the necessary conditions for Commissioner Iván Velásquez and the CICIG to continue their work safely and independently.
The full statement is available here: Guatemala-Statement on decision about CICIG and Velasquez-News-2018-ENG
Aug 31, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Today, the ICJ made a submission to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in advance of Committee’s examination of South Africa’s initial periodic report under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. South Africa ratified the Covenant in 2015.
When CESCR convenes to consider South Africa’s report on 2-3 October 2018, it will therefore be the first time that the Committee has the opportunity to review a report from South Africa on the implementation of its Covenant obligations.
In its submission, supplementing submissions made by a range of South African civil society organizations, the ICJ drew the Committee’s attention to:
a) South Africa’s incomplete discharge of its obligations in terms of the Covenant;
b) The South African Government’s need for guidance from the Committee on the discharge of its obligations in terms of the right to work;
c) The South African Government’s need for guidance from the Committee on the discharge of its obligations in terms of the right to an adequate standard of living;
d) The South African Government’s failure to report effectively and accurately on its efforts to realize the ESC rights of persons with disabilities;
e) The uncertain status of the South African Government’s commitment to the enactment of legislation to ensure the implementation of the Covenant;
f) The uncertain status of the South African Government’s intention to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Covenant; and
g) The uncertain status of the South African Government’s declaration with regard to the right to education.
The ICJ’s submission invites CESCR to make various specific recommendations to the Government of South Africa in its Concluding Observations on each of these issues. Broadly, the ICJ also invites CESCR to recommend to the Government of South Africa time-bound commitments to processes leading to:
1. The full domestication of Covenant in South African law;
2. A comprehensive review of South Africa’s domestic laws and policies on ESC rights to ensure that they are implemented consistently with South Africa’s obligations in terms of the Covenant; and
2. The ratification of Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
The ICJ’s submission also supports submissions by civil society organizations and the South African Human Rights Commission inviting CESCR to recommend that South Africa withdraw its declaration relating to its “immediate” obligations in terms of the Covenant right to education.
Finally, the ICJ considers it critical that the South African Government reflect on the ways in which the Covenant to increases, alters and nuances the nature and content of its human rights commitments and obligations in terms of the realization of economic, social and cultural rights.
This the ICJ submits is particularly crucial in regard to rights which are entrenched in the Covenant but not the South African Constitution such as the right to work (Articles 6-8) and the right an adequate standard of living (Article 11).
In undertaking this process, the ICJ submits that due regard should be had the standards set out in the Covenant as interpreted by the Committee in its general comments.
SouthAfrica-ICJSubmissionCESCR-Advocacy-Non-legal submission-2018-ENG (full text, PDF)
Aug 30, 2018 | News
The ICJ participated in a panel discussion to commemorate International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances, organized by Police Watch Thailand and Cross Cultural Foundation.
The discussion was held at the premises of the Thai Journalists’ Association.
The event began with opening remarks by Surapong Kongchantuk, Chairperson of the Cross Cultural Foundation, who called on the Thai Government to ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED) and for the existing Draft Prevention and Suppression of Torture and Enforced Disappearance Act (‘Draft Act’) to come into force without undue delay.
He also emphasized that perpetrators of the crime of enforced disappearance needed to be brought to justice, and victims and relatives of victims of enforced disappearance must be provided with effective remedies and reparation.
A panel discussion followed the opening remarks, moderated by Pornpen Khongkachonkiet, Director of Cross Cultural Foundation. Panelists included Sanhawan Srisod, ICJ’s National Legal Adviser, Veera Somkomkid, from People Anti-Corruption Network, Pol.Col. Wirut Sirisawadibuth, Columnist and police reform activist, and Adul Kiewboribon, Chair of a committee of persons whose relatives disappeared during May 1992 protests against the government of General Suchinda Kraprayoon.
In her remarks, Sanhawan Srisod expressed concern at the absence of domestic legislation making torture and enforced disappearance specific crimes in Thai law and gaps in the existing Draft Act.
She also called for prompt, independent, impartial and effective investigations into the fate and whereabouts of disappeared persons consistent with international law and standards.
Human Rights Commissioner, and wife of disappeared lawyer and human rights defender Somchai Neelapaijit, Angkhana Neelapaijit, made closing remarks for the event.
The panel discussion followed a forum the ICJ co-hosted in March this year, commemorating the 14th year anniversary of the enforced disappearance of Somchai Neelapaijit, which also raised awareness about amendments to the Draft Act.
During the forum, the ICJ raised concerns about the independence of the ‘Committee managing complaints of torture and enforced disappearance cases’, which was established in May 2017, and expressed the need for further clarification on the legal framework – domestic and/or international – that will ground the Committee’s operation.
Background
The International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances falls on 30 August every year.
Thailand is bound by international legal obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) – both of which it has acceded to – to investigate, prosecute, punish and provide remedies and reparation for the crimes of torture, other acts of ill-treatment, and enforced disappearance.
However, Thailand has not enacted domestic legislation recognizing enforced disappearance as a criminal offence. Thailand is also yet to ratify the ICPPED, despite signing the Convention in January 2012.
Thailand’s Ministry of Justice concluded a second round of public consultation on the Draft Act and is now reportedly in the process of evaluating the results of the consultation.
On 30 August 2017, 23 November 2017 and 12 March 2018, civil society organizations, including the ICJ, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, sent open letters to the Government, including to Thailand’s Minister of Justice, outlining amendments that would be necessary to bring the Draft Act in line with Thailand’s international human rights obligations.
In the absence of domestic legislation criminalizing torture and enforced disappearance, on 23 May 2017, a ‘Committee managing complaints for torture and enforced disappearance cases’ was established by the Prime Minister, pursuant to Prime Minister’s Office Order No. 131/2560 (2017).
The Committee, chaired by the Minister of Justice, consists of 15 officials drawn from different ministries,including the Ministry of Defence, the Royal Thai Police and the Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC).
Aug 23, 2018 | News
The Regional Federal Tribunal (TRF-3), in a watershed judgment, ruled that prescription or statute of limitations was not applicable to claims of reparation by a victim of torture during the military regime in the 1970s. The Court accepted the arguments of ICJ Commissioner Belisário dos Santos Jr.
The hearing in the lawsuit against the Union and the State of São Paulo took place on Wednesday 22, after the case had been dismissed by the court first instance.
Belisário dos Santos Jr., Executive Committee Member of the ICJ, argued the case for the victim at the invitation of the Juridical Department of CA XI.
He noted: “On the one hand there could be no statute of limitation on torture claims, while on the other hand the the application of the statute of limitations which adopted by Decree 20.910 / 32 had to be considered.”
The lawsuit, which began in 2012, alleges political persecution and torture that took place beginning 1971 .
Belisário dos Santos Jr. argued that the rationale for the law and jurisprudence affirming the inapplicability of statute of limitation lies in the seriousness of the violation of torture, which had been committed on a widespread and systematic basis by order or with the knowledge of high-level State authorities in Brazil at the time.
“The obligation to provide reparation under the UN Convention against Torture could not be superseded by provisions of the domestic law of a State. In addition, the obligation to provide a remedy and reparation is a legal duty of the State which must not depend on the conduct or activity of the victims. For these reasons, the case could not have the same treatment of other lawsuits against the Public Treasury,” he said.
Belisário dos Santos Jr. also pointed out that, pursuant to article 14 of the UN Convention against Torture, which was ratified by Brazil in 1991, “the reparation must be fair and adequate, as recognized by the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Justice and TRF 3, itself in accordance with international human rights law and jurisprudence. ”
The TRF-3 decided by 3-2 majority that the statute of limitation was inapplicable and, unanimously, granted the appeal on merit, allowing the lawsuit to proceed.
Aug 13, 2018 | News
From 9-12 August, the ICJ-supported trainings on human rights and the law for lawyers, youths and activists from Kachin and Shan states in Myanmar’s north.
On 9 and 10 August, the ICJ joined a “training of trainers” organized by the Humanity Institute, a civil society organization based in Myitkyina.
This aims to improve the capacity of local youths and activists from Kachin and Northern Shan State on basic human rights concepts and measures to engage with Regional and UN Human Rights mechanisms.
The ICJ’s national legal researcher, Ja Seng Ing, shared information about the advantages and limitations of regional human rights mechanisms, including the Europe Commission of Human Rights and the ASEAN Commission of Human Rights. She provided an overview of the UN human rights framework and human rights mechanisms.
In addition to explaining how these work, she also focused on how human rights defenders can communicate with and participate in UN human rights mechanisms by reporting on human rights violations.
Then on 10 and 11 August, the ICJ facilitated a legal training for senior law students, and junior lawyers hosted by the Kachin Legal Clinic, an independent lawyers network.
The Kachin Legal Clinic seeks to develop a pool of young lawyers and with knowledge on the role of lawyers in the field of domestic and international human rights setting and the independence of the lawyers.
On the first day, a national legal adviser from the ICJ shared experiences of litigating for human rights in Myanmar. She also noted the critical role of independent lawyers in protecting human rights, by representing clients from all communities in different parts of Myanmar.
On the second day, Ja Seng Ing gave an overview of global and local law and standards and issues related to accountability and redress for gross human rights violations.
The ICJ’s international legal adviser, Sean Bain, gave an overview of international laws and standards related to the protection of human rights in times of conflict or crises, sourced from international human rights law as well as international humanitarian law and international criminal law.
These activities are part of the ICJ’s ongoing support to civil society actors in Myanmar, from community to national level.
