Dec 22, 2015 | News
The ICJ today called on Egypt’s newly elected House of Representatives to amend or annul the web of repressive presidential decrees promulgated since the ouster of President Morsi.
“Egypt’s House of Representatives must dismantle the catalogue of repressive presidential decrees that have been used by the authorities to stifle dissent, curtail fundamental rights and freedoms and shield state officials from accountability in cases of human rights violations,” said Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ’s Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Programme.
Article 156 of the Egyptian Constitution provides that decrees issued by the President while the House of Representatives is not in session must be discussed and approved by the new House of Representatives within 15 days of it convening.
Failure to do so results in the laws being automatically nullified with retroactive effect.
The ICJ and others have detailed how many of these presidential decrees, including the Demonstration Law (No.107 of 2013), the Counter-Terrorism Law (No.94 of 2015), the Terrorist Entity Law (No.8 of 2015), the Law on Military Courts (No.136 of 2014) and laws amending the Criminal Code (No.128 of 2014) and the Prison Law (No.106 of 2015), violate Egypt’s obligations under international law.
Key concerns relate to the right to life, the right to liberty and the right not to be subjected to arbitrary detention, fair trial rights, and the rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly.
These fundamental rights are protected by for instance the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Egypt ratified in 1982 and which today counts 168 states as parties.
Over the last two years, thousands of individuals have been prosecuted and convicted pursuant to such decrees, including the Demonstration Law, through proceedings that fell short of international fair trial standards.
Further, many of these decrees, in particular the Counter-Terrorism Law and the Demonstration Law, institutionalise the immunity of state officials from legal proceedings against any use of force committed in the course of their duties, including the use of lethal force when it is not strictly necessary to protect lives.
The decrees also fail to provide for any reparations mechanism for victims.
“Egypt’s parliament should, as a matter of urgency, ensure that those who have suffered human rights violations on the basis of these laws obtain effective remedy and reparations, remove all obstacles to justice and accountability, and address the impunity of state officials underpinned by these decrees”, Benarbia added.
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-New House of Representatives-News-Press releases-2015-ARA (full text in Arabic, PDF)
Dec 17, 2015 | News, Publications, Reports
With the signing of the political agreement on a national unity government today, the next step in Libya’s transition will be to ensure that its new Constitution fully conforms to international rule of law and human rights standards, the ICJ said today.
The statement came as the ICJ released its new report The Draft Libyan Constitution: Procedural Deficiencies, Substantive Flaws.
In the report, the ICJ calls on the Libyan Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA) to substantially revise the Draft Constitution published in October with a view to ensuring its full compliance with Libya’s obligations under international human rights law and international standards.
Libyan authorities, including the CDA, should also put in place effective mechanisms to ensure that the drafting process is inclusive, participatory, and fully reflects the views of a broad range of stakeholders, including civil society and minority groups.
The report concludes that the Draft Constitution, in many key respects, does not conform to Libya’s obligations under international human rights law or to international rule of law standards.
“The new Constitution provides a crucial opportunity to depart from decades of authoritarianism under Moammar Ghadafi’s regime. It must therefore provide for a strong foundation upon which the rule of law, including the separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary and civilian oversight over military and armed groups, can be established and upheld,” said Said Benarbia, Director of the ICJ MENA programme.
The Draft Constitution should also be amended to provide for a comprehensive set of human rights and protections that fully accord with international human rights law, including provisions relating to non-discrimination, the right to life, the right to liberty and security, the prohibition on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, protections for minorities, the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, fair trial rights, and a range of economic, social and cultural rights.
“The Libyan Constitution must at a minimum conform to the definition and scope of the rights contained within the human rights treaties to which Libya is a state party. Any scope for limitation of rights must conform to the criteria for such limitations under international law and, in particular, only as are provided for by law, are proportionate, and are demonstrably necessary in a free and democratic society,” Benarbia added.
Contact:
Doireann Ansbro, Associate Legal Advisor of the ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme, tel: +216 71 841 701, email: doireann.ansbro(a)icj.org
Libya-Draft Constitution Flaws Deficiencies-Publications-Reports-2015-ENG (full report in PDF, English)
Libya-Constitution Flaws Report-News-Press releases-2015-ARA (full press release in Arabic, PDF)
Libya-Draft Constitution Flaws Deficiencies-Publications-Reports-2015-ARA (full report in PDF, Arabic)
Dec 3, 2015 | News
The ICJ condemned the passage of the National Security Council bill by Malaysia’s House of Representatives today. The passage of the bill underlines the need to establish reforms in the lawmaking processes in the country, the Geneva-based organization says.
The ICJ calls on the Government of Malaysia to undertake these reforms immediately.
The bill, hastily tabled at the House of Representatives on 1 December 2015 by the Government, was passed by a vote of 107 in favour and 77 against the proposal.
Members of the ruling party, Barisan Nasional, voted overwhelmingly in its favor.
The vote took place despite repeated calls from Malaysian civil society, opposition lawmakers, and human rights advocates to delay consideration to allow for extensive debate and adequate consultations on the draft legislation.
The ICJ deplored the manner in which the government steamrolled the bill to passage.
“The same rushed maneuvers occurred when the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) and amendments of the Sedition Act were hastily passed in parliament earlier this year,” observed Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia.
“There seems to be a disturbing pattern of avoiding deliberative care on legislation that is both addressed to serious security concerns that have the greatest implications for human rights,” she added.
The ICJ considers that the poorly conceived legislation gives overbroad powers to the Prime Minister and the security forces which is inconsistent with the rule of law and could lead to serious human rights violations
The bill establishes a National Security Council (NSC) that will be the central authority in the government on matters pertaining to national security.
The NSC will be headed by the Prime Minister and composed of the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Defence, Minister of Home Affairs, Minister of Communication and Multimedia, Chief Secretary, the Commander of the Armed Forces, and Inspector-General of Police.
Under the bill, the Prime Minister is granted the power to declare any part of Malaysia as a “security area” if it is found by the NSC that such area is under serious threat from any person or entity that could harm the general public, the economy, infrastructure or other national interests.
Any part of the country may be declared a “security area” by the Prime Minister for up to six months and the declaration may be renewed an infinite number of times.
A Director of Operations is also to be appointed to oversee the operations over the “security areas”.
The specific powers of the Director of Operations are left vague, but they are overbroad and therefore prone to abuse.
They apparently include authority to prevent any person from entering these “security areas”, to transfer persons out of these areas, to impose curfews, and at least temporarily, to take possession of any property necessary in the interest of national security or for the accommodation of the security team.
The security team under the Director of Operations will have the power to conduct warrantless arrests and warrantless searches and seizures.
There are no processes specified by which affected persons may challenge such actions, either before a court or administrative body, nor are there other procedural safeguards.
Any members of the security team would be authorized to “use any amount of force against a person or entity to the extent that is reasonable and necessary within the circumstances to protect national security”.
The ICJ notes that under international law, lethal force may only be used to the extent strictly necessary to protect life.
Finally, the draft law provides immunity from any legal proceeding for members of the NSC, the Director of Operations, the security team, and other government staff involved in the administration of the “security area” for carrying out their duties and functions under the law.
There is no exception even in cases involving serious violations of human rights and crimes under international law, for which immunity is not permitted.
“The wide ranging powers conferred to members of the NSC and the security team clearly lack any form of safeguards and will inevitably lead to arbitrary exercise of authority, in contravention of the rule of law. This bill could very likely be used to further restrict freedom of expression and opinion and other rights in the country,” said Emerlynne Gil.
Vague and overbroad language in laws are inconsistent with the rule of law, contravening the principle of legality, the ICJ says.
This poses particular hazards in respect of national security legislation.
The bill will now need to be passed by the Senate and thereafter, the Malaysian King will have to assent to it so that it becomes law.
The ICJ expects the bill to be passed by the Senate and assented to by the King without thorough deliberations.
Nevertheless, it still calls on both the Senate and the King to reject the present draft, with a view to returning it the House to make necessary reforms in line with the rule of law.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser (Bangkok), t: +66840923575, e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Nov 24, 2015 | News
The government and all political parties, along with the country’s neighbors and international supporters, must act immediately to end the increasingly violent political crisis in the southern Terai region said the ICJ today.
The associated border blockade that has imposed severe shortages of necessary commodities throughout the country must also be ended, the ICJ added.
Over the weekend, three individuals were killed and at least another 28 individuals, including 15 police officers, were injured during clashes following an apparent impasse in talks among political parties trying to end the crisis over the newly adopted Constitution.
“Nepali authorities should promptly investigate and bring to justice the perpetrators – be they security forces or protesters – of any unlawful killings and other acts of violence committed during the ongoing protests in the Terai, and ensure that security forces refrain from the use of excessive force against civilians,” said Sam Zarifi, ICJ’s Asia-Pacific Director.
“At the same time, the Nepal government must address the severe shortage of commodities and the impact it has had on economic and social rights by prioritizing the most urgent needs while working to resolve the constitutional crisis,” he added.
The border blockade initiated nearly three months ago has had a deeply detrimental impact on the economic and social rights of the population countrywide, including the rights to food, water and sanitation, health and adequate housing, by causing severe shortages of essential commodities such as fuel, cooking gas and medical supplies throughout the country.
Madhesi groups have been demonstrating against Nepal’s new Constitution in the Terai since August 2015, protesting discriminatory aspects of the new Constitution that they argue would entrench marginalization, and have been staging a de facto blockade at the main border posts along the Nepal-India border since the Constitution was adopted on 20 September 2015.
India has been accused of imposing or collaborating in the blockade, an allegation which the Indian government has denied.
The ICJ has previously highlighted the lack of proper consultation in the drafting and adoption of the Constitution as well as the substantive human rights defects in its text, particularly the discriminatory provisions on the rights of women and some ethnic groups.
More than 45 persons, including 8 police personnel, have been killed during violent confrontations that have erupted between protesters and security forces since the demonstrations began, with allegations of excessive use of force by Nepali security forces as well as violent attacks by protesters against police personnel.
One Indian national was apparently killed by Nepali security forces at the Birgunj border last month.
“The Nepal government has a responsibility to protect the rights and security of its people and to re-establish the rule of law in the Terai,” said Zarifi. “However, Nepal must at all times respect the people’s right to peaceful protest and free assembly, and ensure that security forces exercise maximum restraint when responding to the demonstrations.”
The ICJ emphasizes that India and Nepal have an obligation to protect the human rights, including the economic and social rights, of persons impacted by their acts or the actions of those under their jurisdiction, and accordingly have an obligation to remove obstacles to the enjoyment of those rights.
“Nepal has an obligation to ensure that all available resources at their disposal have been mobilized to alleviate the human rights and humanitarian impact of the border blockade on the most vulnerable sections of the population,” Zarifi added. “The Nepal government must provide a clear plan to assess and address the impact of the blockade by prioritizing available supplies to the most urgently needed areas throughout the country, not just in Kathmandu.”
“The impact of the blockade is all the more acute because the country is still reeling from the 25th April earthquake and its ongoing aftershocks,” Zarifi said. “The international community, particularly neighboring India, should do all it can to ensure that urgent humanitarian assistance gets to the Nepali people.”
Contact
Nikhil Narayan, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser for South Asia, t: +977 9813187821 ; e: nikhil.narayan(a)icj.org
Photo credit: HRW
Oct 6, 2015 | Multimedia items, News, Video clips
Selected by a jury of 10 Global Human Rights organizations, including the ICJ, Ahmed Mansoor could not come to Geneva to collect the 2015 Award, as he has been banned from travelling. Robert Sann Aung (Myanmar) and Asmaou Diallo (Guinea) receive Martin Ennals Prizes.
Emirati blogger and prominent human rights defender Ahmed Mansoor is one of the very few independent voices to whom international NGOs can turn for a credible independent assessment of human rights developments in the United Arab Emirates.
He regularly raises concerns on arbitrary detention, torture, international standards for fair trials, non-independence of the judiciary, and domestic laws that violate international law.
Since 2006, he has focussed on initiatives concerning freedom of expression, civil and political rights.
He successfully campaigned in 2006-2007 to support two people jailed for critical social comments, who were released and the charges dropped.
Shortly after, the Prime Minister of UAE issued an order not to jail journalists in relation to their work.
He has faced repeated intimidation and harassment, including imprisonment in 2011 after being convicted of “insulting officials” and sentenced to three years’ in prison, although he was released after eight months.
Since being jailed in 2011, he has been denied a passport and banned from travelling.
The Martin Ennals Jury has publically urged the government of the UAE to lift this travel ban and allow him to travel.
“Ahmed Mansoor continues to pay the price for speaking out on human rights issues in his country, we urge his government to lift the travel ban,” said Martin Ennals Foundation Chair Micheline Calmy-Rey.
“There is little attention for the massive crackdown on free expression and assembly in the UAE, and Ahmed Mansoor is one of the few independent voices who refuses to be silenced,” said Olivier van Bogaert, ICJ Director of Media and Communications, and ICJ Representative on the MEA Jury.
“Without him, we would probably not know that behind the UAE’s shopping malls, high-rise towers and tourism hub, there is a nasty underside, there are dark prisons where inmates are hidden for years without trial, and tortured,” he added.
Honored with a Martin Ennals Prize, Robert Sann Aung (Myanmar) has courageously fought against human rights abuses since 1974.
He has been repeatedly imprisoned in harsh conditions, physically attacked as well as regularly threatened. He was disbarred from 1993 – 2012.
Currently, he represents students detained for peacefully protests.
Asmaou Diallo (Guinea) founded l’Association des Parents et Amis des Victimes du 28 septembre 2009 (APIVA), after the Guinean military attacked peaceful demonstrators on that day.
APIVA assists those affected, and supports them to testify in court proceedings.
Background
The “Nobel Prize of Human Rights”, the Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders (MEA) is a unique collaboration among ten of the world’s leading human rights organizations to give protection to human rights defenders worldwide.
Strongly supported by the City of Geneva, the award is given to Human Rights Defenders who have shown deep commitment and face great personal risk. Its aim is to provide protection through international recognition.
The Jury is composed of the following NGOs: ICJ, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First, Int’l Federation for Human Rights, World Organisation Against Torture, Front Line Defenders, EWDE Germany, International Service for Human Rights, and HURIDOCS.
Contact:
Michael Khambatta, Director Martin Ennals Foundation, t: +41 79 474 8208, e: khambatta(a)martinennalsaward.org
Olivier van Bogaert, ICJ Director of Media and Communications, and ICJ Representative on the MEA Jury, t: +41 22 979 38 08, e: olivier.vanbogaert(a)icj.org
Watch the Martin Ennals Award Ceremony 2015:
Watch the Ahmed Mansoor film:
