Sep 17, 2018 | News
On 16 September, the Constitutional Court made public its decision to order that the Commissioner of the International Commission against Impunity (CICIG) Iván Velásquez be permitted to re-enter the country.
For more than a decade, the UN-backed CICIG has helped investigate high-profile officials for corruption.
Under the tenure of head commissioner Ivan Velasquez, the CICIG has helped Guatemalan prosecutors investigate and prosecute many high-level politicians, judges and government officials, including former president Otto Perez Molina and members of his cabinet.
Elected in 2015, current President Jimmy Morales initially supported the CICIG but he himself and other family members have become subjects of investigations into illegal campaign financing. They deny all charges.
President Morales declared on 31 August that he would not renew the mandate of the CICIG which is due to expire in September 2019 and then proceeded to ban Commissioner Velasquez from re-entering the country.
This decision sparked a number of protests including legal challenges in the Constitutional Court.
“The decision by the Constitutional Court should permit the CICIG to continue its work. It removes one of the greatest obstacles, imposed by order of Guatemalan President Jimmy Morales himself, to the fulfilment of Guatemala’s international obligations, as enshrined in the International Accord on Human Rights which created the Commission,” said Ramon Cadena, ICJ Director for Central America.
With respect to the amparo lawsuits which sought an injunction to reverse the the decision of the President Morales not to renew the mandate of the CICIG, the Constitutional Court declined to order provisional measures and therefore these legal proceedings will continue until they are determined in court.
“The ICJ urges the Constitutional Court to respect the legal time limits and to make a final decision on the lawsuit, in compliance with international human rights law and standards.
If the mandate of the CICIG were not renewed, it would seriously affect access to justice and constitute a major obstacle to the fulfilment of Guatemala’s international obligation to combat impunity,” Ramon Cadena added.
Sep 11, 2018 | Events, News
The ICJ will organize this side event, in cooperation with the Permanent Mission of the Netherlands, at the Human Rights Council on Tuesday 18 September 2018 from 15:30 – 16.30 in Room XXII of the Palais des Nations.
Particularly when crimes under international law are perpetrated on a large scale in situations of crisis, there is an urgent need to preserve evidence for use in eventual criminal proceedings, whether at the International Criminal Court or other national or international tribunals
Too frequently, obstacles prevent immediate direct recourse to international courts and prosecutors. One response has been the creation of mechanisms to collect and preserve the evidence in the meantime. Examples include the International Independent and Impartial Mechanism (IIIM) for Syria, and the Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan.
At the current session of the Human Rights Council, the Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar has called for establishment of an IIIM pending referral to the ICC or an ad hoc tribunal.
The various options for accountability, and how to take these and related initiatives forward will be discussed.
Opening Remarks:
Ambassador Monique T.G. van Daalen, Permanent Mission of the Netherlands
Moderator:
Saman Zia-Zarifi, Secretary General, International Commission of Jurists
Panelists:
- Catherine Marchi-Uhel, Head, International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism (IIIM) for Syria
- Yasmin Sooka, Chairperson, Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan
- Sanji Monageng, former Judge/Vice-President of the ICC, and Commissioner of the ICJ
- Stephen Rapp, Chair, Commission for International Justice & Accountability (CIJA), Distinguished
Fellow, US Holocaust Memorial Museum, and former United States Ambassador-at-Large for Global Criminal Justice
- Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser (Global Accountability), formerly with the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon
Universal-ICJ-NL-Side event-News-events-2018-ENG (flyer of the event in PDF)
Sep 3, 2018 | News
The Yangon District Court’s decision today to sentence Reuters journalists Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo to seven years’ imprisonment for violating the Official Secrets Act deals a massive blow to human rights and the rule of law in Myanmar, said the ICJ.
“The Court’s decision effectively punishes these two courageous journalists for exposing human rights violations, following a grossly unfair trial,” said Frederick Rawski, Asia Pacific Director for the ICJ.
“The decision is a miscarriage of justice that inflicts needless suffering on them and their families, threatens freedom of expression, damages Myanmar’s global standing, and undermines its justice institutions all at once,” he added.
The ICJ has monitored the case since the journalists’ initial detention in December 2017.
As previously noted by the ICJ, the detention and trial has violated numerous basic fair trial guarantees.
The prosecutors had a duty to drop charges and the judge should have dismissed the case given the lack of evidence and the unlawfulness of detention because of fair trail rights violations.
“The case is emblematic of how the justice system ends up reinforcing rather than challenging military impunity,” said Rawski.
“The result undermines government claims that it can deliver accountability for human rights violations on its own, and does nothing to build trust that justice system can act independently and impartially after emerging from decades of military rule,” he added.
Members of security forces generally enjoy impunity for the perpetration of human rights violations, including for crimes under international law.
The ICJ has previously reported that victims and their families, as well as journalists, often face retaliation for publicizing human rights violations by the military.
Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo were arrested in December 2017, and held incommunicado for nearly two weeks, before being charged under the colonial-era Official Secrets Act for allegedly possessing documents related to the operations of security forces in northern Rakhine State, during “clearance operations.”
The two reporters had been reporting on human rights violations in Rakhine State, including the killing of Rohingya by the military in Inn Dinn Village.
In a report issued just last week, the UN Independent International Fact Finding Mission found that security forces had perpetrated crimes under international law during these operations, including crimes against humanity and possibly the crime of genocide.
The detention and prosecution of anyone, including journalists, based solely on the collection and publication of evidence relevant to serious human rights violations, is a violation of international law and standards on freedom of expression, the right to participation in public affairs and on the role of human rights defenders.
Legal options remaining for the journalists include appealing of today’s decision, and requesting a Presidential amnesty.
Jul 18, 2018 | News, Publications, Reports
The ICJ welcomed today the lapse of Turkey’s nearly two-year state of emergency, which is expected to be effective as of midnight, but said that the authorities needed now to take a range of measures to repair the rupture to the rule of law in the country.
The ICJ’s comments came as it released its report Justice Suspended – Access to Justice and State of Emergency in Turkey, outlining how measures undertaken pursuant to a state of emergency, including the mass dismissal of judges and arbitrary arrests and prosecutions of lawyers and human rights defenders had eroded the justice institutions and mechanisms in the country.
The report recommends a number of measures including the repeal of measures enacted under the state of emergency, the restoral of the independence of the judiciary and the reform of the country’s anti-terrorism legislation.
“With the end of the state of emergency we call for the immediate withdrawal of the notifications of derogations to the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,” said Massimo Frigo, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser for the Europe and Central Asia Programme.
“We remain concerned that many of the emergency measures have been given permanent effect in Turkish law and will have pernicious and lasting consequences for the enjoyment of human rights and for the rule of law in Turkey,” he added.
These measures include the dismissals of hundred of thousands of people from their job, including judges and prosecutors.
Constitutional amendments, introduced during the state of emergency, permanently enshrine executive and legislative control of the governing institutions of the judiciary, contrary to international standards on judicial independence, the ICJ says.
Many of those charged with vaguely-defined offences under the state of emergency face trial before courts that are not independent and cannot guarantee the right to a fair trial, the Geneva-based organization adds.
Crucially, most of the people affected by emergency measures, including summary dismissals, have not yet had the opportunity to obtain a remedy before an effective and independent court or tribunal.
The ICJ report illustrates how the mechanisms which should address and remedy human rights violations in Turkey lack effectiveness and independence and that these deficiencies extend both to the courts and the state of emergency complaints commission.
It further finds that the ordinary functions of lawyers and activities civil society, key actors in ensuring access to justice, have been considerably curtailed.
“The Turkish Government says that they want their actions to respect the rule of law. Effective and independent remedies and reparations for human rights violations must be available to all if this principle is to have any reality in practice,” said Massimo Frigo.
Contact
Massimo Frigo, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser for the Europe and Central Asia Programme, t: +41 22 979 3805, e: massimo.frigo@icj.org
Download
Full ICJ report in PDF in English: Turkey-Access to justice-Publications-Reports-2018-ENG
Full ICJ report in PDF in Turkish: Turkey-Access to justice-Publications-Reports-2018-TUR
Jul 8, 2018 | News
As the government begins a process of consultations around proposed amendments to the transitional justice mechanisms, the ICJ and Human Rights Watch have called on authorities to ensure the amendments comply with international human rights standards.
The government must also take into account concerns of all stakeholders, the organizations said.
The current draft law fails to address the many gaps in Nepali law that make it difficult to prosecute, especially at senior levels, for international crimes such as torture and crimes against humanity.
The Nepal government has ensured an extension of its two transitional justice commissions while also committing to future amendments to comply with international standards and Supreme Court rulings, the groups said.
The government is holding consultations around a proposed Commission on the Investigation of Enforced Disappeared Persons (CEIDP) and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) (Amendment) Bill.
“While Nepal has engaged in a transitional justice process over the last few years, with official commissions collecting complaints, holding meetings and generic consultations throughout the country, this is still without any tangible result, and victims say it has left them confused,” said Brad Adams, Asia Director at Human Rights Watch.
“For a successful, internationally accepted process, the authorities in Nepal should focus on providing justice to victims, and not engage in trying to get perpetrators off the hook,” he added.
Human Rights Watch and the ICJ issued the statement after the Nepal government shared a draft bill purportedly to amend flaws in the laws of the CEIDP and TRC Acts.
Ahead of submitting further analysis and recommendations in the consultative process, the organizations said that Nepal authorities should take into account concerns of all stakeholders, including the groups representing victims of serious crimes by all sides during the civil war, other civil society organizations, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).
Nepal’s new government under Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Oli of the Nepal Communist Party promised that the Nepali law on transitional justice would be brought into conformity with international law and standards as had been directed several times by the Supreme Court.
After years of previous governments failing to comply with the Supreme Court rulings, the new attorney general had announced that reforms to the law were underway, which victims’ groups said gave new hope, and as explicitly requested by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and human rights organizations.
While positive changes are noticeable including in relation to reparations, the proposed law authorizes the two transitional justice commissions to authorize prosecutions without strengthening the commissions themselves, proposes a special court without clear guidelines on impartial investigations, and includes a section permitting non-custodial sentences for the most serious crimes.
These raise concerns that the proposed draft may not meet international standards of justice and accountability.
The two commissions, which experts say require crucial bolstering, have conducted country-wide hearings and gathered nearly 60,000 cases between them.
Victim groups complain that the process has been arbitrary and confusing.
The organizations also noted a number of continuing obstacles to justice, which the bill has not addressed.
These include the continued failure to incorporate specific crimes into Nepali law that are serious crimes under international law, including torture, enforced disappearance, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
In addition, the bill provides for the wholly inadequate sanction of short-term community service as an alternative punishment for those convicted of serious crimes, which may constitute effective impunity.
Nor does the bill address the question of command and superior responsibility for such crimes, leaving doubt as to whether those at the highest levels of authority will be held accountable for these crimes.
The international organizations were invited to a meeting with the attorney general and other stakeholders on June 21 but did not have a translated draft available ahead of the discussion.
However, during the consultation, the groups stressed the need for meaningful consultations on the bill.
The organizations noted also that universal jurisdiction, which allows for any state to prosecute those believed to have engaged in torture, enforced disappearance, or other serious crimes under international law, will remain an available option for victims to seek justice in cases of serious abuses during the civil war.
“Without a justice process that meets international standards for prosecuting the most serious crimes, such as torture and enforced disappearances, anyone suspected of such crimes in Nepal risks arrest, extradition, and prosecution in the many countries that are committed to prosecuting such crimes,” said Ian Seiderman, ICJ Legal and Policy Director.
“It is very welcome that the Nepal government is finally looking to address longstanding demands of war victims and should use this opportunity to abide by its obligations, draw up security sector reforms, and pave the way to end impunity,” he added.
Full text in English (PDF): Nepal-ICJ-HRW-Transnational-justice-reform-News-Press-releases-2018-ENG
